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 ....

Unless she has moved recently she lives in Buckingham Road Hampton - there was plenty of publicity about that when she had trouble with the Council about planning issues. Maybe she used to live in East Sheen and that's why she is a councillor for East Sheen. In the first issue of the paper there was a photo of her and her daughter playing in a playground so I don't think it's a major physical disability issue. Buckingham School is one storey with large outside playing fields and is a large school that presumably caters to most more common needs. As you say, it may be about something else but I am struggling to think what problem affects 100 families that isn't generally known about other than being sent miles away to primary school. Educational issues normally haven't arisen yet when you are 4 have they? Do special schools take large numbers of 4 year olds?

The Mumsnet message boards appear to be struggling somewhat - five copies of the last message above so apols if there are five copies of this one?

Multiple apologies for my multiple postings! Not sure what happened. The weird thing is that they are all different drafts as I pondered SEN admissions criteria and how that could be relevant to this thread on secondaries.

I think Cllr Morris has a house in East Sheen that she rents out (according to the register of interests). Unless there's an issue about residence then it may be some special need that is difficult to prove. Buckingham definitely has an SEN policy.

The RTT splashes ‘This council is failing my child: Councillor quits cabinet over school place fury on page 1. However it gives no further detail of the dispute, except that it arises from a request by the council for ’extra evidence to prove their application for a school place’.

There are also letters (Changing admissions policy? p. 25) from Jeremy Rodell and Stephen Hyett.

An email from RISC links to 3 pieces about yesterday’s celebrations at St Richard Reynolds College: Grants for faith schools are a human right, says archbishop (Sep 19); West London receives long-awaited Catholic School (council press release Sep 17); and St Richard Reynolds Catholic College opened by Archbishop (Diocess of Westminster press release Sep 19).

I have reported the multiple postings to Mumsnet who replied saying that their tech team is working on the problem.

It seems most likely that she is trying to get a school place somewhere other than where she normally lives.

Turing House are putting out very positive messages - hope they are able to announce where the school will be soon. The local rumour mill is still saying that Fulwell Golf Course is possible which seems a good central spot to address the black hole.

Would Fulwell golf course location affect Hampton Academy? There are about 65 unfilled places at TA/HA this year and no more than that extra in the cohort in Y6 at primaries in Hampton/Whitton to fill the places. There aren't 150 children at non-selective private schools in that area.

I think Turing House needs to consider this and update its page on impact on other schools. It will affect at least two schools, not just one.

The local rumour mill could be completely wrong! But if Turing House was somewhere round the edge of the golf course that would be close to the central point for their admissions which I think is round about Squires. That is in the black hole area for boys who can't get into Teddington or Orleans Park anymore - main feeder schools I think are likely to be Stanley, Trafalgar, the Stanley Road half of SMSP intake and possibly some Archdeacon, rather than Hampton or Whitton primaries. The Teddington School catchment is now only the centre and south of Teddington with children now getting in from Ham who are geographically closer but couldn't before because of linked schools. I don't remember the exact figures but I seem to recall that 2014 is the year when the overall number coming out of Richmond primaries goes up a lot, and presumably also in Hounslow which sends children to HA/TA. So I'd imagine that most of the places at HA/TA and Turing House will be needed. There will probably also be more Catholics from farther away applying to Sir RR now it actually exists and so non-Catholics won't be allocated places there.

There are about 90-100 extra pupils in Middlesex coming through in 2014 but some are at St James's, and 65 unfilled places may still mean three undersubscribed schools. I can't remember how many more there are on the Richmond side but there are still many spare places at RPA, more at Christ's and 220 at Grey Court for 2014. Few will qualify for Orleans Park judging from the maps. There will definitely be enough places as a basic need.

Turing House is of course needed in the long run, especially if plans change for the College. But if it maintains an admissions number of 150 for 2014 (assuming it goes ahead) the surrounding schools could continue to leak pupils from that cohort every year.

So it's fine for Turing House pupils and those who move, but more disadvantaged pupils tend to stay where they are and not switch. Even if you contend that TA and HA are not up to scratch, the pupils in them deserve continuity. I think the head of Turing House has worked in conditions of budget cuts and falling rolls so hopefully he will consider this.

I don't know the head but I have googled Coulsdon High School...

"but I have googled Coulsdon High School..."

The old Ofsted reports are no longer online, but he led it out of special measures to a judgement of rapidly improving with many good features - notably leadership and management with standards and achievement having improved dramatically.

Apparently some eyebrows were raised when it was then turned into an Academy anyway. However, as we know, such decisions aren't always made for transparent reasons.

I found some articles that suggested the school went into special measures about four years after he arrived. That was after a difficult period when budget cuts meant he had been forced to cut staff. But to his credit he stayed on and took the school out of special measures and results went back up again. After following Ofsted judgements in this area I think all of that is very subjective and stressful. And I also see now that the forced academy issue has been going on for much longer than just under this government even when local parents were against it.

The RTT has Turing House School, Teddington, names new headteacher:

. . Turing House School proposers, the Russell Education Trust and a parent steering group, appointed Colin Mackinlay, who has seven years of headship under his belt and experience as an Ofsted inspector . .

Independent Catholic News has Long-awaited Catholic school opens in west London - a long item about the opening and the school but no mention of of the opposition to the school apart frorm this from the Archbishop of Westminster:

. . It has not been easy. Some have wished to use this effort as an occasion to sow division . . a Catholic school contributes to social cohesion by respecting the rights of parents and by maintaining educational diversity. This parental right is enshrined in European Conventions and to be honoured wherever possible . .

