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.

"Not directly to push exam results up but to give it a middle class USP"

Hmm, this looks like a High Performance Tennis Centre wanting guaranteed local school places for its athletes, who are re-locating to the area, rather than something primarily driven by the school.

Putting it into perspective, the tennis coaching seems to me the sort of opportunity that might otherwise only be available to children at private schools, so making it available in partnership with a state school is perhaps a positive step not a negative one. Why shouldn't state school pupils have the chance of becoming a future Wimbledon Champion? Surely state schools can have strong USPs without being accused of base motives?

However, like I said before, I'd ideally like to see the club/school doing lots of community outreach - identifying and nurturing talent through a scholarship scheme for primary-age children who can't afford tennis lessons. That doesn't leap out from the websites, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I suppose they'd defend the sibling link on the grounds that they want qualifying families to relocate to the area, which might otherwise be difficult.

See here for an example of one of the potential tennis scholars,

And there are schemes to provide grants for financially challenged tennis players. There are a couple of Cheam students on the list.

Dominic West?!

Yes I think they want to appeal to pupils who would otherwise go to private schools. I can understand they need a buffer against the influence of the grammars - shame they can't provide this expertise to local children without testing for aptitude. It's not the worst example of selection but part of a continuum. The governors of the Oratory may argue that taking children who have sung in church choirs is also nurturing talent.

If you text search the page for "Cheam" you'll find the two I meant. I was just avoiding spreading their names around online. They'll have enough of that in the future if they're successful!

"The governors of the Oratory may argue that taking children who have sung in church choirs is also nurturing talent."

The thing is, if the Oratory were testing for music aptitude, it wouldn't be against the admissions code. But they're not.

I think the "aptitude" concept gets the balance right. It's complicated to test objectively, so it will put off schools who aren't genuinely committed to nurturing talent and providing opportunities ... I don't think it can be considered an "easy" way of changing a school's demographic. If it was then it would be much more common!

Also, I don't agree that those budding tennis stars would all go to private schools if they couldn't get into Cheam. Some would, but many would simply drop out of the system because they couldn't afford it. Isn't that why we haven't had a great track record in tennis over the years? Hopefully that's changing, especially with the Olympic legacy.

".. so it will put off schools who aren't genuinely committed to nurturing talent ...."

Actually, I should have said it will put off schools who don't genuinely have the expertise to nurture talent. I think most schools are genuinely committed to nurturing talent, as they should be. However, a school like Cheam clearly has something special to offer even beyond tennis courts and an aspirational PE department (which many schools have).

The RTT has (p 24) ‘Claims have little foundation’ from Cllr Gareth Roberts, Lib Dem spokesperson for schools, responding to Cllr Samuels’ letter last week.

More insight into Watford Girls Grammar by mumsnetters local to that school. BayJay you didn't comment on my concerns about an aptitude test used on top of partial selection by general ability, or how the sibling rule turns it into a closed shop. In the case of Watford Girls/Boys they have 10% music aptitude on top of 25% general ability. Yet with siblings it reduces the catchment to a fraction of what you might find for Richmond secondary schools.

"BayJay you didn't comment on my concerns about an aptitude test used on top of partial selection by general ability, or how the sibling rule turns it into a closed shop"

Well Muminlondon, if it was up to me I'd get rid of that bit of the admissions code which allows academically selective grammar schools to persist in some areas.

The Watford sibling policy is interesting. I'd have thought it was in breach of the spirit of, though certainly not the letter of, clause 1.9j of the admissions code:

"they must not ... in designated grammar schools that rank all children according to a pre-determined pass mark and then allocate places to those who score highest, give priority to siblings of current or former pupils".

(They don't have a pre-determined pass mark, and it's not all of their pupils, so they're ok).

The bit about prioritising siblings from the boys' school is allowed by section 1.12 of the code. I don't particularly have a problem with that (other than, as you say, when its combined with other forms of selection it does create a bit of a closed shop).

I wonder if the proposed Green School for Boys in Hounslow will do the same.

It does say 'at least 50% of the places at The Green School for Boys will be open to those of all faiths or no faith.'. I remember a discussion on an earlier thread about whether 50% open places could in fact be reserved if siblings were prioritised above that category but original applicants of the school had mainly come under faith criteria. I think it may have been in reference to Becket Keys but I have seen other faith free schools which do the same. There's a subtle difference in emphasis, too, between 'at least 50% of places will be open to those of all faiths and no faith' and 'after llooked after/SEN/siblings etc. up to 50% of the remaining places will be offered to applicants who meet the “faith criterion”'.

