New Secondary Schools for Richmond 4

[BayJay2]

Welcome. This is the fourth (or perhaps fifth) in a series of threads about Richmond Secondary Schools.

The discussion was originally triggered by Richmond council's publication of its Education White Paper in February 2011. It started with two parallel threads here and here.

In November 2011 the most active of the original two threads reached 1000 messages (the maximum allowed) so we continued the conversation here.

That thread filled up in May 2012, and was continued here.

It's now November 2012, and once again we're at the start of a new thread ....

Hi Heathclif, yes, its good to have your historical perspective. A similar situation in Bristol, over similar timescales, led to the creation of "Parents Voice" and the founding of the Bristol Free School.

Turing House is an inspiration and hope for the community. I hope the case study is widely published and used to guide parents across all over the borough and beyond.

BayJay, I really appreciate the debate in these threads and your energy - you were consistent in arguing for inclusive admissions, then the free school case.

I haven't any recent presentations on the North kingston school. But interesting to find this original Kingston parent-led campaign. Their case in 2006 was based on choice and expanding pupil numbers, and frustration with Tiffin's selective admissions. But also an example of how assumptions may quickly date:

1. Fern Hill primary DID gain a link with Grey Court from 2006 allowing places for up to 60 more children.
2. The link policy has gone - so 150 Kingston children (15 more) at Grey Court estimated and 16 at Teddington on 2011 patterns.
3. Now that Grey Court IS oversubscribed on first preference, North Kingston is closer than Richmond town (without the hill). And it is getting a sixth form and a swimming pool.
4. Tiffin has expanded - although that would help very few without a defined catchment (undesirable as it could have a 'secondary modern' effect on surrounding schools).
5. Some of the borough-wide increase in pupil numbers is in cheaper New Malden, a long way off. The actual number of 2013 Y6 leavers in the three community and two CofE primaries is 238, so if Richmond council correct at least 170 could by 2013 be in Richmond borough schools - 75% is a better percentage of state school take-up than Sheen Mount!
6. Are one or two good comprehensives and a grammar enough? Sounds good to me.

BUT in 2015 Fern Hill expands by one form, and St Paul's has a bulge class in that year. So there could be 80-90 without a place. And a big issue is that Richmond children (past Ham) will be unable to access this excellent school. So that is why Grey Court's head welcomes cooperation and all are working together. But from 2015 - and perhaps it would be phased in gradually.

However, RPA, will need to have built itself up by then, as it will face competition as Christ's may be chasing more from Sheen to replace those from Richmond.

Unless of course there is 100% take-up of state schools as I underlined earlier

gmsing, yes for ex-pats there's the Swedish school, German school, etc. But they also go home. You will get others moving in but with younger children and the cycle starts again. The children just seem to disappear after a certain age ...

"I haven't any recent presentations on the North kingston school"

There's the Kingston Secondary School Action Group on Facebook, but I don't know if they're the only campaign group.

There's a website for the North Kingston community free school. There's also a website for the North Kingston Church free school proposal.

In the spirit of positive and constructive developments- congratulations to all for writing this letter to Gove
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/dec/16/end-selection-religion-in-schools

The Youth Wing of the Lib Dems has joined the Accord Coalition now too.

I didn't hear anything from Richmond Lib Dems' youth spokesperson on the Clifden Road issue.

Heliview22: As she is a party spokesperson, Cllr Ellen would not have anything to say that goes beyond the carefully drafted party line that the Lib Dem Group of Cllrs have adopted and Cllrs Eady and Knight have articulated:

We support the case for a Catholic secondary school but not as a priority over a new community school in Twickenham, which is needed and should come first.

What her private opinion is, I have no idea.

The Local Party regards faith-based education as a 'toxic' issue because of the fierce passions that it arouses, for and against. They are aware that one of Cllr True's aims is to portray the Lib Dems either as hopelessly split on this issue or as a bunch of atheists who are a threat to local much-loved faith schools. So none of the is going to say anything on this that goes beyond the party line.

Chris, with a little more foresight and ingenuity they would see admissions as a 'populist vote winning' issue rather than a 'toxic' issue. They would need to make the clear distinction between admissions and the schools themselves, but RISC have already carved out that path for them.

