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 ....

"the community could put more pressure on the national leaders of our academies to deliver changes that meet our needs"

In a sense that's what the community has been doing by not taking up the places. In the past they have voted with their feet. Now that improvements are taking effect those schools are showing a welcome increase in admissions. That process will continue and soon they will be full.

It's a shame that RPA's Good Ofsted report came out too late to materially impact their 2013 preferences, but it will no doubt have a positive impact on take-up of offers further into the process.

"That process will continue and soon they will be full"

Before JoTwick jumps in to remind me there of course needs to be enough 'slack' in the system for that filling-up process to be powered by a reasonable amount of parental choice, rather than force. That's why I wouldn't agree with people who say no new community schools are needed, and why the LA are being generally supportive of free school initiatives.

There's an interesting BBC film here about free schools which looks at the distinction between 'basic need' for places and quality-driven-demand-need (not sure if there's an official term for that). Its that second type of need that the free school programme was designed to address, which is why its been criticised for creating over-capacity in some areas. The LGA are arguing that basic-need should be prioritised. That would seem like a no-brainer on the face of it. However, the problem is that there's a deep rooted relationship between the two types of need. While some people have the means to move around or go private, basic need will simply never arise in schools where quality is low. In the past that lead to a sort of Catch 22 situation where LAs have had no incentive to improve schools beyond 'satisfactory' .... why bother improving schools when that will cause them to fill up and mean they'll need more schools? The result has been middle-class flight from some areas, and growth of the private school sector in others. I don't think that was intentional; it was a side-effect of the 'just in time' culture of school place planning.

Like everyone else, I really hope the 3 transformational academies are successful in attracting students over the next few years, and I'm pleased to see that their hard work is paying off and the trend is in the right direction. It will not only be a positive for the schools themselves, but also for their local areas, as good schools naturally attract strong and prosperous communities. As I said many months ago in this thread, people who buy houses near those improving schools are probably making a very sound investment, as they will almost certainly be oversubscribed in the future (and we all know what that does to local house prices).

BayJay I am impressed by your ability to read my mind and dedication to wake up early to make that post :)

Firstly academies have duty to their existing pupils - and just getting to good is bare minimum. mmpts4 has given food for thought and I will be surprised if below par performance is accepted and that floodgates will open.

Ultimately any school needs to get in touch with its local community needs. I do not see that happening in the academies as much as I would want to start trusting them. Its not easy for parents to put blind faith in them and just send their kids. Hope this does not block new school plans as you are right parents deserve choice.

BayJay, I've just watched that Newsnight film and one thing that shocks me is that a free school was allowed to poach existing Y8 pupils from other schools, rather than just build up slowly with Y7 classes. Some new free schools have deliberately set a smaller admissions number while they build up, and that sounds more manageable all round. There is a problem with the decision process in terms of lack of transparency, and it seems wrong for free schools to set up in areas with lots of surplus capacity.

If Twickenham Academy had been a rebuilt Whitton I would be against the Turing House proposal. The reason I feel more ambiguous about TA as it stands, and more positive about Turing House, is because TA is an academy with a sponsor that took over two schools that were far too close to each other yet had no other experience in the UK, something that attracted criticism from when it was discussed in council and limits choice. We need to see its track record. I think as it stands, if the sponsor does not deliver what it promised, it could be sacked in 7 years, or earlier if it fails its Ofsted. Even for a big state school supporter like me, it's hard to feel loyalty to a school that seems to have been imposed on us from above rather than one which has been requested with significant parent support.

Having said that, I hate to see any school do badly because of the effect on pupils.

I would add that I hope St RR is a success with Richmond pupils. It will be the same size as Christ's with the same head teacher and slightly worse sports facilities but unlike Christ's it will be nearer to where the majority of Catholics live and easier for the rest to commute to by train. The campaign was well supported by Catholic parents so I hope the school is too.

onsite sports facilities -obviously St Mary's are excellent

"one thing that shocks me is that a free school was allowed to poach existing Y8 pupils"
I'd need to watch it again to be sure, but I got the impression the school had opened with just year 7, but was already in its second year of opening when the girl in the film transferred. She would have been able to transfer easily if there was still some spare capacity at the new free school. Lots of free schools have opened with spare capacity because people often tend towards established schools rather than taking a risk on new ones, until they've established a good reputation.

"If Twickenham Academy had been a rebuilt Whitton I would be against the Turing House proposal"
Even if it was almost full, as we know it is? Interestingly I think that, rightly or wrongly, the DfE would have taken the opposite view, and been more inclined to approve a free school earlier if it felt there was a coasting local school that needed a push to convert to academy status. The fact that TA was already on the right path (according to current policy) has bought it more time to prove itself. Provided its next Ofsted is positive, and its building is completed on time and meets local approval, it will have justified that trust as it will then be able to sustain itself against some additional capacity.

The Turing House needs-case is a combination of demand need and impending capacity need, and if it has any impact at all on other schools, that impact will be transitory because, as we know, the primary bulge is so huge.

