Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5

[BayJay2]

Welcome! This is the latest in a series of threads about Richmond schools, which was first triggered by the council's publication of its Education White Paper in February 2011.

Please do join in the chat. There’s a bunch of us who’ve been following the thread for a long time, and we sometimes get a bit forensic, but new contributions are always welcome, and if it’s something that’s been covered before we can always direct you to that part of the thread.

We generally talk about local education policy, the impact of national policy, the performance of the borough’s schools, and admissions-related issues. We began by talking about Secondaries, but tend to talk a lot about primaries too, so the title of the thread has evolved this time to take that into account.

If you have a few hours to spare and want to catch up on 2 years of local education history, then below are the links to the old threads. We have to keep starting new threads because each only hold 1000 posts. The first two threads run in parallel, as one was started on the national Mumsnet site, and another on the local one:

1a) New Secondaries for Richmond Borough?: Mumsnet Secondary Education (Feb 2011 – Nov 2011)
1b) New Secondary schools for Richmond!: Mumsnet Local (Feb 2011 – Nov 2011)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2: Mumsnet Local (Nov 2011 – May 2012)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 3: Mumsnet Local (May 2012 – Nov 2012)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 4: Mumsnet Local (Nov 2012 – Oct 2013)

1. This thread: Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5: Mumsnet Local (Oct 2013 - ????)

Finally, to find out how to add links, as well as smilies and emphasis, see these Mumsnet guidelines.

muminlondon2: "in many cases while they have been set up extremely quickly ... it's taken a long time for Ofsted to do a full inspection and separate investigations into finance"

All free schools have a pre-opening Ofsted inspection, and then another one towards the end of their second year. (The 2012 openers are starting to have their inspections now).

The financial regulation has its own procedures and timetable. In the Bradford case I understand the EFA reported the irregularity at an early stage, but the Gvt agency they reported it to didn't act on it. I expect the negative press they received for that will make them act differently next time.

"All free schools have a pre-opening Ofsted inspection, and then another one towards the end of their second year."

And of course an earlier inspection can be performed if there are specific reasons for concern, as has happened in some cases. It's the same for any new school (SRR will be inspected on the same timetable).

The Ofsted pre-opening check is a very basic checklist, though, and sometimes with the answer 'not known' or otherwise qualified, e.g 'The procedures in place are likely to meet requirements.' See Kings Science Academy check: suitability of staff, supply staff, and proprietors are assessed according to whether CRB checks have been made, and nothing at all to do with qualifications, any 'fit and proper person' test. No mention of finances, or of governors either, or who chairs them - yet Kings Science Academy appeared to have had no chair of governors for 12 months.

So if the DfE is relying on Ofsted for sifting out risk, it is passing the buck in a mind-blowingly reckless fashion! Obviously there should be other much more 'rigorous' (Gove's favourite word) checks in place. It is scary to think that 17% of free school applications with a low suitability score were approved. Even Discovery New School itself criticises government policy for being 'rushed and ill-considered'.

Another interesting thing about the pre-opening check is that all it concludes is 'is registration recommended? yes' yet several free schools have been criticised or censured by the Advertising Standards Association for claiming they have been rated 'excellent' or have 'passed with flying colours'. These include a Seckford Foundation school in Suffolk. I haven't seen St RR make such claims but there would be plenty willing to report them to the ASA if they did!

And if the Ofsted pre-registration check is the same for both StRR and Kings Science Academy, the similarity ends there because as a maintained school StRR will be inspected also by the LA, as well as the Catholic Education Service very early on. Free schools or other new academies in chains have the support of the chain but the chain itself may be hiding irregularities from the DfE and until now has not been subject to Ofsted inspection. The middle tier problem.

"... nothing at all to do with qualifications, any 'fit and proper person' test... "

If you're meaning the trustees, as opposed to Governers, teachers etc, then that is assessed as part of the pre-approval process.

"So if the DfE is relying on Ofsted for sifting out risk .."
Each free school has a DfE appointed adviser, who assesses the school throughout it's pre-opening phase. There are milestones along the way (such as appointing governors), so if those milestones weren't met that should have been reported to the DfE via that route. It sounds like some things went very wrong in this case.

"Even Discovery New School itself criticises government policy for being 'rushed ..."

I don't think anyone would disagree that the process is rushed. The ability to create schools "at pace" was meant to be one of the advantages of the free school programme. The big winners of that approach are the families who can benefit from successful new schools sooner (after all, if you have a Y6 child, you can't hold them back a year if the new school you've set your hopes on is delayed), and the big losers are the ones who end up in poor quality schools as a result of it. Time will tell whether there are more winners than losers, and of course people will have strong opinions on whether it's acceptable for there to be anyone losing out at all.

"... as a maintained school StRR will be inspected also by the LA, as well as the Catholic Education Service very early on ..."

That's why I mentioned the DfE adviser, who does the equivalent job on behalf of the DfE. (And presumably faith free schools are closely monitored by their diocesan authorities in the same way as maintained faith schools).

