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 ....

Orleans Park has appointed the current deputy Elaine Ball as the new headteacher from September 2013. Christ's has not yet found a replacement for Richard Burke (new principal of St Richard Reynold's) but will readvertise next term in order to appoint by January 2014. Its deputy remains acting head.

Just listening to a report about shortage of suitable teachers willing to be Heads on Radio 4 - presumably extra hard when the person has to be religious aswell?

Sacred Heart admissions criteria are peculiar. A family in my road have been offered a place for their daughter this September even though they are not Catholic and it wasn't their first or second choice. It's only the 3rd nearest school for them and is about a mile away. That sounds to me as if there are insufficient Catholics to fill even 30 places. Would this family have been given priority over siblings of non-Catholics? Maybe it is next year that siblings will need places as it will be two years after the bulge class of non-Catholics.

The politicians can't bury their heads in the sand for much longer on this. Community primary school catchment areas are shrinking to 500 metres or less. Meanwhile single form entry schools don't attract enough applications, perhaps put off by a parish priest who is extra strict on who he considers worthy of a place, and the fact that their younger children may also be denied a place.

See this article in the Guardian about primary schools with more than 1,000 pupils.

Briefly returning to discussion about King's School Hove, this Politics Show coverage gives a well balanced overview of the situation.

Nick Whitfield acknowledged at the Cabinet meeting which made the decision on the Clifden site that there was no desire or need for a new Catholic Primary School, largely on the basis of Sacred Heart not being oversubscribed by Catholics. The primary school on the Clifden site was justified by the 10 places meeting a pressing need for community places, it is not clear why the requirements of the trust deed and canon law could be relaxed on that occasion to give priority to local children, and their siblings, (and by most private Catholic Schools, some of whom are actively inclusive) and not in the Sacred Heart case.

The pressing need wasn't met either. It is clear a black hole of primary provision has emerged anyway in Central Twickenham. Non Catholic parents living within 400m of St RR have no offer of a primary school place, even if they made St RR their first choice.

Heathclif, is this trust deed for all diocese schools or just Sacred Heart?

I had a look at St RR's admission policy - non-Catholic siblings are prioritised within the 10 community places but it's a fixed number. So cutoff for its 10 community places will get smaller for new families next year.

Bulge classes are having a distorting effect on subsequent years all over the borough - East Sheen and Orleans Infants both had 37 siblings out of 60 places last year so only 23 places for new families and the cut-off was 400m in each case. Any news on how that looks this year?

muminlondon From the Accord press release ?[Our] Trust Deed requires us to prioritise Catholics, and ... as a school we cannot deviate from the Trust Deed.... [The Diocese lawyer] advised us that other schools had faced our predicament and consequently also sought advice from the Diocese, whereupon the issue had been referred to the (then) Director of Education for Westminster, Paul Barber. He confirmed that, given the terms of the Trust Deed, there was no scope for change.?
accordcoalition.org.uk/2013/05/10/faith-schools-dividing-families-as-well-as-communities/

Of course this will be an issue for non Catholic families allocated secondary places at St RR this year. Less of a logistical problem for parents but nethertheless if allocated a place in a community school those parents would not have had to worry about securing secondary places for subsequent children, especially as that will be when the bulge hits the secondary schools.

The St RR admission's policy seems to be in complete contradiction to the Trust Deed which says Catholic Schools must always prioritise Catholic applicants. Either it's a Catholic school or it isn't - if they can massively bend the rules for this they should be able to do so at Sacred Heart.

Problems in central Teddington still being caused by the 4 forms of entry bulge class that Collis took in 2010 - the younger siblings took about 55 out of 90 places last year and same thing seems to be happening this year. No other school within walking distance with a four year old for the non-religious.

Just reminded again of that article on innovation in free schools after seeing an Observer report of four primary schools in East Sussex taken over by the Aurora Academies Enterprise Trust, established by the UK subsidiary of a US for-profit education provider. The schools are paying royalties on the patented curriculum to the US owner, Mosaica.

In this case Ofsted has criticised the way the curriculum has been imposed without teachers being sufficiently confident in adapting teaching materials, and the lack of a 'distinctively local element'. A link in the comments section of the article suggests noticeable underperformance of this chain in the US with achools that have closed down and even cheating in tests. So this sort of innovation is being imposed on schools who are unlikely to have had a choice of sponsor and no choice at all of curriculum. The principle of profit-making in state schools is obviously also a big concern.

This is very disturbing MuminLondon. Whatever we think of the National Curriculum at least it's free and schools are free to share ideas to improve it - we don't want to move to a situation where schools are paying out any of their vital funds to sign up to one curriculum or another and operate in silos. Makes it much harder for those pupils and teachers who have to move around aswell presumably?

"In this case Ofsted has criticised the way the curriculum has been imposed without teachers being sufficiently confident in adapting teaching materials, and the lack of a 'distinctively local element'."

Hi Muminlondon. I know nothing about this academy trust, but I do know that it'll be hauled over the coals if its not spending its money wisely (like E-ACT were recently). The article is pitched to imply that the £100k is just for patent fees, but the denials of the Aurora Chief Exec suggest there's a bit more to it than that, so its hard to know what the true picture is.