"I would add that I hope St RR is a success with Richmond pupils"
I also hope its successful, with whichever pupils it gets. All children should have the opportunity for the best possible education.

muminlondon Yes the indie was a direct grammar when I went there (I am very old ) and when we were consulted on it's change of status I agreed that becoming a Free School was actually truer to it's original ethos than it's current wholly private status. It wasn't an entirely happy experience, a confidence sapping regime by today's standards, but it did provide a lot of my friends from disadvantaged backgrounds with the opportunity to go to university, something not many girls from any background achieved at the time. It is of course a best case scenario for the Free School Programme, a ready made school with excellent facilities, admission is by random allocation within ability bands. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing an LEH becoming a Free School anytime soon and coming to the rescue of Fullwell parents.

I just wonder how those teachers who have been used to teaching those with high ability will adjust to meeting the needs of the whole range of abilities, they don't seem to be putting any special training or support in place.

mmptsa I won't repeat Bayjay's excellent posts, as she rightly says good forecasting is about probabilities and risks. The National Audit Office regard 4-5% spare capacity as necessary to ensure there is a cushion in the event that the risks to forecasts materialise, and the Council's forecasts are very risky as I highlighted, especially given the size of the pupil bulge it faces. With 1720 places that would mean there actually should be at least 90 spare places in our schools.

Bayjay highlights our Councils "just in time" strategy for school places. That has been a disaster for parents at primary level for decades, with every year hundreds of parents told there is no school place for their children at allocation time and an ensuing struggle to put together bulge classes in whatever accommodation they can find. Last year that included a old hall some distance from the main school with reception children being marched to and fro to be included in their school community and still some reception children having no place until Christmas. There is no space to create additional classes in our secondary schools.

Had there been a legal basis to challenge the Council's forecasts they would not have stood up to scrutiny when benchmarked against common, let alone best, practise in the private sector, and many Councils are now applying the techniques of assessing risk and probability and having forecasts that include quantification of risks and opportunities. However the law is only based on whether a Council "thinks" it has a need, not the robustness of the forecasting of that need.

The Councils did forecast 122 spare places in RPA and TA BUT they assumed 100 places would have been filled in a free school. That is 100 pupils who do not have a place in a Free School and so will fill up all but 22 of those spare places.

I think my hopes are irrelevant, the Catholic community in Richmond has a responsibility to make St RR a success, and to send their children there, and not just treat it as an insurance. With all privilege there come responsibilities.

Heathclif your logic is flawed that just because there is no free school in 2013, those 100 pupils will go into academies. There is demand for free school but not for what is being offerred in the academies. Mmptsa has highlighted that point. Even RISC had forecasted that there are a large no of people who will go from state primary to secondary, if they were convinced of quality.
The problems in the academies are not being dealt with and community expectations not being met.

"those 100 pupils will go into academies"
Not all of them will, but many of them will. Many of them will be expecting to get offers for OP, Teddington etc and will be disappointed. What they do next depends on whether they have confidence in the Academies as an alternative (and an unpredictable number will) or have other contingency plans in place.

The shift from primary to secondary that RISC predicted as a result of increased quality was in addition to the 100 places. Their analysis showed that if Richmond's state-sector-retention increased to that of the next lowest borough (Wandsworth) that would represent 150 children.

No, I wouldn't have opposed Turing House had TA - as Whitton - filled up last year or was full this year. A new school is obviously going to be needed in the most basic sense soon because 2014 will see a big jump in pupils and so will subsequent years. And the council agrees - it just thinks it will be later, and Kingston is still unclear. But that's irrelevant because I do approve of Turing House in the circumstances as a parent-led school, especially if it can work with the council, and successive councils have complacently relied on the 'private school' cushion in a borough where there's no excuse for mediocre schools.

I still don't understand why both HA and TA were handed over to Kunskapsskolan though. The economy of scale argument is entirely to the benefit of KS, not the community. The council used the diversity and choice argument for the Catholic school so it is fair and logical for that to be applied to academies.. KS are used to managing smaller schools so it is probably better for the pupils who chose them that they remain small. The money spent on the buildings is a separate issue but at least the council didn't stump up the cash.

"I do approve of Turing House in the circumstances"
That's good to hear. I think all Free Schools need to be judged on their own circumstances (which to be fair, is what the DfE are trying to do, despite all the criticism). Turing House was born right here on Mumsnet. I bet there aren't many schools with that credential .

Bayjay your logic could fill some more spare spaces at TA, but unlikely to work for RPA. If it does not get pupils from it's a local community, its unlikely it will get 100 from Twickenham.

jotwick The Council's forecasting is not so sophisticated as to factor in any sort of model for how parents are attracted / deterred from it's schools. It should, the reason that their forecasts on primary school forecasts are consistently less than actual is because they fail to take account of the way quality attracts applicants, as well as the impact of the economic situation, (even after the downturn had materialised). Their forecast pupil numbers already implicitly account for the number of parents going private, out of borough or moving away. Actually only with one exception, after a meeting with RISC Councillor Hodgins did decide to put 200 of the pupils going private back into borough schools as a result of the expected improvement in quality by 2015, a number picked out of the air. So if they have put 100 of the expected pupils into a Free School their logic (definitely not mine) dictates that if there is no Free School those numbers go into the Academies. If they do start to factor in any sort of model for the way quality attracts then the RISC argument kicks in and more than three new schools are needed by 2015.

