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 ......

Just a thought - what is the point of a VA school converting to academy status? What changes? Christ's school is the only existing Richmond school not to have converted yet.

"what is the point of a VA school converting to academy status?"

Exactly the same as any other school .... autonomy over how they spend their money. Technically speaking they also get more money, although they also have more to spend it on, so I think it generally all evens out.

A number of the DoW's other schools have converted to academy status, so given that our LA is encouraging of the conversion process I expect that this one will too at some point.

By chance there was a RTT article last year on Christ's School's decision to become an academy, although one of the reasons to convert was the possibility of expanding, which Christ's has already done before becoming an academy. I also remember a fuss about Christ's streaming policy a few years ago that all died down quite quickly. Perhaps its results have proved that mixed ability teaching can work.

"I also remember a fuss about Christ's streaming policy"
Did they replace it with setting? Perhaps those making the fuss didn't understand the difference, as the two words are sometimes used interchangeably. Do any of the other local secondaries currently use streaming? I'm not aware of any.

Partly answering my own question, Waldegrave, for example, use setting rather than streaming. Quoting from their prospectus ....

"Students are taught in their broad ability tutor groups for most subjects when they enter Year 7. Students are placed into sets according to ability for Mathematics early in Year 7 and for some other subjects such as Languages and Science. In Years 8 and 9 other subjects may also include setting arrangements."

I know Teddington do the same. Perhaps that's why the fuss about Christs dies down so quickly, as the fuss-makers realised they weren't doing anything different to other schools.

I think the row was about early setting - there is no setting for English through to GCSE although the mixed ability groups are 'carefully planned', mixed ability for MFL to GCSE, a single accelerated set for Maths from Y7 then setting for GCSE, and science setting starts Y9. All other subjects mixed ability I presume. The size of the school and resources might have influenced that - although the English example does suggest a clear policy.

RTT reports First principal named at St Richard Reynolds Catholic College, Richmond upon Thames:

. . Current headteacher at Christ?s School, Richard Burke, has been given the role after previously working for four Catholic schools . . [he] said: It is a delight and privilege to have been appointed principal. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a headteacher to develop a new school, especially as the college will have pupils from four to 18. As head of Christ's School since September 2004, I have been fully aware of the groundswell of support from the local Catholic community to establish a Catholic secondary school. I am very proud of what we have achieved at Christ?s School, however the time is now right for me to take on this exciting venture and I look forward to the challenge.

Don't Sell School Land in Petersham is a newish (Oct 03) web site published by concerned parents campaigning to prevent the sell off of school land at The Russell School and Strathmore School, Ham:

'Plans are afoot to bring Strathmore School onto the same site as The Russell School and Grey Court School. This will result in new buildings for both sets of schools. Whilst we would welcome any investment in new facilities for all three schools, what is being less talked about is how this will be paid for.

At a public meeting it was revealed that potentially the scheme could be funded by selling off Strathmore school land and some land at The Russell School (essentially the whole of the area of the infants). The possibility of selling Russell School land was not mentioned in the consultation site put up by the Council, which was itself poorly promoted.

We do not believe it is in the best interests of the children of either school to sell off school land. We are currently being asked to approve the scheme in principle without any detail about what is proposed being available. This site is campaigning to say no to any proposals until it is made clear that no land will be sold, and the educational advantages to the children of both schools made clear. Neither is currently the case.'

Has christ announced who the new head will be . Very strange for a school to let a head resign without making a new appointment and create uncertainity for parents.
Also new free school application for primary in Twickenham and Council finally admitting to " need "
iesschools.co.uk/ies-uk-supports-two-new-primary-free-school-applications-to-open-in-september-2014/

No doubt the Council will argue that they are only in "desperate need" of primary school places not secondary school ones! What an interesting development - another site for 630 children needed in "Teddington and Twickenham" although it implies it will be two sites. They seem very confident that they will be opening in September 2014.

Just looked them up and found a TES article - a Swedish chain looking to expand. A BBC article gives more background as does a Telegraph article commenting on the deal made for IES Breckland in Suffolk.

IES was acquired in September 2012 by a large US private equity company called TA Associates. There's more news here.

