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 think that you will find, that in areas with high Jewish or Muslim populations for example, schools to meet their faith needs are already being looked at.

Someone even suggested on Tuesday night that perhaps the Humanists would want to make a Free School application.

The Catholic population are the only minority group that has consistently asked for a school in-borough. We are (I believe) the only minority who could consistently, year on year fill a secondary school of this size.

I would have no problem with other groups wishing to set up schools if there was the demand for them.

Perhaps I am unusual in that I am not selfish enough to say that "If my children can't attend then no way"

Magic....... of course if your own needs are being prioritised above everyone else's, it is perhaps easy to be generous. Just because the Catholic Minority is big enough to fill one school does not make it right.

I think it would be VERY sad if we were to see more segregation in our schools. I think it is a very divisive view of society.

Of course 90 to 95% of what schools do is non-religious you know Maths, English PE, science, so logically it makes no sense to replicate this in a whole host of segregated schools. Financially it makes no sense!

In times of recession every tax payers pound should meet important "needs" first, and indulge preferences later... We have more in common than we do differences so why not let our children learn together??

Magic, you are playing with semantics. You know very well that the only way to be certain that all Catholics across the borough can have access to this school is by prioritising them over non-Catholics living closer to it. This can effectively keep out non-Catholics. It is what currently happens in our borough primaries.

Your scenario seems unlikely to me. I've no idea of the technicalities, but if the the Catholic school didn't get the go-ahead for 2013 (for whatever reason) and the free school did, then the council would be probably find it hard to continue justifying giving the site to the Catholic church, surely?

LittleMrsMuppet - if there is a Judicial Review, it could go on for months. This could well delay any school on the Clifden Road site for a long time.

Meanwhile, if the Free School gets the go-ahead in July/August, with the Clifden Road site tied up in bureaucracy if they wanted to open by 2013 they would need to look at their alternative site.

The council are saying that they would like BOTH schools, not one or the other.

TwoCotBeds - believe it or not, I would support a variety of schools regardless of whether the Catholic school gets the go-ahead.

If there were enough children who could fill a school which specialises in say, Maths, I would support that too. It does not have to be just about faith. I have taken part in activities to support secondary schools in this borough despite not being able to attend them.

I get the feeling that you would wish to portray me as something that I am not and you are doing yourself no favours.

We will have to wait to find out what/where this "other site" is. But it will almost certainly be more expensive and time consuming to develop than Clifden Road. It seems likely that the free school would have to open on a temporary site (as with the West London Free School) if it got funding for 2013 whilst a permanent one was secured & developed.

If the council genuinely wants both schools, then I don't understand the need to rush through the proposals for a Catholic Secondary. Would it not therefore have made sense to at least do an evaluation of which site is most suited to each proposal? Why it couldn't have held a competition? Then the loser could still have tried for free school funding.

The Agenda andPapers for the May 24 Cabinet meting have been published. If you wish to speak, you should contact the Assistant Head of Democratic Services by 2.00pm on 23 May 2012 stating which item you wish to speak on.

On the legal issue, cabinet paper Use Of Clifden Road Site says:

. . 4.6 Another feature of the Council?s secondary school forecasts that has been challenged in some quarters is the forecast number of out-borough residents who take up places. However, current data and developments do not support that challenge. The graphs in Appendix 3 to this report demonstrate that the proportion of out-borough pupils has decreased from 37 % to 33 % in the last five years, representing a total decrease of 649 pupils.

It is probable that the continued provision of additional school places in neighbouring local authorities ? including Bolingbroke Academy in Wandsworth, the Reach Academy free school in Feltham and the expansion of existing schools in Hounslow (including almost 90 additional places at Cranford, Gumley House, Heston and Lampton in 2013) ? will lead to a further decrease in the next few years, in keeping with the forecasts in the Clifden Road consultation document.

It is also the case that at the initial allocations stage, on 1 March this year, of the Year 7 offer process for September 2012 entry, there were 159 spare places in Hounslow schools, which indicates that the demographic pressures in Hounslow will not impact upon their provision of secondary school places for some time yet.

4.7 The view of officers remains therefore that, whilst there is high demand for Catholic secondary school places in the borough, there is not a need to establish a new secondary school (emphasis added). There are sufficient places at present, and to seek to open a new school providing additional community places in 2013 could create too much community school provision and therefore present poor value for money . .

. . 10. Legal Implications:

10.1 The Council has a duty under section 14 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure that sufficient schools are available for its area for providing primary and secondary education and to exercise its functions under that section with a view to securing diversity in the provision of schools and increasing opportunities for parental choice.

