Underprovision of primary places and impact of faith selection

[Heathclif]

RISC have just brought out a report which highlights the pressure on primary school places in several areas of the borough and especially where faith-based admissions to local church primary schools are significantly restricting the choices available to non-churchgoing parents. www.richmondinclusiveschools.org.uk/latest-news/report-on-2013-primary-school/

I find this particularly depressing since fifteen years ago we were two of those parents with no school place for our child, and experienced the break up of the local community that had grown up in Sheen in anti natal groups, toddler groups and nursery school as those who could afford it moved or went private (we did both), or parents were left to worry until allocated a school place, often far away.

It is hard to believe that the Council has not only continued with it's strategy of lagging provision behind demand in order to ensure it has no spare places (even though the government policy is that Councils should have 5% spare capacity to help ensure parents have a choice of local primary school, particularly important where local faith schools select on faith and further restrict the choice of local school places for parents who do not meet the selection criteria) but that the understandable desperation of anxious parents has led to a sharp increase in demand for faith school places in schools that give priority to parents who fulfil their faith criteria. The result is that parents who live in certain areas who are not of certain faiths, find their choices further limited.

How do other parents feel about this? What are your experiences? Feel free to vent. It is rumoured that certain Officers in the Education Department read these threads Who knows it may jog someone's conscience to actually do something about this unfairness and discrimination.

The education department is led by the political agenda of councillors. That's a democratically accountable process and the Catholic school was in the manifesto. Nationally the debate on faith schools is fairly confused. The 50% cap on faith allocations is a fiasco, not the fair-minded policy it is trumpeted to be when there is no agreed cap on the number of religious schools - half of new free schools have some religious sponsor and many are set up in areas of surplus places.

Personally, I am not interested in sending my child in a faith school at all, even with a full inclusive policy. But if there is both demand from those who are not religious and need - as in the case of SMSP - then there is a strong case for change.

One thing the Conservatives would probably point out is that Turing House was just a secondary school proposal while the Catholic school afforded 30 more primary places that would not otherwise have existed. Catholics would probably point out that it is unusual to have a school where a proportion of places are reserved for non-Catholics so that was a concession. I'm sure you disagree.

"One thing the Conservatives would probably point out is that Turing House was just a secondary school proposal while the Catholic school afforded 30 more primary places that would not otherwise have existed."

No they wouldn't, because they know the Turing House team have always been open to the idea of accommodating/running a primary school if they could get a site big enough. And SEN provision too for that matter.

However, all that is water under the bridge now.

If the primary had been proposed to open before the secondary perhaps Michael Gove might have approved it, although at that stage the free school programme was all about meeting demand for alternative provision or quality not need - quality is generally very high at primary level in this borough. The council didn't want the secondary to open in 2013 while there was surplus capacity in Twickenham and Hampton Academies before completion of buildings works or an Ofsted report. It's still a very complex issue.

mum The education department is led by the political agenda of councillors. That's a democratically accountable process That is a bit naive in my experience. The lines between the executive and the politically accountable elected representatives is a blurred one, with tension built in by the differing accountabilities and influences. I was told by a Councillor, in relation to the Planning and Transport executives, that it can be very hard to impose politically driven change that runs counter to the culture of those departments. The executive departments have their own cultures, outside influences, professional standards, and are of course also formally accountable, and can be overridden by the Planning Inspectorate, DofE, OFSTED etc. It is a constant process of negotiation. The Education (or Planning, I have particular experience of both) Executive's advice on policy and actions has to be taken seriously but in my experience does not always come over as objective and free of influence, and indeed can be, and sometimes is overridden by Councillors or other Government executives.

I think both parties have been guilty of endorsing the status quo in terms of the priorities of the Education Strategy, though it must be said that both Knight and Eady have tried and continue to try to sway the Governors at individual faith schools in their capacity as Governors, whereas certainly at least one of my Conservative Councillors has proactively sought, and achieved, greater inclusivity in the schools he is a Governor at.