In reference to an earlier debate
more insight from the Head of KGS. www.kgs.org.uk/Mainfolder/pdfsanddocs/Headsletters/Spring-2014/Week4Headslettertoparents.pdf

Sorry Lottie I was not more helpful on GCSE but mum was as always better informed. I am just grateful that we are almost past Gove's influence.

Mum, I don't think you can read too much into the Green's wording because they're at an early stage and haven't necessarily thought through the nuances of their admissions policy yet. RISC had some interesting correspondence with them. In summary RISC were encouraging them to go for 100% open admissions in line with Diocesan policy. They replied to say that was unlikely because they would want to treat boys and girls across both schools equally. RISC then suggested they increased the inclusivity of the girls' school to 50:50 inline with the cap that will apply at the proposed boys' school. There was no commitment on that, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

On your other point about the treatment of siblings, I think the end result is the same whether you do the 50:50 split before or after taking into account of siblings, provided you assume (and it's potentially a controversial assumption) that siblings share the same religious background.

Gove's latest wheeze:

The Guardian has: Reception children to face compulsory tests from 2016 - Four and five-year-olds to face basic literacy and reasoning tests within weeks of starting school:

. . The tests will take place in the first weeks of reception class, when most children will be aged four, and will be designed to give teachers and schools a clearer idea of each child's abilities at the start of their formal schooling. The tests are to be carefully crafted to estimate a child's "baseline" abilities in very basic literacy, reasoning and cognition, rather than testing their knowledge as in a traditional examination.

. . To counter the likely criticism from parents, unions and academics concerned at the additional stress for pupils and teachers, the DfE is likely to abolish the current key stage one tests that take place at the end of year two, when most pupils are aged seven.

. . The coming week is expected to see a series of announcements around education and early years coming from the DfE and No 10 . .

The position of the sibling priority would make a difference if initial demand from faith applicants was higher but they were still successful under distance criteria. The number of community places would reduce and therefore siblings from that group would stay low. The net outcome may be the same in terms of numbers of available places but if the intake started 'churchy' it would continue that way. The converse is true. Probably hard to shift back again.

If the boys' school took siblings from the girls' school, it would certainly reduce the number of community places from the outset.

Anyway, the intake at girls's school would not change much if it named the boys's school but kept priority within its current categories. Although the specific priority of attendance at a CofE primary could distort things further.

The problem with either Green School prioritising on feeder primary schools or distance is its more more concentrated effect on neighbouring schools. That would include St Margaret's and Twickenham. There's less impact on the make-up of neighbouring schools when there is a faith criterion with a cap on numbers taken from the immediate area, or random allocation - or both, like StRR.

"The position of the sibling priority would make a difference if initial demand from faith applicants was higher but they were still successful under distance criteria"

If, like most schools around here, it is successful and therefore oversubscribed, it's very unlikely that unsuccessful faith applicants would get in under distance criteria. Catchment areas for CE/Catholic faith criteria at successful schools tend to be wider than distance catchments (in fact the general logic for introducing faith criteria is to prioritise faith applicants who live too far away to get in on distance).

However, even if they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't think schools should reserve places for "non-faith" applicants any more than they should reserve them for faith applicants. The wording of the legislation as it applies to religious free schools is that 50% of places should be allocated "without reference to faith". That's very different to saying they have to be allocated to people without faith.

"The wording of the legislation as it applies to religious free schools is that 50% of places should be allocated "without reference to faith". That's very different to saying they have to be allocated to people without faith."

It's also something that is fundamentally (and possibly disingenuously) misunderstood by many; including by some anti-faith-school campaigners, but also by the Catholic Education Service when they say "Why would we open a free school and end up turning away Catholic pupils on the grounds that they are Catholics while accepting others on the Grounds that they are not Catholics. That's a perverse disincentive ...".

In fact, they would be accepting 50% of children on the grounds that they were Catholic, and the other 50% on the grounds that they wanted to come to a Catholic school whether they were Catholic or not. There would probably still be a lot (possibly even a majority) of Catholics in that second group.

"There would probably still be a lot (possibly even a majority) of Catholics in that second group."

