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 ....

p.s. For info, I've seen a copy of the leaflet that has been circulated to nurseries, but it doesn't seem to be online anywhere so I can't link to it.

It has information about the school, and an expression of interest slip. At the bottom it says "Recently founded, The GEMS Schools Trust is the not-for-profit arm of GEMS Education Solutions. GEMS currently owns and operates 46 schools and provides education services to 68 private and government schools worldwide, encompassing approximately 130,000 students from more than 151 countries. GEMS also owns a number of independent schools in the UK. "

Does anyone know where the sites that GEMs has earmarked in Fulwell and Twickenham Green are? That area seems quite well served by primary schools having Stanley (4 forms) and St James (3 forms) in Fulwell and Archdeacon Cambridge on Twickenham Green (going up to 3 forms I think?) with Trafalgar Infants and Juniors (3 forms?) in between the two.

What does the request for more information about school places towards the end of the Admissions Forum minutes mean BayJay? Has there been any progress with securing NPL for Turing House?

You can find out quite a lot from googling.

This CNBC article describes the company as a global Dubai-based for-profit education company, with 60 schools across the Middle East, India, Europe, Africa and the US. It is described as 'seeking to ensure a share of 'a $3 trillion global market ... it plans to invest up to $1 billion over the next five years'. However:

'GEMS Education has faced criticism in the past for placing profits before its students following sharp increases in annual tuition and closure of unviable schools.'

Its chairman wrote a Telegraph blog praising James O'Shaugnessy, who as a Policy Exchange director (previously Conservative policy adviser) recently wrote a paper on free schools run for profit. Its previous chairman was Anders Hultin who as part of the Swedish government set up the Swedish free school system then left to run Kunskapsskolan.

Its experience in the UK is of running prep schools with less than 25-30 children per year, many with nursery classes attached.

"Does anyone know where the sites that GEMs has earmarked in Fulwell and Twickenham Green are?"
There are rumours going around, but nothing confirmed, so I won't repeat them.

"That area seems quite well served"
Ultimately they have to go where there are sites. I imagine the Twickenham Green site will be popular with families in Central Twickenham, where children struggle to get places at community primaries (too far from Stanley and Trafalgar).

Archdeacon Cambridge is only 2-form entry (70% faith-based, 30% open admissions). The open places are usually allocated within a very short distance from the school. It had a bulge class this year, but can't expand permanently because its in a conservation area (no portacabins, or extra buildings allowed!). This year's bulge class was only accommodated because they managed to build a new classroom by squaring off an entrance lobby, but it won't be able to accommodate another one until the current one has worked its way through the system.

"What does the request for more information about school places towards the end of the Admissions Forum minutes mean BayJay?"
No idea I'm afraid. Doesn't make much sense does it?

"Has there been any progress with securing NPL for Turing House? "
All the latest info is here.

"GEMS Education has faced criticism in the past for placing profits before..."
Well, they won't be able to do that with a UK Free School. Under current policy, at least.

This is some background on its closure of schools in the UAE and more here. The business also runs a school for 4,800 pupils in Dubai - but despite the scale, will close it because it is not making enough money to afford capital investment.

Another article on expansion plans in other markets is here with interesting reader comments.

'they won't be able to do that with a UK Free School. Under current policy, at least'

If they get approved it will certainly be an indication of the policy intentions of the DfE and current administration.

However, as prep schools are not inspected or assessed in the same way as state primary schools it's impossible to know their track record as a provider. At least with secondary schools it is possible to judge exam results even if it is difficult to find out how selective they are of intake. With an independent school applies to transfer into the state school it is at least bringing premises and require little capital investment.

You can read up on Jodie King at LinkedIn. She has been at GEMS since Jan 01; before that she was at IED for 2 years 4 months; before that she was Associate Deputy Head at an Ealing School for a year. She seems to me to be inexperienced for her present role.

She has an M.Sc. in Social Policy from the University of Southampton.

Her main skill seems to lie in the art of self-promotion: the very crass way she, in her previous job at IES, advertised their proposal as if it was a done deal was roundly criticised here last November: Heathclif Sat 10-Nov-12 10:25:19. She is not someone on whom one can rely in matters of importance, I think.

"She seems to me to be inexperienced for her present role .... She is not someone on whom one can rely in matters of importance, I think"

Woah .... put the brakes on Chris. That's a personal attack, based on very little evidence, and she's not here to defend herself.

She's not putting in the proposal as a one-(wo)man-band. She has an Educational Trust behind her. Part of the approval process for her free-school bid will be to assess Capacity and Capability, but the DfE will look at the credentials of the group as a whole, rather than just Ms. King's.

The timing of the company-switch seems a bit unfortunate, but I think its fair to say it was unforeseen (and perhaps understandable in the circumstances). Given that the proposal would have been prepared, and lots of parents may have already registered an interest to apply for a place at the school in 2014, it seems reasonable to submit it for assessment.

