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 ......

I am sure part of the motivation for involvement in local schools is to attract applicants, and also to justify charitable status, but I would be surprised if that was it. At my direct grant we were expected to get involved with community activities including involvement in schools on some horrendously deprived estates and visiting Sylhetti girls who were being confined to their homes to read with them and give them company, both were certainly eye opening experiences. There is a tradition in the old direct grants and more inclusive private schools. Certainly the mentoring has been going on for quite a while at LEH and the teachers and girls regard it as mutually beneficial.

The motivation to attract applicants from state schools is also part of their strategy of widening access, the LEH website also cites 28 girls on full bursaries and 128 getting financial assistance. KGS are in the middle of a big campaign to increase the number of bursaries.

Closer links are also going to help with tribal behaviour on the buses etc.

Also remember teachers can have personal missions, to widen the experience of their pupils, to share a passion for subjects like Classics, or be giving up their own time as governors etc

I also noticed that TA was conspicuously absent from the partnership, perhaps it is historic and related to the fact that TA traditionally served Whitton.

I remember a friend with a child at TA mentioning some link with St Paul's for maths for the gifted and talented group, this was before it became an academy though. I have two children at Teddington and have never been aware of any collaboration with LEH!

Twix, the mentoring is on the Teddington website as well as LEH's, though it doesn't specifically mention LEH, just the partnership (bottom of linked page) www.teddington.richmond.sch.uk/Student_Support/Gifted-and-Talented.aspx

Comparing the Teddington website and entry and the Hampton entry it links to is quite interesting, Teddington emphasising it as part of gifted and talented and Hampton mentioning mentoring to help pupils over the C/D boundary. Seems they mention it wherever it fits the marketing ,essage

However the instance I was first aware of it through was an LEH girl mentoring an HA girl who was needing support to get a C in Maths to access a hairdressing course. Regardless of spin it helped them both in all sorts of ways.

Talking of marketing, there's been a marketing vacancy for the Kunskapsskolan schools - 'responsible for building the reputation of the Trust´s Academies, supporting the successful recruitment of students and ensuring understanding of the LST´s unique pedagogical model'. No doubt we'll start seeing pictures on the website soon.

The first rule of marketing is to understand and listen to the views of the community and then develop a tailor made plan to address their needs, expectations, concerns etc. Unfortunately that is missing from this marketing job description. Frankly speaking we are getting sick of these marketing gimmicks the academies are trying without addressing the core issues.

School Exam Results for tonight's Education and Children?s Services scrutiny meeting provides:

• Headlines on the recent Key Stage 2 test and results for junior and primary schools; and
• GCSE and equivalent results for secondary schools and academies.

Information contained in the report is drawn from provisional test and examination data for 2012. A table of the schools' Key stage 4 (GCSE and equivalent) results 2009 - 2012 (provisional) is on the last page.

Agenda; starts at 7 pm.

I was wondering what Kunskapsskolan schools were like in Sweden and found an old article. When such schools were introduced there, there was no private sector, so they provided more choice. In some cases the new schools created empty places in other state schools and the CEO justified this: "Of course there are losers ... because schools which do not attract parents lose out and they should be losers."

When these academies were decided, was there any justification for having two academies with the same sponsor?

Thanks Copthall. Interesting, asked son who is in top sets and he has never been aware or seen any independent pupils in school, as you say it's probably extra curricular days he must have not attended. But not a very close link by the sounds of it! He was put up for the Critical Thinking course mentioned which was very good and included children from all local state schools including TA. He also mentioned that some children that are not reaching full potential are being mentored by ex Olympic athletes which apparently is having a positive effect on them. School seems to have kept this quiet, maybe it's also happening in other schools.

This proposed question about the use of the NPL site for a school has just been circulated round everyone in Teddington on the Teddington Society mailing list (it's very hard to avoid being on this list as you get automatically added if you ever contact them about anything!)
Q: I live at 99 Queens Road and chaired the Queens Road Residents' Association when planning applications were submitted for the building of Admiralty Way and the new NPL buildings along Hampton Road. The original planning applications were approved subject to all buildings on the old NPL site, with the exception of the small building with a bell tower had to be demolished - including building 2. This was to ensure that there was an uninterrupted vista all round Bushy House. NPL subsequently applied for the demolition of various buildings to be delayed for various reasons, including the unsuitability of some of the new NPL buildings for certain experimental work. As far as I am aware, the requirement for demolition of all buildings once NPL no longer use the various buildings is still extant. I believe that the Admiralty Way Residents' Association may have more details about the deferred demolition arrangements. I was a Governor of Stanley Junior School for over 25 years and am aware that there will be a shortfall of some 330 non-selective secondary school places on the Twickenham side of the river within the next few years. The loss of the Clifden Road site which is to be a Catholic only school has created a major problem with alternative sites for a non-selective secondary school being extremely scarce. Apart from the problem posed by the possible demolition of Building 2, there is a general feeling locally that the site is unsuitable for the proposed school with limited expansion possibilities, inadequate parking facilities, and major problems with access and traffic congestion in an area already suffering from excessive traffic and parking loads. I hope to attend tomorrow to hear more about you plans.

Apart from the problem posed by the possible demolition of Building 2, there is a general feeling locally that the site is unsuitable for the proposed school with limited expansion possibilities, inadequate parking facilities, and major problems with access and traffic congestion in an area already suffering from excessive traffic and parking loads. I hope to attend tomorrow to hear more about you plans.

I have to say the same applies to the Clifden Road site, including existing planning conditions. However I anticipate they will be the focus of a negotiation aimed at balancing the amenity of residents and the school. I assumed that was what lay behind the charm offensive from Mr Cole, and his misplaced optimism about the number of cars travelling to the school.