Hallo, I've just been forced to change my name by Mumsnet. Has that happened to anyone else? That's interesting and frightening muminlondon - my former employer was bought up by American Venture capitalists and it was a very unpleasant experience but at least we were meant to be making a profit! I just can't imagine the motivation of the Government in allowing them to own state schools (or any schools for that matter). I can't even see how it works financially - a private company can't own a charity so will it be a private institution paying tax on the money given it by the Government to run the school?!

LottieP, yes, I see what you mean with the nickname!

The issue of profit-making in schools hasn't been debated properly or legislated for, so it's all very unclear and controversial. The articles I link to discuss the pros and cons - it certainly scares me. But even Lord True is on record as having said he's not a fan of academy chains. So I'm interested to know how much involvement the council has had in this, if any.

Blimey, me too (re the nickname). Still, I like the new colour scheme!

To be clear IES are only profit-making in Sweden. Under current rules they're not allowed to make a profit by running schools here. Of course there's plenty of speculation and debate about that being just round the corner, but I suspect whether it happens or not will depend on the colour of the next Government.

I think BayJay is right but IES will make money, especially as a chain. IES Breckland according to their FAQs is sub-contracted as an 'educational provider' appointed by the trust setting up the school and charges a management fee:

The Trustees will appoint an Education Provider who manage its money well by building up economies of scale over time. ... The management fee will certainly be much less than 10%.

I found a lot of debate and info on Local Schools Network website.

or undercover Copthall..... All these new colours and names, very exciting!

Radnor School is owned by a venture capital company. I understand it had a full blown business plan, analysing the market, the gaps, what they had to do to meet the need ( a worry was having no space /sports so they hooked up with St Mary's, I wonder how that link will fare when it is in competition with St RR ) and there is a business manager from the equity company in the management team keeping an eye on the investment. The parents seem very happy so far but I wonder about the balance of power between education professionals and business managers, and where the children come in the priorities. It has certainly been an issue in some International Schools which tend to come outside any sort of national regulation. It is depressing to see education become a lobbying ground for big business in the way health did.

In keeping with my deep cover if I were to become a little paranoid I might wonder why Gove suddenly came out and supported True on the Catholic School issue, and then not long after a academy chain is suddenly very confident of being allowed to meet a supposedly sceptical Lord True's needs for a new school.......

Very illuminating Heathclif. Those parents opting for Radnor House are the clients here and if they are unhappy they can go elsewhere, withhold fees, or whatever. Your relationship with the management of private operators in the state sector is so different - where there are no other options, lack of places and/or need for long-term continuity you do not have power or influence and a slice of state money is going to shareholders in another country. Creating lots of spaces/choice equally means wastage and it ends up that the state takes all that risk. But whereas IES Breckland was invited in by the trust created by local parents, I don't see who is proposing this free school.

Presumably Radnor House is nominally a charity. It has a dot org website address but can't see any reference to it being a charity elsewhere on the website or in the prospectus and it's not registered under that name with the Charity Commission. Probably it has a similar arrangment with a management company and the management company is owned by the venture capital company. But not very explicit. Anyone looking at it as a parent would get the impression that it is run purely for love by a bunch of teachers. It seems to be doing a good job at the moment but I suppose it is still trying to attract pupils and it might be different in 5 years time.

I expect IES chose this area of London because it has such high levels of attainment in the primary schools in the state sector and a high percentage of middle class parents using the state sector at primary level. So they know that they will have a relatively easy time meeting their contractual obligations compared to opening schools in a more challenging part of London. Does anyone locally have to invite a free school provider in to set up a school or can it just decide to do it because it has identified a need itself and thinks it can make a go of it?

"Does anyone locally have to invite a free school provider in ..?"

No, any provider can put in a bid. They don't have to have local connections. The Maharishi School was in that position too.

"IES will make money, especially as a chain. IES Breckland according to their FAQs is sub-contracted as an 'educational provider' appointed by the trust setting up the school and charges a management fee"

That seems similar to Turing House's relationship with Education London (an education provider) via RET (a non-profit trust). However, certainly in that case EL are not making a profit. Their services are provided at-cost, and often completely pro-bono.