"Her main skill seems to lie in the art of self-promotion: the very crass way she, in her previous job at IES, advertised their proposal as if it was a done deal was roundly criticised here last November: Heathclif Sat 10-Nov-12 10:25:19."

I went along to her first public meeting, and she seemed very pleasant, and not at all how you describe. I agree that the original advert did imply that the school was definitely opening. That's a good way to get taken seriously by parents, but a bad way to introduce yourself to local educationalists. Looking at the new leaflet I can see that it is more balanced. The title is "Proposed new Primary School in Twickenham and Teddington", and there's nothing to imply the school is a done deal.

p.s. For info, here are the directors of the GEMS School Trust, who will be the formal proposers of the school.

It is certainly illuminating to look at the inspections for other private schools owned by the business in the UK. The Independent Schools Inspectorate does visit schools every 6-7 years, it seems, although without the rigorous grading framework of Ofsted.

A list of their schools is here. All its schools have existed previously and were taken over so the staff may well have remained. I picked up this comment several times:

'With such a small number of board members with a country wide brief, it is difficult for them to get into the school during the working day to effectively see its work at first-hand, and to set challenging targets for the head teachers and staff.'

There are also concerns about access to IT facilities, CRB checks and in one case outside space.

GCSE results are availalable for one boarding school in Cornwall. It is non-selective.

Can I just make it clear that I was criticising the misleading tone of the promotion of the school. It came over as a leaflet designed by a marketing person who underestimated the local parents, who I slightly disagree with Bayjay would have found it off-putting and slick, even if they didn't know about the uncertainty of the Free School process. It didn't come from a source that you could trust for those claims. Turing House have worked hard to achieve the credibility that will enable parents to feel they can trust them to achieve their aims. As well as being misleading in terms of process, that leaflet had little substance and did not establish any such credibility. However whatever the decision process that went into issuing the leaflet I wouldn't say it was sufficient evidence to say she wasn't someone on whom you could rely. Incidentally I did email Ms King with my feedback on the leaflet and local conditions, no reply, but maybe she took my advice on board I also suggested she kept an eye on these threads ..................

muminlondon To parents the ISI Inspections feel like a rubber stamping exercise by peers, they are done by other private school heads. It is rare for anything negative to be said, and even rarer for it to be substantive. Here is LEH's eulogy www.lehs.org.uk/uploads/inspection_report.pdf So that is pretty damning.

The company's first UK acquisition was also a boarding school and its GCSE results are here. The school changed its name in 2011 when its GCSE results would have been below the floor target had it been a state school.

Some background is given in this 2005 Guardian interview with the company chairman where the school is mentioned by its previous name. In this interview he makes a comparison between schools and fast-food outlets.

After reading the Independent today I feel more positive that the DfE will consider the next round of free school applications carefully. In Richmond 90% of primary school pupils are in good or outstanding schools, and that is a high standard to maintain.

Thanks for the update BayJay. Lots of people in Teddington hoping for Turing House to get its site. I assume not in competition with GEMs as they will want a smaller site?

It would worry me if I was hoping to send my child to the same primary for 7-8 years that GEMs are so profit driven. They could shut the school down at short notice if a future Government wasn't paying enough per pupil to free schools. Yes, those GCSE results in Cornwall are pretty average considering they take the children from the age of 3 months according to the website! What are exam results at other non selective private schools like or is that too difficult to get a handle on? Obviously some private schools are providing a refuge to children who couldn't cope at more academic schools or state schools so not fair to judge them against Eton or Tiffins.

Lottie, no, Turing House isn't in competition with GEMS for sites.

Muminlondon, interesting Independent article. It's worth noting that he 2011 wave of free schools are some of the first to be facing inspection under Ofsted's new tougher criteria. There are many established schools that may get a lower grading than they're used to at the next inspection.

Glad to see 6 of the 9 were Good. For the record, the Bristol Free School, which was RET's first school, and shares a lead educational advisor with Turing House, was judged Outstanding in two of the four categories. Overall judgement was Good with Outstanding Features.

" They could shut the school down at short notice if a future Government wasn't paying enough per pupil to free schools. "

Lottie, they couldn't do that without seriously damaging their credibility and creating a lot of negative publicity for themselves. Free schools receive exactly the same funding per pupil as other schools, and can't be run for profit, so there's no reason to assume they're entering the free school sector for anything other than altruistic reasons.

"there's no reason to assume they're entering the free school sector for anything other than altruistic reasons"

But then having just read the 2005 Guardian Interview that muminlondon linked to, I can see why people might be cynical.