Leadership in tough times requires parties to deliver. Whether you agree or not with Lord True, he kept his party united and vigorously delivered what they pledged. The Lib Dems made a little noise but did not show courage in their convictions to stand up to Lord True or Gove, for their people and their values.

The Lib Dems couldn't stop Lord True from acting as he has done - only a split in his own party coud achieve that. There is very little discussion of policy within the local Conservative Party and what dissent there was was effectively dealt with without it becoming public.

Once the Lib Dems had been advised that his actions were lawful - as the judge has now confirmed - they could only resolve to wait to see the results of the 2013 admissions process, which come out on March 1.

Once the results are known the political debate will start again in earnest and run until the May 2014 elections.

???"he kept his party united and vigorously delivered what they pledged"???

He exaggerated and broadened the pledge, then hid behind it with the rest of his troops, lobbing rotten tomatoes at anyone who dared to stand up and question it.

Politicians over-estimate the public's respect for united parties. There's no point in being united if you're backing the wrong horse.

Heliview - As the consultation results showed, majority of people backed Lord True's horse. Lib Dems were sitting on the fence and watching the RISC bandwagon.

Chris - for goodness sake, Lib Dems are in the Govt - they were the ones who wanted inclusivity in faith schools in the Coalition agreement, as it is their National policy. They could have made a more serious attempt at holding the government to account.
What are they doing now - are Vince Cable and Nick Clegg going to take it up with Gove ? To start with it would be good if they also sign the letter that Accord, NUT,RISC and other sent to Gove!

Local Tory councillors seem to be absolutely terrified of Lord True and his henchmen possibly with the exception of Scott Naylor who is on the front cover of Friday's RTT outside the High Court for the TRAG judidicial review. I spoke to one Tory councillor who said they were not allowed to raise concerns about the issue at their group meeting and that applies to nearly all issues! I think most of us agree that we are pretty amazed at how feeble the LibDems have been on this issue - apparently unable to see the difference between encouraging the Catholic church to set up a school with its own money and spending local taxpayers' money on a school that is closed to most children and now, apparently, about 5th choice for the average local Catholic family. I don't expect Vince Cable and Nick Clegg will pursue the issue of inclusivity in faith schools.

There are councillors of both parties locally who are governors of CofE and Catholic schools. As Heliview has pointed out, it may be better to engage and debate from the inside, although that may lead to frustration as this Guardian piece illustrates.

I was intrigued to read the Lords debate from 2006 because some of the most passionate supporters of faith schools were Labour and former LibDem Catholics, while Kenneth Baker, a Conservative, tabled an amendment on inclusive admissions. Then again, he criticised Gove on Ebaccs too - perhaps you can only speak your mind when out of office or elections.

• About 35% of the primary school places in Richmond are at voluntary aided schools that include at least some faith-based discrimination in their admissions. That's above the national average of 30%, with Catholic schools -the most discriminatory - the most out of line (13% v 10%). At least one local CofE primary has recently increased its religious quota.
• For secondaries, including St Richard Reynolds, it's 18% (national average is 20%).
• Setting up a new, very discriminatory, secondary is unbelievable. But the existing position is even worse at primary level than at secondary.
• The council may have influence, but it has no control over the admissions policies of existing voluntary aided schools- they're decided by each school's governors. Almost all the funding is from the government, via the council.
• Quite a few Councillors are also governors at these schools.
• None of the Conservative councillors stood up to Lord True. The local LibDems shifted their position to one where they approve of a selective Catholic school in principle, but don't think it should have been given the priority to use the site. There is little sign of them actively pursuing their party's policy, which is for increased inclusivity.

What can be done?

mmptsa I assume you do not live in Twickenham. "Safe" Libdem councillors lost their seats because they pursued policies that ran counter to local feeling on planning issues, and helped deliver Councillor True his victory. The Conservative party won the seats here because they worked really hard to support local people and translate their views into local policies. And now we have two judicial reviews because they totally ignored local needs/ desires /whatever you want to call them, and the policies they implemented as promised. I feel sorry for our Councillors, and Cabinet Members, because every single one I have met has tried their hardest to defend policies they clearly don't believe in and know will lose them their seats. Good for Councillor Naylor standing up for what he stood for in the first place, but his voice has been silenced when it could have made a difference. Lord True hasn't kept his troops united, he has used every means available to him to silence all dissent in his pursuit of his legacy, there's a difference. The "diplomatic process" can be seen on-line, the only chance to turn the ship was the scrutiny committee when the fact that Andy Cole future Governor of St RR refused to declare an interest and Beverley Saunders on behalf of Turing House declared an interest, made the ultimate difference.

