New Secondary Schools for Richmond 3

[BayJay]

Hello and welcome to the Mumsnet thread about Richmond Borough Secondary Schools. The discussion started in February 2011 in two parallel locations here and here.

In November 2011 the most active of those two threads, in Mumsnet Local, reached 1000 messages (the maximum allowed) so we continued the conversation here.

Now its May 2012 and that thread has also filled up, so the conversation will continue here ......

Rachel Bishop writes in this week?s RTT (page 4): Richmond Council paid £5m to Richmond Adult Commu­nity College (RACC) for the exchange of contracts on the Clifden Road site. The council released the in­formation in its statement of accounts for 2011/12, but the authority would not release the sale figure until the sale of the site was complete. Within the document it states:
A one off payment of £5m was made during the year to secure the purchase of land within the borough. The payment has been treated as a payment in ad­vance in 2011-12 and will be reported as capital expendi­ture in the 2012-13 accounts.

This report leaves it unclear what the total cost of the site will be.

From the London Borough Of Richmond Upon Thames Statement Of Accounts 2011/12 :

. . Material Assets Acquired Or Disposed: There were no material assets purchased during the year. However, a deposit was paid to acquire land within the Borough . . (page 09)

. . A one off payment of £5m was made during the year to secure the purchase of some land within the Borough. The payment has been treated as a Payment in Advance in 2011/12 and will be reported as capital expenditure in the 2012/13 accounts. The payment is reported in the Balance Sheet (debtor) and the Cashflow Statement in the 2011/12 statement . . (p. 37)

Saw the article you refer to in the RTT Chris. Cllr. Knight does not seem very well informed about the progress of the judicial review but maybe the RTT has got in a muddle about what he said.

LottieProsser: this news story is indeed a bit odd: it relates to accounts which were published 6 weeks ago and reads as if that is when the Lib Dem press release from which it appears to derive was written; however I haven?t received it from Stephen Knight to put on the local Lib Dem website.

So it seems to have been in limbo somewhere. Its headline is misleading as the payment is only the deposit: the purchase price remains a closely guarded secret until the sale is completed - by the end of this month, we are told.

shuby is right in one way and wrong in another:

She's right that demand for catholic schools from parents of East European (mainly Polish) origin is a factor in the Richmond Catholic school debate. This was made clear in the statement made at the Council Cabinet meeting on 24th May by Paul Barber, the Diocese of Westminster's head of education. He said that there is a major bulge in demand for Catholic school places arising in Ealing as a result of a high birth rate among Polish families. He expected this to have a knock-on effect in Richmond, as some of these children will seek places at the Hounslow Catholic schools to which some Richmond parents send their children. (He couldn't give any timing on when this would happen.)

I'm proud to live in the city and a country which welcomes - and is enriched by - people from all over the world, including Poland and other countries in East Europe. But shuby is surely wrong to expect that special provision should be made for Polish parents beyond what is available for the community as a whole. No-one has a "right" to a place at a taxpayer-funded Catholic school, wherever they're from. I think I'm correct in saying that this is no different from the situation in Poland, where the state-funded schools are non-religious and Catholic schools are generally private.

Is shuby saying that British Muslims who go to live in Warsaw should be provided with places at Muslim schools paid for by the Polish taxpayer?

With such a mix of people from different national and religious backgrounds, surely it's especially important for community cohesion if children go to school together.

Chris - The RTT story is misleading. The headline says "Site for planned Catholic school cost council £5m". But that is just the deposit and we don't yet know the full cost. Given that a non refundable deposit has been made, I was surprised that the council's accounts did not show the full purchase price as a contingent liability in their notes to the accounts. Worth asking the councils accounting team and auditors on why the disclosure has not been made.

Perhaps Cllr Knight has misunderstood the legal situation or been misquoted that the delay in releasing the actual price is because the Council is "waiting to see if a judicial review would be brought against the planning decision, which he thought was highly unlikely."

The RISC judicial challenge is not to seek judicial review of the decision in July 2011 to buy the site for the purpose of school provision. It is for the decision in May 2012 to use it for Voluntary Aided schools instead of first seeking proposals for Academies. The view of a very experienced and senior legal team is that the Council's actions are illegal and should be brought to the High Court. Even the Council is taking it seriously as it has engaged a top QC to defend its position - they would not have done so if they thought that RISC was "highly unlikely" to succeed.

rylerom - I am shocked that in our multi cultural and tolerant society, there is religious discrimination in state funded schools. Accord Coalition has released testimonies and media reports of discriminatory and exclusive practices by faith schools.
accordcoalition.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Personal-testimonies-2012-FINAL.pdf

£5m sounds like a very big deposit if the purchase price is £15m as everyone seems to think. Maybe the purchase price is more? Agree that it seems odd not to disclose the price you are contractually bound to pay as a future liability. Once contracts are signed you are no longer competing against other purchasers so can't see why it needs to be commercially confidential, unless the sale is still subject to other conditions and might fall through which the Council has never even hinted at. RTT article is very confusing as some people reading it won't even understand that Cllr. Knight is the opposition and is not speaking for the Council. RTT a very sloppy newspaper.

Lottie, I think the council did say the purchase was subject to conditions, though the conditions haven't been published.

I have been in touch with the Council's auditors questioning why the disclosure has not been made as per the accounting policies for the purchase price. They are considering the request and should revert with an answer soon.

News coverage of the improvements achieved in the Sixth Form at Feltham Community College. It sounds impressive, on it's way to doing what the Reach Academy Free School, still with vacancies for Year 7, was funded to deliver? It will be interesting to compare how Twickenham Academy performs in comparison at GSCE, one indicator of whether Hounslow parents really will be tempted away from TA in the next couple of years.