Lottie, those boarding schools may well cater for highly mobile families and non-native English speakers, but there are plenty of state schools in that category and the 'floor target' does not take account of background - they are routinely derided as failing schools with no excuses for intake. The interesting aspect of the free school programme is that any private school making a bid will be subject to the harsh light of scrutiny in a way they have never before encountered, and chains may suffer damage to their brand if they do not perform. BayJay, it is encouraging that RET's other schools have made a positive start. I am certain that those schools with full parental engagement AND support from well qualified staff/governors who are fully experienced in the rigorous testing, self-evaluation and inspection regime of the state sector will be the successful schools.

I downloaded the spreadsheet of the GCSE results to see how the independent sector is segmented. I counted:

• 3022 mainstream state schools with GCSE results. Apparently, around 200 schools were below floor target of 40% GCSE inc E&M = 7%

• 739 independent schools (none classified as special) posting GCSE results. Of these, 76 were at or below this floor target = 10%. Many were religious schools, Steiner schools and theatre schools, but among them were the Corona Theatre School in Richmond and St James Senior Boys' School in Surrey.

• 183 independent schools had results at or below 55% GCSE inc E&M (the average for middle attainers in the state sector), so the two GEMS boarding schools is in the bottom 25% of the market.

• 241 independent schools at the top of the market had results of 94% or more GCSEs (the average for high attainers in state schools) = 33%.

• 269 independent schools had results of 80% or more and above 50% for Ebacc which are Waldegrave's results = 36%. However, many/most of these schools will have had a test or interview to get into the school. Waldegrave is non-selective.

A caveat - that's proportion of schools, not pupils - top selectives have 100-250 pupils per year while the lower performing/specialist schools or boarding schools may have 30. But the independent sector does not have quite such a 'long tail' that some politicians are so fond of pointing out in the state sector - schools that perform badly find their pupils will avoid them and go to the state sector.

Finally, the OECD described the UK state sector this way (para 53):

'in the United Kingdom public schools outscore privately managed schools by 20 score points once the socio-economic background is accounted for'

Actually, at the top end, taking account average Ebacc results for top attainers (38.5%) as well as GCSEs overall (94%), there are only 177 at that level or above, which is 24% of the private schools posting GCSE results. Of these approx half are Christian/CofE, in denomination, 8 are Catholic, and about a third of these are in London (half are in or near London - where the wealth is!). I'd guess most of these schools were the original grammar schools established for hundreds of years. So it explains why providers at the bottom end of the market and some in the middle are increasingly squeezed and looking to join the state sector if they see an opportunity.

muminlondon I think your analysis of the independent sector is missing a regional analysis. Around here we have an incredibly segmented market with highly selective schools often former grammars and /or hundreds of years old but also schools like St Catherine's and St James's that cater for a less selective intake often with a distinctive ethos. I know some parents who are very happy with St James's though it's philosophy learning including having Sanscrit on the curriculum must be fairly unique. I am certain GCSE results are not what drives parental choice and I understand that they do actually do well by bright pupils. As you say there is enough affluence around here coupled with in the past a shortage of places in good state schools to support a relatively high proportion of education being accounted for by the private sector.

I don't know the situation at Batley except that Batley was never a particularly affluent place and I doubt it would have supported an independent school if it had not been there historically, and it has apparently increased in size and gone co ed. However Bradford Girls' Grammar School has certainly not lost numbers because of any academic failures. Warning obligatory picture of blonde teenage girl's jumping in air accompany results www.bggs.com/content/exam-results-2012 However competition amongst private schools in the north has increased, not just the impact of the dire economic situation there but there is a pattern of private schools merging and consolidating so they can improve their facilities , in Leeds the boys grammar and girls' high with sale of old sites funding investment in a new state of the art site. Sebergh just merged with another local school, Queen Ethelbergers has funded some extraordinary facilities to target the international market by sale of a site near the centre of Harrogate. However the governing body at BGGS decided that rather than merge with the boys, which had already gone coed, and one might cynically say develop a sound business plan, the free school route was more in line with the original aims and ethos of the school, of providing a good education to girls regardless of parental income (it was formerly a direct grant grammar and the loudest voice on the governing body is an old girl from that era). It is staying girls only. I will be interested to see whether they can adapt to a mixed ability intake and state school targeting but it certainly would not be true to say it was at the bottom end of the private school market academically.

Bay Jay - you are very nice and fair but I can't see why GEMs would start opening free schools for altruistic reasons when they haven't shown any signs of altruism so far. Given they have already been happy to shut one school at short notice why not others? Surely if their motives were altruistic they wouldn't pick on a wealthy part of London for their first free school - they would go somewhere more deprived where standards really need boosting. Isn't it more likely they want to get an easy win free school under their belt in case they need to start converting their failing private schools?