Other losers as a consequence of rushing the free schools process are taxpayers - because according to the NAO report the government is paying a lot more for freehold when children are already in temporary premises and the clock is ticking - and the estimated total capital costs for schools opened in LAs with no forecast need are 'at least £241 million out of a projected total of £950 million'.

And the reputation of the schools themselves because they recruit a lot fewer than the planned admission number in temporary premises. Which leads to accusations of being less than successful. If StRR was criticised for not being full on opening, we must bear in mind only 16% of free schools were fully subscribed in their first year.

Muminlondon,the taxpayer argument is a red herring too because the taxpayer will lose out with any sub-optimal system for creating and maintaining schools. Are you sure the taxpayer has been short changed more by the free school programme than they were by BSF? Families living close to Teddington school would probably say no, but what about the ones in Whiitton who missed out on the rebuilding pot at the time because only one local school could benefit? Would it have been a better deal for the taxpayer if the pot had been shared? I don't know the answer to that but it's one to think about.

Obviously creating places where there is no need is wasteful. That's a no-brainer, but it becomes more debatable depending on the various definitions of need.

I agree with you that all new schools need to be given time to become established before people draw too many conclusions about their subscription levels.

As LProsser has pointed out, the argument that free schools are much cheaper than BSF is a red herring too. As they have already changed specifications to make them cheaper, they could and will have applied this to all new schools irrespective of whether free schools or not. In the case of free schools they have cut space by 45%.

But it will take until the schools are full to know if this will have any effect on pupil recruitment, delivery of a full curriculum, or provision of school meals and after school clubs etc. which as we have discussed may affect the diversity of the student intake.

But other issues which point to higher than anticipated costs:

1. The point remains that in when they have opened schools in temporary premises, the government paid 63% over its valuations for these freeholds, compared with 30% on schools that did not need temporary accommodation.

1. Not all the capital costs are known, and are rising - they already spent double the amount intended, around £6.6 million per school. For secondaries this varies from £1.2 million to £36.4 million. I suppose StRR is a good comparison if it will cost £10 million for a 750 place secondary plus sixth form and one form primary. Can't find individual costs now, but both Bristol Free School and West London Free School cost as much or more than that.

1. Even where capital costs are minimal there are other operating costs - for example in converting an independent to a free school, all places are then funded by the state not just Y7 and would otherwise have been private pupils. And the DfE has paid debts as well, e.g. £5 million for a private school in the NE run by the Woodard Trust.

So cheaper overall, but perhaps with false economies, unbudgeted costs (funded by other department 'savings' which could mean cuts to IT provision in other schools for example) and with some potential wastage on places in areas of surplus or school failures like Discovery or Al Madinah. Plus, the NAO doesn't go into the loss to LAs who had closed a previous school on the site and could have used it for other specialist provision, social housing, etc.

"the argument that free schools are much cheaper than BSF is a red herring too"

Yep, quite possibly. Like I said before, no Government seems to have found the perfect model yet.

"when they have opened schools in temporary premises, the government paid 63% over its valuations for these freeholds, compared with 30% on schools that did not need temporary accommodation"

There might be more behind that stat than meets the eye. The ones that didn't need temp accommodation might logically have been in areas where there was good availability of property. Hard to tell without the raw data.

"they already spent double the amount intended.."

The amount intended was ridiculously low. It clearly wasn't as easy to convert office blocks, churches etc as they first thought.

"I suppose StRR is a good comparison.."
Not really, they were in the lucky position of having a building that was already substantially a school building.

Yes, there is not enough detail on why freeholds were more expensive when schools had started in temporary premises. I read it that the EFA would be in a weaker bargaining position but there could be other circumstances too. Generally I think it is unwise to open a school when the permanent site has not been secured - as a parent I would certainly avoid that extra risk and uncertainty on top of all the other risks - but it's understandable where it fits into a refurbishment timetable.

Very interesting commentary on whether there was effective governance at Kings Science Academy, or indeed whether they had a chair or not, here.

" I think it is unwise to open a school when the permanent site has not been secured"

They won't do that now. It's happened in the past, but its one of the things that has evolved. They'll now only secure temp accommodation once the permanent accommodation is secure.

Khalsa Secondary Academy may be one of the last schools caught out by this then. Glad to hear it won't happen from this year.

Interesting to see the SATs results for the Maharishi school in Lancashire. 63% level 4 or above. That's just above floor target but below next year's target. Not a single pupil achieved level 5 or above in reading, writing and maths tests (maths was the worst). Batley Grammar School, the former independent school, also scored very average results, beaten by the majority of Richmond schools at level 5 (it appears not to have even bothered entering pupils at level 6). Nothing about their intake would seem to justify this gap, but we do have some exceptionally good state schools and teachers in this borough.