The New Local School for Twickenham website has been updated with more answers to questions and Twitter and Facebook posts are promising more news soon on site, admissions policy and school name.

Richmond schools to challenge English marks in otherwise A* day reports the Richmond Times: . . Hampton Academy achieved its best performance in maths, but English was dramatically worse than last year. Principal Sue Demont said: ?We are seeking significant remarking of papers by the AQA exam board and an urgent review of those students who deservedly obtained grade C passes in January, which have subsequently been downgraded to Ds . .
. . Nick Jones, principal of Twickenham Academy, said he would also have urgent discussions with the exam boards about its English results and would ask it to remark and review papers. However, 82 % of his pupils achieved five A* to C grades . .

. . 91 % of Richmond Park Academy students got five or more A* to Cs ? an impressive 11 % increase on last year. Headteacher Lesley Kirby said: ?I am delighted that we have come of age, showing to all our friends, neighbours and the community just what we are capable of.?

Richmond Park Academy students produce phenomenal GCSE results full press release can be seen here communityboard4rpa.blogspot.co.uk/

News emerging that Judge has granted RISC a hearing for Judicial review of Clifden Road decision on Catholic VA schools, stating that it could be illegal.

Challengers Win Permission For Judicial Review Of Catholic School Decision is RISC's press release issued today:

. . In accepting the application for a Judicial Review, Judge Ockleton of the High Court decided that ?Despite what the defendant [the Council] says it seems to me that it is arguable that the consultation was based on a decision that provision was necessary?. If that is right, section 6A was engaged.? Section 6A refers to the requirement introduced by the Education Act 2011 that a Council that thinks it needs a new school must first to seek proposals for an Academy/Free School.

He also said that ?A claim based on the legality of a decision taken on 24 May 2012 does not appear to be out of time given the steps taken since, if section 6A applied, or if the consultation mis-stated the Council's position, [then the] decision was arguably unlawful.?

The judge also granted RISC's request that the case be expedited, so that it can be concluded before the deadline for applications to schools in Richmond for pupils starting in September next year.

Council?s disappointment at High Court decision is the council?s response. It is expected that the Judicial Review will be heard in October.

I see that Lord True calls the Catholic school plan a 'clear, democratic decision that has been taken by our community'. Does he mean the consultation responses, which were anonymous returns rather than a vote? Or the vote of the scrutiny committee, where appointed (often elected) parent representatives did not support the decision, so it was passed with the votes of appointed (unelected) church representatives?

It was never voted on by the full council, which was democratically elected. But no matter: he and his cabinet have still made a potentially illegal decision.

Not to mention dismissing all the people from diverse backgrounds who for various reasons have come to the conclusion that new schools in the borough should be inclusive and have therefore given their support to RISC and the Judicial review as "accolytes" of the Humanist Society, (in the process adopting the prejudices of hopefully a small minority of Catholic School supporters who seem to percieve and use "humanist" as a derogatory label, whilst accusing everyone else of being derogatiory about Catholics ). He clearly hasn't listened to any local people who don't say what he wants to hear.

RISC is an ?acolyte? of the British Humanist Association is a highly offensive and derogatory remark from Lord True. We all know we are from diverse backgrounds and it is morally repugnant for him to use this line. A more dignified response would have been to humbly accept the Judge's interpretation of the law ( that he passed in the House of Lords!). Perhaps its an angry and frustrated reaction from Lord True who is now really nervous about losing this case. I hope he as as well as everyone (irrespective of which side of the debate they have been) have respect for the law of the land.

gmsing - I do not think that Catholic school supporters would want to break the law. I know some of them who have been extremely uncomfortable with Councils handling of the legal position - including the disingenuous claims of turning needs into wants at the O&SC and Cabinet meeting.

Lord True is losing respect from both sides by stooping to such low levels to desperately try and safeguard his political career.

The Judge makes it clear its a no win position for the Council - either they have violated Sec 6A of the new Act or done an illegal consultation misleading all of us . Its truly disgraceful that our bunch of elected representatives (from both parties) have allowed this to happen. And what about Mr Nick Whitfield - as a senior, well respected and independent figure in the education sector - how did he allow this to happen.

There is nothing offensive about being called an acolyte:

?acolyte . I. An attendant person.

1. Christian Church (now chiefly R.C. Church). A person who attends a priest and performs subordinate duties, as assisting at the altar, lighting and bearing candles, etc. Also: the order to which such people belong.
2. More generally: an attendant or assistant in some ceremony, operation, or the like; (also) a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte.? [OED]

It is certainly a ridiculous thing for the noble lord to say but that is all. He was clearly rattled and stuck for an epithet so he used the first one that came into his head, thinking perhaps as gmsing does that it is derogatory. No doubt it is true that many RISC supporters are new in local politics but it is unwise of him to say so. The first lw of local politics is to remain polite whatever the provocation. This is very hard but essential.

It's offensive because it implies that the BHA has driven this whole thing and that RISC is just a few local humanists taking orders from the centre not a large diverse group of local people with genuine concerns. I wish a few more Catholics who are "uncomfortable" would say so openly not to mention Tory councillors.

Good news about the improved GCSE results at RPA, Twickenham Academy etc.

LottieProsser: if that is how you feel then you should write to the Richmond Times saying so: they would welcome a letter from someone new: [email protected]

Lottie - with RPA showing massive improvements and delivering results better than the borough average www.richmond.gov.uk/council_congratulates_schools_for_gcse_results, it will draw more students from its local community.
This now challenges another Councils assumption that people from twickenham can get places at RPA and that overall there will be loads of spaces left for our residents till 2016.
At least there is consitency about 1 thing - The Council is getting it wrong on everything - Kingston school, out of borough students, imrpovements in the academies, legality of Catholic schools.