All Academies and Free Schools will pay a management fee to somebody, to manage the activities that were previously provided by the LA (who also previously took a top-slice of school funding to cover management costs). For example, Waldegrave recently advertised for a Business Manager. Academies and Free Schools that are in chains often spread those management costs across schools, and can achieve economies of scale.

There will inevitably be horror stories about some Academy providers that don't do their sums properly, resulting in a drop in standards. But then local authorities have been suffering from those sorts of horror stories for years.

The main difference is that you can vote out a council, but not a Venture Capitalist. Of course people can vote out the Government in charge of the policy, but that's a bit more difficult.

Just to add, if an Academy/Free School was so badly managed that standards were suffering, then they are of course still accountable to Ofsted, and the process for identifying poor performers is hopefully quite robust.

Having business involved with education isn't necessarily a bad thing, the plus side is the benefit of management and financial skills, economies of scale etc . On balance I think better big business, than big religion. However when it is involved in social provision, where it effectively will have a local monopoly on education or Healthcare then it has to be regulated to ensure the interests of local people, and especially children, are protected and the processes need to be proofed against big business getting an advantage by lobbying. This government do not have a good record on either. Whilst Ofsted may go some way to protect the former, I would like to bet Gove and his ministers are open to discussions with private education providers, or their lobbyists.

Does this change the political playing field for Turing House's Free School bid? I know two were successful in the Borough last time, but not in the same suburb.

Lottie If I am allowed to call you that! I think the make up of the Board would give it away to a parent who knew where to look, including Emil Gigov, partner in Albion Venture capital and Ursula Ings Chambers, "10 years experience managing start up operations and controlling investment funds" www.radnorhouse.org/meet-the-team.php 2 out of 5 and it looks very much like the make up of a business board, with a balance of execs and non execs. Doubtless their research will have acquainted them with the involvement of local parents in their children's education, hence the parent café etc so probably they will be careful not to push the commercial imperative too far. To be fair the Independent Schools, especially the bigger ones are run like big businesses, and would be looking to get that balance of business expertise into their Board of Governors. LEH are recruiting Governors at the moment " and who have a range of professional skills and experience with a track record of achievement in their own career". rather than "we are looking for the great and the good preferably with a double barrelled name and lots of letters after"

"Does this change the political playing field for Turing House's Free School bid?"

Not in any predictable way as far as I can see. The approval process is relatively opaque so its impossible to know what effect, if any, it will have.

Bit of a rock and a hard place between religion and big business. Like Lord True I'm worried about local accountability and 'the emergence of large chains of schools that are remote-managed to standard formulae'.

I have no objection to business managers. Often such expertise exists among the governors - there is certainly no evidence whatsoever that Richmond primary schools are anything but well run and good value, achieving the best results in the country.

But a profit motive might prioritise cost reduction before that extra classroom assistant, or promotion to the management team, or healthy catering, new books, affordable uniform, etc. I bet there is no financial incentive for them to deliver on results as a provider, although performance related pay might be in the contract they have with individual teachers. Politicians end up botching such a formula anyway (like blood pressure tests in GP contracts) and we've had countless discussions on how to rate a school on contextual added value. Unlike the 'true' [ha ha] private sector we won't see smaller class sizes without savings elsewhere as the funding won't be the same. Given the huge level of voluntary support in our primaries from parents and PTA with reading, maths, trips, clubs and funding of extra resources they can't afford to be too business-like because you can't put a price on that good will. Which Turing House being community based is more likely to get.

And as one hapless senior LibDem (Vince?) said, according to this Observer article, 'We didn't foresee this.' It all seems to be happening in a rush and on the sly.

Hi All - Coming late to the party but starting my second innings here!. Fascinating discussion - with the right sort of checks and balances, I see no harm in having business in education or third sector. There could be 3 main benefits

1. It could infuse a more customer (community) driven approach. No business or school can after all be a success without strong customer driven focus.
2. Regarding cost control, a ruthless approach would and should look for savings, but it would be naive to cut costs in front line. A smarter business approach would look to get overhead savings and use it to fund more investment in front line to benefit students and teachers.
3. Above all a hard nosed business approach is needed to develop a robust performance management system that proactively avoids complacency and underperformance and protectionism.
   Ofcourse there are risks that will need careful management to ensure that benefits can be reaped by everyone in the community.