Of course there is no substitute for actuals when it comes to forecasting so we will know the outcome of all this in a few months time.

TA is filling up and I think that people forget that TA isn't starting from ground zero like RPA. It has never failed entirely to serve it's local community. I know Whitton parents who went to the school and do not think it merited it's poor reputation and will be sending their children there because it is their local school. Evidently not everyone is turned off by the educational methods it is using (although I agree parents should have the choice ). There was an ignorant letter in the RTT saying that TA was the answer to Twickenham's school place problem, if only Twickenham parents would send their children there and somehow deter out of borough applicants, totally ignoring the needs of the community that TA serves. At 2.1 miles from Clifden Road once it achieves outstanding status as I am sure we all hope it will, Twickenham parents are unlikely to get in.

In RPA's defence, back in 2004 it was the most popular of the three schools which are now sponsored academies although it, too, has traditionally taken many from Wandsworth (which is five minutes away). And a few years earlier Barnes Primary (as Westfield) was apparently linked to Orleans Park while Grey Court was number one choice in the borough. So all these schools have the potential to rise again and be successful.

Heathclif - cutting through all the complexity and nuances of forecasting, in my simple mind I can't see an exodus of 100 pupils from Twickenham to RPA. Hence I would put my money on having around 100 plus spare spaces in 2013.

muminlondon By 2004 things were improving, the nadir of Shene Schools fortunes was back in the 90s when there was knives in the playground and it's gates had to be policed after a series of assaults on passers by. It only survived by drawing pupils along the Upper Richmond Road, Christ's was in a similar predicament. They both really did lose the confidence of their community entirely . Christ's has shown that that can be overcome. Greycourt is of course a lesson in how schools can sink or rise. www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/nov/02/schools.teachersworkload

jotwick We will see. I wouldn't put money on it because there are so many unknowns. I am actually hearing more substantive negatives about TA than RPA. People are impressed with the leadership and what they have achieved at RPA. It is just that Sheen parents have for so long pursued other options, I know one family who couldn't afford to go private who sent their son to a school in Wandsworth and their daughter to the Green School in Hounslow! It takes time to change that sort of culture of seeking other options.

Grey Court was definitely the most popular until about 10 years ago, right up to 2003 when the previous head had become ill. A similar thing happened to a relative of mine, a head who was off for cancer treatment while Ofsted was in. So glad it is back on form and popularity - I think it is a fantastic school.

Sorry, wasn't Barnes Primary but Lowther that had the link with Orleans, until 2000. Still a wider catchment than you'd see today.

Human Rights Blog, written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers, offers this handy summary of the JR:

The Court?s reasoning: Sales J found that the Council had made clear its provisional view that there was not a current need for a new state school in its area and its provisional view that introduction of the Catholic schools proposed by the Diocese would be beneficial, in that they would increase diversity of school provision. Section 6A of the Education Act, which would have triggered an obligation to consider proposals for an Academy, was therefore not engaged as no general need had been identified. The judge did not agree with the claimants? case that

whenever a local authority considers that it might be beneficial for there to be additional educational provision in the form of establishing a new school in its area, it must be taken to think that there is a ?need? to establish a new school, in the sense in which that term is used in section 6A.

In short, he did not accept the claimants? argument that the duty in section 6A trumps any other procedure under Part 2 of the 2006 Act. There was no clear language in the Act to suggest that Parliament had intended that provision to operate to disapply the obligation of a local authority to consider other proposals (for schools apart from Academies) on their merits.

As for the second part of the challenge, the attack on the lack of reasons in the consultation paper, there was no further mileage for the claimants. The judge did not agree that there was anything misleading in the Council?s paper. In particular, it contained no express statement that the Council considered that there was a current ?need? (in the technical section 6A sense) for new schools to be established on the Site; nor was there any implied representation to that effect.

Can anyone answer this question? Is there a difference between 'published admission number (PAN)' and 'standard intake'? I don't know if it has been explained before but I'm looking at the 2013 PAN in the December applications report (and Clifden consultation), standard intake in the secondary school admissions brochure and admission numbers published in March. For example, the committee report has:

Grey Court 200 (240 published in March, 210 in brochure)
Hampton Academy 180 (210 in brochure)
Richmond Park Academy 220 (also 220 in brochure but 180 on website)
Twickenham Academy 180 (200 in brochure)

So now I don't know which figures will be used for them to calculate spare capacity - Grey Court will definitely be full but there's a discrepancy of 90 places for the academies, which probably won't be.