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 ....

Yes, Grey Court has one but, as you say, isn't really accessible to children on the Middlesex side of the Borough.

Having a science specialism makes schools more attractive to specialist science teachers, who are sadly in short supply (I've been told there are only 6 physicists teaching in the borough). If I was a newly qualified physics teacher (perhaps emerging from St Mary's University's new Applied Physics course that they're developing with NPL) I would be attracted to a science specialist school ahead of others.

Chris Cook (FT) on the performance of academy school chains:

. . it appears that among the multi-school academy chains, Ark is the best. And some, if you look, are struggling. To be clear: these chains mostly took over failing schools to begin with. But some have really struggled to turn them around. . .

. . This measure also highlights the M25 divide: the best non-London borough is the Wirral on 2.0 ? behind 19 of the London boroughs. We will come back to this, publishing all of it in full when the the full, corrected 2012 results are available.

I find this interesting:

'the best performing secondary school chain, when you include all comers, is actually Westminster Council. It scores 4.1 on the ?adjusted? measure. But its reign may be fleeting: some of these schools have become converter academies. Other high performers include Islington and Hackney.'

Those LAs are, along with Tower Hamlets, areas of greatest deprivation in terms of FSM in the country (e.g. 40-50%) and yet have seen some fantastic progress in the last few years. They have had lots of money and support from the London and City Challenge programmes - just shows what can be achieved if there is a concerted effort and political will.

Some provisional 2012 figures (see e.g. Table 5a) show a 15% difference between pass rate figures for 'GCSEs only' and 'GCSEs plus equivalents' for sponsored academies. While I'd rather see children passing BTECs than with nothing at all, that's twice the average for LA maintained schools. And in a couple of years a whole list of equivalents will be phased out, and after the election the new Gove/Ebacc exams may come in.

They also had their advert (used in this borough) criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority for being misleading. It implied they already had outstanding from Ofsted when in fact this was awarded to a school in Lancashire. Of course achieving that in one school doesn't mean they could get it again

Sorry - didn't realise I was on the first page of this thread - that referred to the Maharishi free school and you have moved way beyond that subject now

Hi Nelsonelson, was looking for a link to those Standards Authority complaints about the Maharishi school in Lancashire but there was no formal ruling as the complaints were settled informally. I've found a BBC article on it failing to enter primary pupils for SATs as well as for two rulings (July 2012 and August 2012) by the Schools Adjudicator.

The Guardian reports: Academy schools use covert selection to skew intake, report finds:

Holding social events for prospective parents or issuing lengthy admission forms [are] among practices used to manipulate entry, claims . . The report . . from the self-styled Academies Commission, which broadly backs the "aspirational vision" of academies and has links to the programme . . It says it has received numerous submissions suggesting that "academies are finding methods to select covertly", such as holding social events for prospective parents or asking them to fill in lengthy forms when applying for a place:

Such practices can enable schools to select pupils from more privileged families where parents have the requisite cultural capital to complete the [form] in ways that will increase their child's chances . . there is a risk that admissions 'game playing' may be extended further.

. . The study, led by Ofsted's former chief inspector Christine Gilbert, says chairs of governors should be selected openly. Often . . existing governors stayed in place in converter academies and struggled to adapt to their expanded role:

We were concerned by the number of governors who told us themselves they didn't fully understand their new responsibilities and they didn't feel equipped to lead the process of academisation as was envisaged. I was surprised that that point was made so strongly by governors themselves.

A key government argument for academies is that removing local authority control brings schools closer to their community. This, however, does not always happen, Gilbert warned:

It's not automatic. Some are doing it very well, others are not. We heard many tales where parents felt they were no longer able to have their voice heard. This really has to be worked at.

. . A DfE spokesman said: The report rightly acknowledges the overwhelming success of the expanding academies programme in driving up standards for hundreds of thousands more pupils . .

Academies Commission Report: Unleashing Greatness: Getting the best from an academised system

Chris I was particularly interested in the suggestion that Ofsted approval of leadership should only be given if that leadership extended beyond the school into enabling improvement in the system as a whole. In a borough where we have such a disparity in demand for schools serving communities that are in fact very similar demographically that might be a tool for ensuring all the schools understood, and met, the needs of their local communities?

Richmond Adult Community College to stay on-site reports the RTT:

. . A council spokesman said: ?We hope to commence work on the Clifden site at the end of March to begin the first phase on the eastern side to provide sufficient accommodation for the first intake of reception children and year 7 children in September 2013.? . . the school and RACC will share the divided site for 12 months, until the Parkshot site is completed by September 2014. . .

The Academies report also points to a specific free school's admissions policy (Canary Wharf College). It only has ONE pupil eligible for free school meals in borough with 50% in total! Not only does it have a 'faith' priority (no faith school designation, just a faith 'ethos'), but it also has priority for founders of the school. The report criticises:

• lack of information and transparency at the DfE on variation from the admissions code in funding agreements
• no set limit on numbers or time limit for 'founders' criteria

'Such an approach fails to be transparent and engender trust.'