Mum in London - thanks for all that interesting stuff. I was trying to be a bit nice about the private schools that are not selective and help out desperate parents whose children aren't doing well in state sector (eg. because of dyslexia or a learning problem) and I had no sense of how many independent schools actually produce fairly average results. I think there should be a lot more publicity about all this. So many parents assume that any private school must be better than any state school. Maybe private schools that apply to convert should have their OFSTED inspection first as part of the application process?

"you are very nice and fair"

Well, I think all the information that Muminlondon has found is interesting, and potentially worrying, but I think its reasonable to give the people involved the benefit of the doubt when they're not here to defend themselves. They are real people, with real lives and careers, so any destructive comments aimed at individuals need to be based on fact. Otherwise its just cyber-bullying.

There's obviously a lot of negative press about free schools, and a lot of that is down to the radical-ness of the policy, and the speed with which it was introduced. However I do believe that behind every individual free school proposal is a group of well-meaning people. In some cases they might be naive or misguided, or may have misjudged local conditions, and one or two might even be slightly loopy, but I don't think anyone goes into it with pound signs in their eyes (ok,so possibly with the exception of the failing privates that need an injection of government cash to keep them afloat - but from what I've heard they're not flavour of the month with the DfE anyway).

That said, I do think the DfE (and obviously the politicians) have their ear to the ground on criticisms of the Free School policy. As I've said before its a policy that seems to evolve year on year.

Lottie Maybe private schools that apply to convert should have their OFSTED inspection first as part of the application process? I would hope that the process that the D of E goes through to approve Free Schools, whilst opaque, would at the very least be looking for free school proposals to demonstrate the leadership and proposed strategies and processes that would deliver an OFSTED outstanding school, that surely would be the basic criteria, even before meeting need. From what Bayjay has said, and I have read in articles by other Free School proposals, a lot of work is required of Free School proposers to do that. I can think of all sorts of reasons a school might not manage that in the first year especially if it was going through a radical shift in character, in the case of Batley going from single sex selective with a small pupil cohort to larger co ed non selective. Given likely problems with staff skills, turnover, all the careful targeting of teaching to different ability groups, implementation of targeting of different ability groups etc. etc. From the Independent article it sounds as if Batley's leadership was not criticised but the teaching and targeting.

I am also not at all surprised at muminlondon's analysis of the private sector, having looked at the private school league tables over the years. Whichever way they cut it, (and they do, whichever which way, and then the schools quote whichever puts them highest ) we live in a bubble of private school provision. People get hung up about tiny distinctions in performance that put certain schools above others but pretty much all the truly selective private schools around here are in the top 100 in the country, and most of the rest of the top 100 are either the most selective Boarding Schools or the big city Grammars / Highs. I don't make any claims for this table which is based on A/A*s but as an illustration www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/9551003/GCSE-results-2012-Independent-school-results-table.html If you look at the bottom 100 though you will see that most schools are in small town/ rural areas. It is interesting that the local schools are Corona and More House (which is of course highly specialised provision for pupils with learning difficulties so severe pupils are often sent there by LA's to meet the requirements of their statement - 20 from LBRUT). My parents live in a rural area and there are some very indifferent private schools and some outstanding comps, but the indifferent private schools seem to survive through a combination of the lack of local competition, people liking the facilities and class sizes, people with less able children being terrified by the prospect of lower sets in the comps, not being quite in catchment for the comps and downright snobbery.

What is interesting though is that a lot of these not quite so sought after schools are long established and sitting in some very desirable properties, the GEMS school in Cornwall is an example. As was Putney Park www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21664277

There are surprisingly few chains in the private sector - and as very few new private schools have been established from scratch, those that exist are takeovers or federations. And the best performing are charitable trusts, not profit-making firms - e.g. GDST (but also selective). The other chains are mainly in the middle/lower end. Woodard is the upper middle (it's Christian charity that proposed the other Kingston free school) but it may still be selective and has not been successful with its sponsored academy which is still in special measures. Cognita is profit-making and has had its problems too - quite a big chain, non-selective, results averaging 80% GCSEs but only 30% Ebacc (Gove's gold standard). Like I pointed out, strip out the socio-economic advantage and state schools still compare well, as fee-paying schools will not have 25% on FSM etc.

I do feel most concerned about rapid expansion of chains and the profit motive. The sponsor of star academy Mossbourne is a charity and not a chain. Meanwhile, commercial sponsors of academies have been ineffective (e.g. Manchester Airport).

Ofsted will judge local schools (RPA is doing well, we know). But it does take time for issues to come to light and many of those googled examples are local knowledge but have a low profile nationally.

Sorry, the Woodard school story is here:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-16595105

Just to correct an earlier comment, I thought the GEMS Milton Keynes school (mentioned here was also a boarding school (Webber, Bury Lawns until 2011 but it isn't according to the DfE . The 2012 census figures state it had capacity for 492 children aged 1-19, but 168 pupils.

This more recent article is also interesting.