I did read the Ofsted report you linked to and its not completely damning of the curriculum. Quote:

"The new curriculum is helping pupils to enjoy learning .... [It] has provided a welcome new focus for pupils and many of their parents. While it is undoubtedly a worthwhile innovation which is giving a clear shape to the progression of pupils? skills beyond English and mathematics, it is clear that teachers are not sufficiently confident in adapting teaching materials to the needs of their pupils. Moreover, the curriculum currently lacks a distinctively local element."

The rest of the report indicates teaching quality is variable, with some very good teaching and some not so good. As this was a school that was converted, rather than established from scratch, that can't necessarily be blamed on poor staff recruitment. It could be poor training (which I guess is what the Observer article is implying), or it could just be that they have inherited some teachers with inherent performance issues.

The 'lack of a local element' criticism sounds like something that can easily be resolved, and in fact the Observer article mentions some changes that have been introduced as a result of the inspection.

It is very strange that Michael Gove would approve a school with a curriculum that differs so much from the proposed national curriculum. There would be a real lack of continuity for those going on to secondary schools and having to go back to a strict chronological study of history. The Paragon© Curriculum is described as units that:

'spiral in difficulty like concentric rings emanating outward until children are studying the ten elements of culture in Year 4 and the defining characteristics of civilizations in Year 6'

SEN provision is described as:

'Engaging the multiple intelligences through a variety of hands-on learning methods helps all pupils succeed and discover meaningful learning paths.'

No wonder the teachers don't understand it. But I wouldn't choose that - given a choice.

This Local Schools Network blog gives more information. Apparently it is one of 12 'approved' sponsors for forced conversion along with ARK, E-ACT, AET, Ormiston, ATT, CET (Creative Education Trust), Elliott Foundation, ULT, RSA, K12 and Edison Learning. They must be working down the list.

"It is very strange that Michael Gove would approve a school with a curriculum that differs so much from the proposed national curriculum"

But isn't that one of the freedoms of academies? I'm not defending it, just wondering how unexpected it is. Our local transformational academies also have an innovative curriculum.

My view is that its good to have interesting choices, so long as they are choices. However, the problem is that for many families they'll be the only option.

I think the contrast between a history curriculum developed from an international perspective, and Gove's curriculum could not be more extreme. In the latest Historical Association survey www.history.org.uk/news/news_1779.html only 4% supported the propsed changes to the NC for History and many teachers in independent schools and academies have already said that they will not be implementing it. From the perspective of most people involved in the study and teaching of History, Gove's proposed curriculum is as unacceptable as Ofsted found the one highlighted by the Observer. I think there is an issue here about how far we trust teachers to know what works best in their classrooms, whether they are being asked to use an off the peg international curriculum or Goves version of our national story . It is sad because it seems to me (I am totally biased) that History is such a rich source of topics that enable teachers to inspire pupils to develop curiosity about the world and the critical thinking skills that enable them to understand issues and form their own opinions. The current curriculum enabled teachers to do that which is why they are being so protective of it.

Yes, that probably nails it for me, too - whether it's Gove's prescriptive curriculum, or a patented corporate-imposed one, the views and individual freedoms of teachers are being ignored. And for sponsored academy schools parents usually have no other options, so a curriculum such as this is also an untested experiment (although there is US evidence that test scores are poor in these schools, so that's even more alarming). My DC made a point of asking not to be sent to a school with a cheesy motto - children recognise spin when they see it.

I looked at the Public Accounts Committee report on expansion of academies and thought it was interesting that Rachel Wolf of the New Schools Network, considering she is close to Gove, said 'there is a less high quality bar for who becomes a sponsor of an academy than for who becomes a sponsor of a free school'. There is a sense of a massive lack of accountability, transparency or control even within the DfE.

I notice that the new free schools have been announced today but there doesn't seem to be a full list - only a few examples. Let us know what happened Bay Jay - fingers crossed!

'The Russell Education Trust and the Turing House School steering group are pleased to announce that their school proposal has been given the green light for opening in September 2014. The bid was one of 102 free school proposals approved by the Department for Education (DfE) today. The Trust will now receive Government support and funding to secure a suitable site, and put the group?s detailed educational plans in place.

Turing House will be a brand new secondary school for Richmond Borough, catering for boys and girls aged 11-18. It will be an inclusive community school with a clear focus on responsibility, personal achievement and academic success. The school?s curriculum will be broad and balanced, with particular specialisms in Science, Engineering and Music.'

BBC report but no link to full list: New free schools include East End music school

"there doesn't seem to be a full list"

Hi Lottie. Here's the full list. The North Kingston secondary is on there, but the GEMS primary proposed for Twickenham/Teddington isn't as far as I can see.

Here's the full Turing House announcement.

Congratulations!

Congratulations BayJay.

North Kingston School report is here - there may be problems with the site.

The RTT reports on Turing House.

Thanks all. Turing House was born right here on Mumsnet, Thu 17-Nov-11 20:07:14, so you're all part of the story.

Big congratulations on all your hard work and persistence. I hope a suitable site can be sorted out quickly as Turing House School appears to be badly needed for September 2014.