Before someone else points it out, I realise that word "probably" seems to contradict the first para of my 13:13:25 post, where I said it was "unlikely" that faith applicants would trump distance for open places at popular schools.

The extent to which that happens obviously depends on how popular the school is, and what the alternative choices are for distance applicants.

However, I'm also thinking of applicants who would consider themselves Catholic/CE/whatever, but who don't qualify to get in under faith criteria, e.g. a child with Catholic parents or grandparents who hasn't been baptised, and never been to church, but who might nevertheless be interested in attending a Catholic school.

If you compare Green School for Girls with St RR there's a big emphasis at the former on church attendance and/or attendance at a CofE primary. But at StRR, baptism is the basic criteria. So (depending on demand) it might be easier for lapsed Catholics to attend StRR than lapsed Anglicans to attend the Green School.

I noticed that the Nishkam West London school demands completion of a supplementary form even for 'open' places - which Christ's doesn't do. I doubt many non-Sikhs would even consider putting it down as a preference but if the Green School for Boys required an extra form it would put off some 'community' applicants, for a lower preference at least. Anyway, it hasn't been approved yet, has it? I suspect the girls' school will not change its policy in any case.

"If you compare Green School for Girls with St RR there's a big emphasis at the former on church attendance and/or attendance at a CofE primary. But at StRR, baptism is the basic criteria"

I know some CE vicars prefer not to use baptism criteria, because it would encourage non-believers to explicitly lie in order to get a school place. (When a child is baptised, specific promises are made by their parents in relation to faith).

Some would say non-believers lie anyway when they temporarily attend church to get a school place, but there's technically no more lying involved in that than there is in attending church for a wedding or a funeral. There's not generally a sign on the door saying "believers only beyond this point". In fact, many vicars welcome the idea of encouraging non-believers, because a percentage of families who start attending church in the pre-school years do actually continue to attend after they've got their school place.

Mum the selection criteria for St RR is worded "Baptised Catholic children
from
practising
Catholic
families," and that is further defined as "A
Catholic
from
a
practising
Catholic
family
where
this
practice
is
verified
by
a
reference
from
a
Catholic
priest
in
the
standard
format
laid
down
by
the
Diocese
of
Westminster.
‘Family’
includes
the
Catholic
or
Catholics
who
have
legal
responsibility
for
the
candidate

(sorry I don't know why it has formatted my cut and paste in that way ) You really do not get very far with entry to an oversubscribed Catholic School in London without a priest's reference to the effect that you are truly a practising family, as well as evidence of baptism . Indeed some priests will not give a reference if a family start turning up in the year or two before the admissions process. It isn't particularly consistent either. However lapsed Catholic families would not stand a chance unless they can pull some strings with a priest.

Interestingly though I have just noticed that the school are not insisting on baptism before six months, something that causes a lot of difficulty for genuinely devout families from Easter Europe where baptism before six months is not the practise, when applying to schools like Gunnersbury, Cardinal Vaughan and Oratory. That may explain why they have pupils travelling from the Gunnersbury catchment.

At primary level it doesn't matter, does it, if baptism is the minimum criterion, because the school provides opportunities for children to participate in religious traditions and services that the parents might otherwise ignore.

But by secondary school all of this gets too problematic. Firstly because the child is the one attending school, so how often the parents go to church is less relevant than whether the child is interested or familiar with the tradition. And secondly because the dual system of church and community schools is as archaic as the bipartite/tripartite selective system (which never slotted together well in the first place). Now there's further fragmentation with academies and LA-maintained schools as the Church of England and Catholic Education Service themselves have acknowledged, albeit from different standpoints.

Heathclif I think that defines 'practising' but criteria 3 and 4 are just 'other baptised children'.

mum I think we can fairly safely assume, based in particular on the word of the Diocesan Education Officer, that within four years the school will be virtually the only Catholic option for all those families who have met the strict criteria to access the Catholic Primary Schools (and those do require baptism by 6 months as well as a priest's reference to the effect the family are practising) and it is unlikely they will be selecting beyond criteria 2.

For info, the Year 7 applications report for Sept 2014 entry has now been published, here.

'within four years ... it is unlikely they will be selecting beyond criteria 2'

From the 2014 application figures it does look like StRR has reached that point already, Heathclif as it's even more popular than Christ's. And that's despite little change to the priority Richmond/Twickenham Catholic pupils have at Hounslow RC schools.