For info, I found the 2007 Ofsted report for Coulsdon online.

This BBC article highlights the controversy over Coulsdon High School's academy takeover.

It doesn't make clear that Croydon suffers from the pernicious effect of Sutton's grammar schools creaming off many of its brightest pupils. Coulsdon High School used to select 15% of its pupils but this stopped from 2000. Its results in 2002-2007 were similar to the predecessor schools to TA, HA and RPA, but improving, with the odd dip which probably related to intake.

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120504203418/education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000951/index.shtml" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">2010 statistics showed that Croydon exported 946 of its secondary pupils to grammar schools while Richmond only sent 187, although the selective private schools cream off many more in this borough.

RTT has Two Richmond schools make strides to impress Ofsted:

. . All but two of the borough’s schools are outstanding or good according to independent inspectors. Ofsted’s quarterly report said of the 49 schools inspected across the borough of Richmond, 21 were rated as outstanding and 26 were rated good . . Buckingham Primary School in Hampton was the only Richmond school to fall into (the “requires improvement”) category . . Only one school, Nelson Primary School in Whitton, fell into (the ‘requiring special measures’) category following an inspection in March . .

The article points out that Nelson has a new headteacher and is working with Waldegrave school as an improvement partner - it leads the Richmond Teaching Schools Alliance (St John the Baptist Juniors is primary lead).

It's strange timing to mention Buckingham in the article. It was visited by Ofsted last week. I'm assuming the council provided the story to the RTT but I wonder if they knew the inspection was being carried out on the day of publication?

The Evening Standard has Town hall ‘fired me for taking legal action over a school place’, a report on Cllr Morris’ problem:

. . (she) is seeking a High Court judicial review after Richmond council refused to allow the child into a primary 50 metres from her front door . . (she) wanted her daughter, who she declined to name, to be admitted to Sheen Mount primary, which received 346 applications for its 60 places . . But the council only offered her a school seven miles away in Hampton, after saying that Ms Morris and her husband had used the wrong address in the application for a place. The decision has left her daughter stuck at home, with her mother trying to teach her while also looking after her one-year-old son, as her husband prepares to undergo a quadruple heart bypass in November . .

The council refused to accept as valid the family’s address near Sheen Mount school, where they have lived for nine to 10 months. Instead it said the qualifying address should be that of a property in Hampton, on which Ms Morris pays council tax, and offered her daughter a place at Buckingham school, a 90-minute bus ride away from their current home . . (she) says the Hampton home is being developed and is uninhabitable.

Can anyone point us to the web page where the fine details of the residence tests the council applies are spelt out?

Chris, its on page 5 of the primary admissions brochure.....

"Owning more than one property
You should state the address which is your family’s main residence and at which your child lives most of the time.

Temporary addresses
You are not permitted to use a temporary address to secure a place for your child. If you own a property and are living at a different address, we will assume that the second address is temporary and the property you own is where you normally live."

Her current register of interests does say that the Sheen address is rented out privately, but perhaps she moved into it before putting into the application.

Pity she forgot to update her register of interests after November 2012 which clearly shows her Mortlake house rented out privately and Hampton her primary residence:

www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors.htm?mgl=mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx&UID=236&HID=114&HPID=15749633

What a disgrace.

I think the Sheen property must be a third one as the Mortlake address is not especially near Sheen Mount school.

I can sort of see both points of view here. Possibly Ms Morris is seeking to get a place in a better school than Buckingham although she obviously has East Sheen connections if she is the local councillor and has lived nearby before. However, if you genuinely do move and expect to stay in a temporary address for a year or more aren't you entitled to apply for a school place there? I know quite a lot of families who have rented out their too small property after they have had 2 or 3 children and then rented a larger one because they can't afford to buy a larger one.

'if you genuinely do move and expect to stay in a temporary address for a year or more aren't you entitled to apply for a school place there'

Most people in that situation don't own even one other property, let alone two.

Well obviously owning two places and living in a third is a bit exceptional! But I think the number of people in London choosing between staying in a small flat that they bought when they were childless and renting it out and moving to a bigger rented place because they can't afford to buy bigger must be on the increase and not sure it should be treated as a grounds for refusal of school place. I think that the specific problem here is because she isn't registered as the council tax payer and on the electoral role at the Sheen address not that she owns other properties in the Borough.

I don't understand, if she - currently - lives in the house that's next door to the Sheen Mount school how can they allocate a place that's in Hampton? That's overzealousness on the admission committee (and also unreasonable to expect to do the commute).

I have friends who have the exact same situation, they have just bought a house which they get the keys for in January 2014. They'll apply using the rented address where they live, because they are rebuilding the new house and won't be moving in until Jan 2015. They rang the council (not Richmond) and were told to apply using the current address, if they expect to live there in September 2014 as well.

There's something strange here, we probably don't have the full story?

I don't see any difference between what Cllr Morris has done and MPs fiddling their expenses by 'flipping' the residences on which they claim. If she is intending to sell the Hampton home or permanently rent it out perhaps that's different. But there would have been an appeal process and an opportunity for her to show evidence of all of ths. The timing is suspect too. And how long does will it take for building works considering she has declared Hampton her main home for at least five years?

I think it's reasonable that there is a cut-off date for anticipated moves. But it's quite late - 10 February this year, after the application deadline.