"Khalsa Secondary Academy may be one of the last schools caught out by this then"

It sounds like the EFA already owns the Khalsa site (which was the definition of 'secure' I was using), because the school is already occupying it. New rules were recently brought in to allow free schools to open up temporarily on sites without planning permission, giving them more time to secure it. It'll be interesting to see what happens next, but presumably the EFA will address the issues that prevented them from gaining permission and then reapply. (Of course it helps if the local council is generally supportive of the school and its proposed site, which perhaps isn't the case for this example!)

You are right, the site has already been purchased for £4.5 million. It's still a really uncertain situation for parents and inflammatory issue for villagers. If the EFA/DfE pushes this through against the wishes of the Tory elected council (38 Tory councillors out of 40) it would not do the reputation of this government or the free school policy much good in the Tory party's traditional heartlands... If they are also affected by HS2 the area could become a UKIP target seat!

There is a very interesting giving background on Khalsa Secondary Academy. It is also a more local issue to us than I thought because some of the intake of the school are expected to come from Hounslow. And there's no mistaking how aghast people would be if the decision were to be overruled.

Primary schools are full, say head teachers

'More than half of those surveyed thought the most practical way to solve the crisis was to open more local authority maintained schools. Just 4% suggested the government's prefered option, of opening more free schools or academies was the best solution.'

A subsidiary aspect of the Khalsa Secondary Academy decision that surprised me is the withdrawal of free transport for children living in Stoke Poges, effectively forcing those parents who can't afford to pay for transport to the secondary school that children from Stoke Poges usually attend to go to a Sikh school. I wonder if that would apply even if they have siblings at the usual secondary school or some other strong reason for going there? It would also be ironic if the school moves out of Stoke Poges after a year or so anyway when presumably their transport would become free again. I suspect there is no plan B to move the school elsewhere though when the site has been purchased (incidentally £4.5 million sounds quite cheap!).

I think this is a problem in a lot of areas - see Essex, Hull, Suffolk, North Yorks.

Axing school transport when new niche and/or small schools have been allowed to open makes no sense - comprehensive mainstream schools rely on a critical mass to deliver a full curriculum. I'm starting to sympathise with the frustration of those in rural areas who say that politicians from right and left ignore the particular problems they have in imposing their blinkered metropolitan solutions on the whole country.

If it stays there it could turn out to be a great school and the site looks much better than most free schools I have heard about locally. However, from the website photos, it doesn't appear to have attracted 50% (or maybe any) non Sikh children yet. It might have been more tactful to let things settle down a bit and wait till the site was permanent before making it the only choice for all children in the village (unless their parents can afford transport/fees elsewhere). Presumably there is, or soon will be, an overall shortage of secondary places in the Slough area so Stoke Poges' parents may soon have no other option. The axing of transport certainly makes a mockery of free schools providing "choice" for parents. The choice to send your child to a non-religious community school never seems to be respected.

The axing of free transport in Essex and Suffolk would have a big impact on their current system - there are lots of selective schools. My friends sent their children a long distance across Essex to the Anglo European School in Ingatestone which is mentioned. That school is not a grammar but has specialised admissions criteria and takes children from a vast catchment area stretching into London so might be a bit sniffy about having to take lots of local children who can no longer be transported elsewhere.

Unless I missed it (correct me if I'm wrong), there didn't seem to be anything concrete behind the villagers' fears that they might lose their transport subsidy just because of the new Sikh school. Many LAs are reviewing their school transport costs, but, as it says in that link, they still have a legal duty to provide free school transport for pupils to attend their nearest suitable school, provided the school is beyond the statutory walking distances.

I expect there is room for manoeuvre around the meaning of the word "suitable", and that is what is being reviewed.

My understanding is that LAs don't generally force parents to accept places at faith schools if they don't want them. I'm not sure if there's a legal requirement to offer an alternative community school place, or whether its just considered "good practice" (anyone know?). Either way, I don't think it would be hard to argue that the new Sikh school wasn't "suitable" for people wanting a community school.

"I'm not sure if there's a legal requirement to offer an alternative community school place, or whether its just considered "good practice" (anyone know?)"

To answer my own question, it's apparently not a legal duty to provide a place in a community school, but there has been at least one successful admissions appeal by a family who argued for one in preference to a faith school place. See the fourth question down here. Perhaps it will become much more of an issue in future as faith schools become more diverse.

"I expect there is room for manoeuvre around the meaning of the word "suitable", and that is what is being reviewed."

Actually the fifth question from the link in my previous post sheds further light on why some LAs are reviewing school transport subsidies - the need to treat children from different backgrounds equally has made it less affordable.

Here in Richmond, travel grants are still available to people for travel to both faith and non-faith schools.

I think there would have been at least one appeal if those allocated Sir RR last year had been forced to send their children there!

I picked up the point about the transport change from the Newsnight report that muminlondon posted a link to on Sunday but that is from last summer so maybe it wasn't implemented. Are children who go to this school from LB Hounslow getting free transport?