10.2 The Education Act 2011 introduced a new section to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, section 6A, in force from 1 February 2012. This section requires that if a local authority thinks a new school needs to be established (emphasis added) in their area, they must seek proposals for an Academy. As set out in paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 above, officers? view is that, whilst use of the Clifden Road site for the proposed Catholic Schools is recommended to meet strong demand for such schools in the borough, there is not currently a need for a new school to be established and it is not advised therefore that the Council is currently required to seek proposals for an academy on the Clifden Road site . . (emphasis added)

A temporary surplus of places in Hounslow will not dissuade those near Richmond from applying to Richmond's schools. In fact, there is obviously a fear (see Nov minutes e.g. here) that the more popular new academies are increasing their admission numbers unaterally, which will adversely affect other schools. The whole halo effect/seesaw thing swings into action and it could send even more Hounslow pupils looking at Richmond schools as alternatives. Councils will have no control over this.

Interesting to read that Gumley was in breach of the admsssions code by increasing its PAN without even telling the council. With a new Catholic school in Richmond some of the surplus places could be in Catholic schools in the interim.

Chris - Thanks for that. But throughout this debate and in the consultation the Council kept us telling there is a need for Catholic primary and secondary schools. So if that is not the case now as they claim in Cabinet papers, the public was misled during the consultation.

Jeev - have a read of the consutation paper that was produced for the consultation - it says nothing different to that expressed by the council now.
Consultation on the use of Clifden Road

They acknowledge a rising demand for places over the next five years and the 'need to provide for that demand'. Who decides priority of 'wants' if two proposals are approved formally by different bodies, e.g. the LA approves the VA and the free school is approved by the DfE ? Surely the DfE decides ultimately? In the event all of this happens but the 2nd site is too expensive, I don't see how the council can prove that it 'needs' to reserve Clifden for the Catholic school.

I think that the significance of this report is that it makes clear that this distinction between ?needs? and ?wants? is the only defence that the Council will offer when the matter comes to a judge for judicial review. I had expected that there would be something more substantial derived from the various Acts and Regulations that may overlap and even contradict each other.

We will unfortunately have to wait some weeks, maybe months, to find out whether this defence stands up in court or not:

? . . 11. If the parties cannot agree a settlement, the Defendant must file and serve, within 35 days of service of the order granting permission, its detailed grounds for contesting the claim and any written evidence such as witness statements it wants to rely on.
12. In due course a hearing will take place when a Judge will consider the matter fully. This can be several months from when the claim was first issued. It is usual for both parties to be represented by barristers. The hearing can last from a couple of hours to several days depending on the complexity of the case. There is usually no oral evidence.
13. Usually the court gives a fully reasoned decision some weeks after the hearing, but this will be done more quickly in urgent cases.
14. Either party can appeal against the Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. All cases require permission to appeal, and if the application for permission is not made at the conclusion of the case, the application for permission to appeal must be made to the Court of Appeal Civil Division within 14 days . . ?

Both sides seems very confident but only one can win.

If they now say that there is no need for catholic schools just a want then they are changing the argument they consulted us upon . I am sure even the catholic supporters agree there is a need

Thanks to those who suggested that Bus no 33 is an easy way to get to RPA. RPA is a double edged sword. If it gets better, as it seems like, it will be filled with kids from local primaries. We will have no chance of getting a place there, irrespective of whether we take Bus 33 or take our our SUVs :)
If RPA does not attract local kids, it wil be because parents are concerned about quality. In which case no one from here would anyway want to send their kids there.

I am joining this thread to share the views of someone who is local and in the education sector. Local parents have expressed lot of discomfort about the Council plans. Irony is that even if teachers agree with the parents concern, they are not in the position to speak up against the Councils plans. I hope there is respect and understanding for that delicate position from everyone.
Governors are there to represent the interest of the parents. They should do their duty of responding to parents concerns. If they do not agree with the Council's plans, they should let the Council know that they are making a mistake. I have heard a number of them saying what they feel is right in private but fail to show open support for their parents.

ConcParent I agree with what you say. A lot of parents feel very very let down by governors who are supposed to represent their views.

I feel it is very unfair that most non-catholic schools stayed neutral and refused to help the inclusive school side of things, whereas Catholic schools and churches had a huge base on which to hand out consultation forms and rally loads of support. This is very unbalanced.
I think it is people are very scared of apprearing to show discrimination
..... which is so ironic, because the proposed unfair school is the most discriminatory it could possibly be. with its 100% one religious group priority over everyone else.

ConcParent Why is it that teachers or education staff cannot speak up? Is it because they feel it would harm their career? Shocking!

I was really shocked to learn that Faith Schools are allowed to discriminate on employing staff!! They legally can ask someone their their Religion or none and use that to decide whether to hire someone!!!