Why I wonder was an Inclusive Primary School that would have helped avoid a lot of Central Twickenham parents being left without a school place not made a condition of handing the Clifden site to the Catholic Church? If the provision of inclusive local primary school places had been the priority it would have been. There was an argument to be had about the needs/desires for a Catholic Secondary School but Whitfield conceded at the Cabinet Meeting that made the decision on the Schools that Catholic Primary School places were neither desired or needed.

I don't disagree there have been many mistakes and delays by the council and a tension between politicians and executive. But it has also faced interference from central government too and regulation from Ofsted:

2001 Ofsted criticism of LEA (under LibDems) - Concerns include poor financial planning and school place planning. Ofsted recommended restructuring department led by a director of education ( which we have now).

2003 Ofsted says LEA now highly satisfactory (under Conservatives) - 'the effective leadership of the director of education has been a critical factor in implementing the improvements'

2006 Ofsted says schools service among best in capital (under LibDems)

2007 Bulge classes (under LibDems) proliferated apparently because the Labour government hadn't allocated any since 2005 (or was it because they spent £25 million on Teddington?). And five years later we have the mysterious fluctuating catchment areas...

And so on ...

It's also worth pointing out that our Director of Education has been trying to sort out Kingston where its children's services department has been branded inadequate - again. I think he has his hands full. They've been preoccupied with their new school in north Kingston but four of their comprehensives were undersubscribed last year according to the admissions brochure.

It's a shame 'Middlesex' got just a one-form Hampton CE primary through the free school process. The idea of waiting for committed parents to propose schools is absurd. If there had been a choice and a local consultation, would parents have preferred a community school run by the council?

There's an interesting map of London boroughs here which shows the school place crisis. If you thought it was bad in Richmond, have a look at three-quarters of the rest of London - Newham is the worst.

Richmond is doing better than neighbouring Hounslow or Wandsworth which already have shortages although some children in those LAs may have places in Richmond in schools near their boundaries.

muminlondon2: the total is 22 not 21 as the council web page has not been updated to add St Richard Reynolds roman catholic 1FE.

9 classes were added 2000-2006; then 2009 1; 2010 2; 2011 6; 2012 2; and 2013 2. Each extra class = 7 x 30 = 210 places, so the total = 22 x 210 = 4620 places. Next year 2 further classes will be added, at Nelson and Vineyard schools.

Add to this 2 free schools new this year: St Mary’s Hampton 1 FE; and Thomson House AN = 52.

22 x 30 new reception places = 660 out of an intake of about 2240 primary pupils this year. So that has grown by about 40%. The most problematic of those extra classes are the 'shared entry' rotating bulge classes which then generate a lot of siblings a year or two later.

In next Tuesday's council meeting Councillor Eady has asked a question on primary school places:

“How many children in each ward were offered places in this September’s
reception classes which were neither their first nor second choice school
and were further than 1km away from their home?”

Further questions I would have are: (a) his ward only has one school and it's a Church of England school that prioritises churchgoers, so if his ward is affected by this problem what has he done about it? (b) how many people only put one preference? I hear it's hundreds, and (c) how many people put schools down as 1st preference that is not the nearest and more than 1 km away?

"how many people only put one preference? I hear it's hundreds."

It is. There's some figures in paragraph 6 of next week's Admissions Forum documentation. However, many of them will be siblings, or people who are otherwise confident of getting a place. There will be some who are being unrealistic/unwise, and many of those may intend to go private if their luck doesn't come in, but its not possible to know how many are in that category from the raw figures.

I saw that data - curious to know what the admissions forum makes of it but I guess I will have to wait for the minutes. But was also intrigued to see the number who turn down first preference offers at oversubscribed primaries - 10 at Archdeacon Cambridge for example. But good for waiting list families, obviously. From the figures the happiest and most settled parents are the ones applying to Chase Bridge ...

Just to be clear on SMSP, they have in the last couple of years (certainly this year and last) reduced faith catchment to Teddington roads only. So, you have to be living in a parish road and attending church to get in if you are applying for a faith place. In the past it WAS the case that a child in Hampton/HH could get in but they have now changed it.