The Consultation showed nothing but that Catholics wanted a Catholic School, and could use their organisation to achieve it, no surprise there. The surprise was that so many local people could mobilise themselves to make their feelings felt without the help of an establishment institution, a Head of Education who believed it was their papal duty to deliver Catholic education, and their acolyte Lord True, pulpits and handed out paper forms available to no one else.

An election is going to be different....

Its really sad for people when their elected representatives are made to shut up in Town Hall. I was shocked to see that majority of Councillors from both sides did not utter a word at the OSC and Cabinet meetings on Clifden Road. Being in politics does not mean one should let go their freedom of speech and expression.
It seems political careers are more valued than public service. Remaining silent spectators as Chair of Governors in a faith schools increasing discrimination, only further damages trust and credebility.
The Tories remain arrogant, the Lib Dems do not walk the talk. The absence of a 3rd credible political or independent group is failing to provide reasonable checks and balances in our local political system.

mmptsa, as Heathcliff says, the consultation results were skewed by the way it was conducted - paper forms handed out at church, and letters home to parents at Catholic schools telling them what to do. RISC campaigned solidly for the other side of the argument, but it was always going to be a David versus Goliath battle.

Heathcliff, that scrutiny committee was never going to 'turn the ship' because it has a political and religious bias built into its structure (and can, in any cvase, be ignored by the Cabinet). The co-opted members are independent, but don't get a vote. The councillors on the committee vote as a pack. The two church reps are there specifically to represent the interests of church schools. The parent governors may have some influence, but there are only three of them. If that committee was operating independently, and scrutinising properly, it would have highlighted the risks in the secondary forecasts that subsequently became a linchpin of the council's case, but I believe it voted not to do that.

"it has no control over the admissions policies of existing voluntary aided schools- they're decided by each school's governors. Almost all the funding is from the government, via the council"

As I suggested earlier, if parents at those schools realised that their 'voluntary' contributions (which are often invoiced in a way that makes them feel like an obligation) were upholding the VA status, then some might choose to withhold them. Once the incoming funds dipped below the required threshold the schools would have to convert to VC status. Local councillors would then be able to influence their admissions.

Helliview Totally agree, I just meant the Scrutiny Committee was the only point in the process when I heard any dissent expressed. I do actually think the ship was turned a fraction, not enough to make a difference to the outcome but it will affect the outcome of the election, and hopefully Councillors in future will think a bit more deeply about the views of local people. This was the first time they were mobilised to challenge the Council's educational strategy, a source of stress and dissatisfaction for parents for a very long time.

How much per term is the voluntary contribution if your child is at a church school? Are some cheaper than others or is it a flat fee? I'd imagine that once their children are in the parents are less willing to rock the boat by going on strike as they will be worried that it means blocked toilets that aren't fixed, less books etc?

LP, they pay about £40ish a year, but that goes into a central maintenance fund run by the Diocese. The school then applies for funds when it want to do 'capital' projects like fixing the roof. However, the Diocese only covers 10% of the costs of those projects. The council funds the remainder.

The Diocese only allows schools to take part in that funding scheme if they can raise a minimum contribution each year ... think of it as a sort of insurance scheme where you pay in each year, and then hope to benefit when you need it. The churches are maintained by the same scheme, so a percentage of church donations goes into the pot, which they can then claim from when they need to fix the roof.

Non-capital maintenance like unblocking toilets, and running costs like book-buying are covered by Government funding via the council, just like any other community school.

Unfortunately not many people understand all of that. They think their VA schools are being funded much more significantly by the church, but they're not.

It is a shame that the Scrutiny committee wasn't broadcast on webcam because the Chairman, Gareth Evan's ruthful wince when it was suggested that the Catholic School was the result of politics and networks of influence said it all.