Much as I don't relish the prospect of St RR being established at the end of the road I wouldn't dream of hijacking a meeting aimed at giving parents a chance to find out about a proposed school for their children?

Hi Lottie. That question was posted to Turing House Steering Group this morning, and was answered. Was the answer not circulated with the question?

Here's the answer for reference:

"Thank you for your detailed comments. As you say, sites suitable for new schools are very limited in our borough. We originally named Clifden Road as a preferred option because it was already designated for educational use and had suitable accommodation. Although NPL would be an inspirational alternative, we recognise that it may have planning issues.

Our main task at the moment is to identify 'possible' sites and to achieve the first stage of DfE approval. After that, the Education Funding Agency will look in detail at our site options and begin the process of securing a suitable location. Whichever site is eventually chosen, the work will be subject to appropriate planning processes.

For that reason, tomorrow's meeting is mainly aimed at communicating the school vision. We will be covering the site-status, but not in much more detail than is currently on our website here.

We'll look forward to seeing you there, and do come and introduce yourself at the end if you're able to."

p.s. here's some more background on why the buildings weren't demolished when NPL moved into its new buildings.

Jo - The issue is that the academies whilst they have made improvements, have not made the changes at the pace or level the community expected. Problem is that the sponsors are too big and hands off to make difference at the ground level. They have not changed leadership or made improvements in teaching to attract the community.
So the inside view is "we have done very well" in last 2 years, the outside view is it is "still not good enough". Both sides are right in their own ways, but it is clearly not working. Unfortunately in our system the insiders get protection, the community does not. Whether or not you like those empty spaces is your problem, not the govt's.

Hi Bayjay, no the reply wasn't circulated. I'm surprised anyone ever proposed demolishing Building 2 which is quite attractive although I suppose it is next to Bushy House which is listed and it was not part of Mrs Jordan's original set-up. Amused to read para 5 about Building 2s almost unique properties being so far distant from noise pollution! It's a shame they ever built Admiralty Way as I think it would be a lovely location for a school, but I suppose Admiralty Way funded all the other rebuilding at NPL and promises were made to those buying v. expensive houses.

Copthall - I suppose the argument would be that Clifden Road is already an adult education centre so there is a certain amount of traffic. A school would have a different pattern of traffic with lots at certain times of day but less in the evenings unless they were holding a parents evening or other event. The NPL has car parks all over the site so a lot of staff and visitors must travel by car but I suppose quite a lot of them come in via the Hampton Road gate not the Queen's Road one.

Well Boris Johnson certainly won't be letting planning issues get in the way of creating Free Schools.

Lottie I was not claiming any superiority of victimhood for Clifden Road nimbys , more highlighting the irony of raising Clifden Road, approached only by narrow roads, as a cut and dried suitable site to meet the need, to justify saying not in my back yard!

We live in a crowded city so any site is going to be the subject of a process to find the right balance between the needs of residents and the needs of the community. The Planning Department has always been quite fair about that in relation to the college, placing very clear boundaries on what they can do in order to minimise the impact of cars and service vehicles and being quite explicit that this is a site that cannot sustain high levels of traffic or parking. We were concerned that the Council in it's political manifestation wasn't going to support a continuation of that approach (no replies from any Tory Councillors to emails seeking reassurance, but then I assume they feel a little embattled by all the Central Twickenham opprobrium!) but the signals from the Planning Department and Cole suggest otherwise.

I think it will be very interesting to see to what extent the Council is prepared to disregard the concerns of residents to get another school site. Teddington doesn't tend to do very well on planning battles when there is a Tory council as it's considered the nearest thing to a local socialist republic with its big Lib Dem majority and being Stephen Knight's seat! Brian Holder who wrote the above question seems very sympathetic to the whole issue of how a 100%Catholic school will mean an overall shortage of places very soon but he seems to be getting his ear bent by all his neighbours over this particular site.

Lottie Whilst over in Central Twickenham we voted in this lot on the basis of no high rises etc. and looked what happened! I don't think any local people's views carry much actual weight when they are not in accord with Lord True's networks of influence.

Speaking of slick marketing of schools, we have now received a shiny publicity leaflet for St RR, but it would be fair to say they have not gone for the slick marketing approach. It's here,

front and back, docs.google.com/open?id=0BySGrfI8knTVNGhpMXRvbTNSR2M

inside, docs.google.com/open?id=0BySGrfI8knTVMVg2cUFxcnpLcHc

Mention of the JR on the back page.

But do they have AstroTurf chairs?

Interesting development in Coventry www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/16/new-primary-schools-scrapped-coventry

There are 2012 stats in GCSE entry by subject published today to LA level (not school level). Numbers entered for all Ebacc subjects in Richmond (33%) above national average (25%), 26% Richmond pupils achieved compared to 18% nationally) but no improvement since last year. The stats compare national stats for LA maintained, sponsored academies, convertor academies and free schools per subject.

An interesting statistic is that 73% girls passed DT resistant materials compared to 56% boys and 82% girls passed DT Electronic Products compared to 65% boys.

Interesting: .... Boris calls for London-wide education body

It's only a couple of days since London councils met with the DfE to press for more transparency and accountability for academies in relation to councils. Different political agendas (and the London Councils group emphasise improvements in London schools while Boris takes on the role of crusader as usual) but same problem. Links with gmsing's article on Coventry as well - if councils have a duty to provide places how do they do that without any control over schools?

"if councils have a duty to provide places"
Perhaps Boris is proposing to take on that responsibility too. There are certainly arguments for planning school places on more of a pan-London level.