In an interview It is illegal to ask if a woman plans to have children but you can ask someone if they belief in God. Allah, Zeus or whatever or nothing ?!!? That is wrong and I really feel it is so unfair to teachers.

Non-religious teachers should get our support and their union should help stop this stupid discrimination of employement and of childrens admissions.

Welcome to the thread concparent - and thanks for your input.

Taking a step sideways slightly onto the effects of removing the Linked School Policy, I know a while ago people were wondering if any modelling had been done to show the effects on Orleans Park. Somebody has sent me a presentation that Matthew Paul did for parents at St Mary's primary during the Linked School consultation, which has a little more information than was in the consultation documentation. A copy of the presentation was sent out to all St Mary's parents by Parentmail, but its not published on the web as far as I can tell. I don't think Mumsnet has a way of uploading documents, so I've put it here.

The key bit of info is on slide 8, which says "The cut-off distance would probably be c.1,800 metres (north to Hounslow border; west to Heath Rd bridge)".

However, the predictions come with a health warning. It should be remembered that they are based on modelling the 2011 application data, showing what would have happened if the links weren't in place. The problem is that if the links weren't in place, people may have made different choices (e.g. more children from non-linked primaries may have chosen Orleans Park, reducing the catchment even further).

Here is a link to Abolishing the ?linked schools? system: who gains? who loses? A forecast for Orleans Park by "A concerned resident":

" . . 2. Pupils who were at one of the former link schools but live more than about 1.5 km away would definitely not get into OPS. Matthew Paul [the Council officer who oversee admissions] suggests that north St Margaret's "should be" within the catchment, but I don't think he has taken into account the expected large number of applications from parents of children at the Vineyard (not currently linked) and also people who move into the area near the school - just as people do to get into Orleans Infant School. Demographic changes are predicted further to impact on places. I therefore believe that people north of the A316 with children at link schools have real grounds for apprehension."

The St Mary's document forecasts the number from the Vineyard school getting places to be 10 - 15.

Interesting points about parent governors representing parents' interests.

Other posters have expressed surprise that church diocese representatives should be allowed a vote on the education committee. The admissions forum also has church representation, as well as reps from other LAs. Some may have voted against or abstained from the link policy vote according to the minutes. Parent governors aren't in the majority but it would have been very understandable if they had voted for or against, in the interests of their school. Political representatives, on the other hand, even if they were also school governors, should have taken a more objective view, and some responsibility, as they have had plenty of opportunities to come up with a better way of making the policy work more fairly , e.g. allowing some percentage allocation on distance so there was still a chance for schools to form new links.

I believe the Kingston representative argued against abolishing the link policy - which is a bit strange for an LA that is supposed to be building its own school yet doesn't have a policy that would prioritise Richmond pupils in the same way - but I don't know who voted what, including how the church representatives voted. Certainly Catholic parents wrote in to protest about the link policy.

Twocotbeds - The community and CoE primaries have remained neutral (apart from Stanley governors). I can understand the dilemma the teachers face, reflecting the fact that the Council is their employer.

On the other hand the Catholic primaries ? which are also Council-funded ? have been strident in their support for the Catholic secondary, with support from the churches and the Diocese.

I do agree that Governors need to exhibit fearless behavior and protect the interest of their students. The need to be open about whether they agree or do not agree with the Council's plan and help address the parents concerns.
Parents are entitled to recieve an explaination from them on their actions or inactions.

From the Council's website

" Governors play a vital role in the success of these schools. Their responsibilities encompass the direction and conduct of a school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement and securing the welfare of its pupils ".

"There are three parent governor representative positions within Richmond upon Thames. Their role is to represent the views of parents at Education Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to communicate with parents about issues relating to education in the borough".

I wonder if the Vineyard Governors decision to not vote represented the views of the school parents and what sort of communication do they will receive from her.

I would hope as you say that governors do give feedback on these matters. I don't understand or agree with that particular decision either. Shame there isn't a webcast. It does occur to me at the same time that on these committes there aren't many voices from parents or teachers yet strong representation from politicians and churches. It doesn't seem well balanced.

The actual decision will be taken by the councillors who comprise the council cabinet; they were elected by the electors of the borough in 2010 to take such decisions and will be accountable for them at the election two years from now.

The scrutiny's committee is purely advisory. Its primary tasks are to scrutinise (1) the process of council decision making and (2) how well or badly the council's policies are working out in practice. It is very unusual for them to be asked to vote on a proposed policy before it is implemented. An adverse vote would embarrass the Council cabinet slightly but would not be enough to get them to change their minds on May 24.

The cabinet council officers and diocese are in this together . Hence opposing arguments are not accepted and rules are being bent.

Thanks for sharing the Powerpoint BayJay. Are we able to see the figures regarding Y7 2012 entry for the other borough schools anywhere1q?