The IES free school proposal in Teddington has a founders priority. As a company backed by a private equity firm which has advertised directly to parents, it needs a charitable trust to set up the school - are the founders the first parents who sign up or company employees nominated as trustees, and how many are there?

Apologies, IES have priority for children of staff not of founders. Thomson House has priority for 'children of staff/founders'.

Oh, and a special mention in the report for Education Richmond, an initiative between our local schools for professional development and sharing good practice, including the heads of Waldegrave, Grey Court, The Vineyard and Richmond Park Academy to name a few.

It might be interesting to see what effect staff priority policies have on the demand for jobs as lunchtime supervisors etc. In the policies I've seen that are introducing it there's been no distinction between teaching and non-teaching staff, full or part-time, though there tends to be a minimum length of service (2 years in the case of Waldegrave's proposed policy), and they have to be directly employed by the school rather than agency staff.

Sunbury Manor's staff-priority admissions policy waives the 2-year minimum service for posts where there is a skills shortage (another good way to attract physics teachers I suppose!). Plus they're also prioritising children who are eligible for the Pupil Premium (i.e. on Free School Meals).

For info, just posting this link for the primary allocation maps for Richmond Borough's oversubscribed primaries.

p.s. It's worth emphasising that those maps only show first preference admissions. If we still had a first-preference-priority admissions system then they would give a reasonable guide to catchment, but we don't, so I'm not sure how helpful they would be if, for example, you lived in Central Twickenham and wanted a guide to your chances of getting in Trafalgar. A map of all the distance admissions would be needed, not just those for first-preference applicants.

BayJay, this Economist blog was very critical of the reintroduction of 'children of staff' as a priority:

It will help schools with high standards but do nothing to boost the low-ranking schools that are most in need of improvement. ... When it was last allowed, it led to game-playing: there were reports that some mothers took jobs as dinner ladies purely to smooth their child's path into a sought-after school. And it places teachers in the unenviable position of having to chose between what is right for their careers and what is right for their children.

Muminlondon, yes, I think its a policy that doesn't help to narrow the gap between high and low performing state schools.

However, in its defence, it does help to narrow the gap between medium-to-high performing state schools and private schools. Many private schools give substantial fee discounts to their own teaching staff, which draws teachers away from the state sector.

There's also an argument for giving teachers a few perks ... they certainly work hard for it. In the vast majority of cases the perk will be used to improved their work-life-balance and family relationships, rather than gain access to a better school.

However it perhaps becomes more of a grey area for support staff.

"it perhaps becomes more of a grey area for support staff"

... who of course also work very hard, make a valuable contribution, and often have very sought-after skill-sets. I imagine schools that introduce the policy start by trying decide where, if anywhere, to draw the line between teaching and non-teaching, full and part time etc, and eventually decide that trying to draw the line anywhere will be divisive.

Over the long term it will make teaching (and related roles) generally more attractive, which has to be a good thing. If that leads to an increase in high quality educators generally, then it could compensate for a short-term polarisation between schools.

I think it is a problem when it is additional to a priority category that already selects its pupils, e.g. a religious criterion. It was part of Queen's primary admissions criteria until 2004 or so. It's also satirised in John O'Farrell's highly entertaining novel on middle class school neurosis May Contain Nuts.

Interesting that Mossbourne Academy has this priority - but then it also has strict banding tests to ensure a comprehensive ability intake and random allocation, both of which are very fair in admissions terms. So I think it's only fair on those terms.

muminlondon Interestingly my old school, the former direct grant grammar turned independent turned Free School, is also using banding tests to ensure a comprehensive intake but my cousins tell me just the existence of testing is putting off families from deprived areas. The intake looks like coming primarily from families where the parents are motivated to seek out a good education. Any sort of hoop can lead to skewing, even if it is there to avoid it. Schools need to go out of their way to facilitate and encourage applications from vulnerable families.

That's an interesting point. It's occurred to me that RPA is affected by Wandsworth where there is a banding test with a small degree of selection in some schools. Only one or two schools are left with a simple distance criteria and they have done less well. I think RPA has also taken a lot of Wandsworth pupils who perhaps are put off by the hoops or don't understand it. It's all self-reinforcing - Richmond has perhaps suffered from Wandsworth's policies.

KINGSTON RSS FEED
Gove "very supportive" on Kingston secondary school funding:

. . Kingston Council is waiting to see if it will be successful in a bid for more than £20m to fund a new free school. Mr Gove made the comment this morning on a tour of Coombe Girls' School . . [he] was joined by . . director of children?s services Nick Whitfield . . Headteacher Deborah Walls said:

I am extremely proud of this school and all the wonderful things that happen here. ?He said that there were things from this school that he would want replicated such as the number of girls studying physics in the sixth form and the teaching of music.

"just the existence of testing is putting off families from deprived areas"

One way to mitigate that would be to base the bands on national or local averages, rather than on the cohort taking the test. And of course to do lots of outreach to communities that are under-represented.

In fact, Mossbourne's admissions policy says "The boundaries of each band reflect the national range of abilities", so unless some of their bands are undersubscribed, it sounds like they're doing what they can to make sure of a mixed intake.