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.

"I somehow doubt the parents or LA had much say in the new sponsor..."

No, it sounds like they were lucky to get a sponsor at all. I wonder if the LA would have kept it open if it was a maintained school. Presumably the Conservative council isn't claiming that it would. The anti-academy sub-text of the story seems to have been added by other commentators.

The school's results don't appear to be very good, so perhaps a change in sponsor will breathe new life into it.

If they were lucky to get a sponsor it explains what is wrong with the dependence on sponsored academies as a system for school improvement. And also on the willingness of parents/sponsors to set up free schools - leave it up to the 'market' and you get cherry picking and gaps in provision.

Not good results though. To be fair it is in a grammar area competing with Margaret Thatcher's old school. But the trust that gave it up also received a warning letter from the DfE for poor performance. Could this story have been set up to allow the trust to exit while saving face?

"Could this story have been set up to allow the trust to exit while saving face?"

Well that would be a cynic's view. My reading of the chain of events is this:

1. The LA couldn't sustain the (rural, under-subscribed, poor- performing) school, so they were happy for it to convert to an academy in 2011 rather than close it down.
2. The academy trust weren't successful in turning round the school's performance (though it sounds like an uphill struggle in the circumstances, given the school's undersubscription).
3. The Government decided to close it down.
4. The local Conservative Council Leader stuck his neck out to keep it open, and was luckily able to secure the interest of another academy trust, specialising in small rural schools, run by a former (wealthy) local resident who might be relied on to have a go at saving the school.

The school has had an eleventh-hour reprieve, and good luck to it! It probably wouldn't have survived at all under the maintained system.

If the council wanted to keep it open anyway, are you saying maintained schools get less funding than academies and that is why it couldn't have been sustained as an LA school? Or if that funding is augmented by some sort of new academy grant, isn't that just deferring the risk that the cycle is repeated in three more years?

David Ross may have been successful in running Carphone Warehouse but I'd like to know his record in running schools. I think the trust has expanded rapidly under this government and it gas about 20 schools. Both continuity for the pupils and a quality sponsor will be important.

Mum in London thanks for that explanation of Value Added. It's still hard to understand in relation to real life however. I can see that with with so many children achieving at least Level 5 in the Borough then LB Richmond needs to get higher GCSE results than most local authorities to still be adding value but no one really says that a Richmond child should be getting 8 As or whatever just to be fulfilling its average potential! And, as has been said, it's unfair to compare Hampton and Twickenham Academy with some of the other secondaries just on a league table basis but people keep doing it.

Presumably local authorities now have a vested interest in making sure all these small local secondary schools stay open in order to save transport costs? As they don't have to take the flak if it goes wrong again they may no longer be objectively looking at what is in the best educational interests of the students who could be better off in a larger school with more choice of subjects, better teachers etc?

"are you saying maintained schools get less funding than academies and that is why it couldn't have been sustained as an LA school?"

No, they get the same, although it may have had an injection of cash when it converted (and yes, that might have been the only thing that sustained it for a while).

I'm not defending the decision to convert this particular school (or any school) to an academy, but the Government's argument would be that it could be run more efficiently by an academy trust. The LA presumably had to maintain a wide variety of schools, some urban, some rural, all with different needs, and this one was falling through the cracks. Their assumption would be that self-management was the only way to keep the school open.

Clearly those efficiency savings weren't proven by the first academy trust that took the school on, so it'll be interesting to see if the second attempt is more successful. I have no idea whether the Carphone Warehouse guy is any good at running schools or not, but presumably his Trust has been approved as an academy sponsor, suggesting that the DfE is satisfied that he is. Time will tell if they're right!

The other co-founder of Carphone Warehouse is also an academy sponsor but without much success so far. I must admit I'd feel much more confident with an academy sponsor run by education consultants ...

LProsser the performance tables show average point scores here and the LA average is above national for all ability groups. But there is also a 'similar schools' measure which ranks them against a group of 55 most similar schools according to intake. The majority of Richmond schools are around the middle of their group - which does NOT mean they are underperforming but at the level you'd expect. Teddington is in the middle of a group with lots of RC schools and partially selectives even though it has no social selection beyond location. Waldegrave and Grey Court meanwhile are in the top 7% of their similar schools groups (NOT top 30% Cllr Eady - where did you get that from???). That is, no doubt, why they got letters from David Laws!

The RTT has “New School Site Secured” (p 7) and “Keeping faith with school policy” (p 21)

The first reports that Turing House school is negotiating to buy the Imperial College playing fields in Udney Park Road, Teddington.

The second is a letter from from Jeremy Rodell criticising the admission policy of St Mary’s & St Peter’s School, Teddington.

Wow thanks for the news, we live very close to that site... That's interesting, as we're in the catchment for Teddington School as well. Do you know what the admission criteria is for Turing House, beyond 2015?

Off topic but if this school will be succesful - and it looks like it's got good chances - wondering how that will affect already high property prices in Teddington.

Interesting. Bang in the middle of Teddington's catchment, as it stands. But the report also says 'Imperial has not entered into any deal of this kind, nor is it about to.'

There have been various rumours about sites. When a site is secured and the school is able to announce something it'll be on the website (and go out to the mailing list of course).

txtedd, there's some information about future admission policy on the "Admissions Point" page of the website. (Sorry, looks like the server isn't responding at the moment so I can't give you the direct page link).

Thanks BayJay.

Wondering if the site will be announced in the next couple of weeks before offers are made.

lxtedd, you'll just have to be patient and wait for news via the website/mailing list I'm afraid.

I wonder how the RTT got that story? Also very confusing that the RTT says offer letters will be sent out in 28 February when the secondary admissions brochure says pupils will receive an offer letter on 4 March.

RET's Hove school is still without a permanent site. Plans for a recreation ground site were scrapped, although that land was owned by the council so may have been a more realistic proposal. There was also a plan to take over MOD buildings but perhaps the MOD also said no. I can't check the school website at the moment.

I think the Turing team have done very well to at keeping their search for a site a secret for so long. Now someone has been gossiping and the RTT have judged the rumour strong enough to run on an inside page with a ? mark even though it has been firmly denied; note that they haven’t published it on their front page or on their website which would give the story much greater currency in the short term.

This is an unconfirmed rumour, no more. We must wait and see!

However . . a Teddington councillor told me last week that the Imperial site was one that was being looked at. This might be a strong hint or it might be deliberate misdirection.

Yes, my impression is that an approach may have been made by the EFA on behalf of RET, but the denial by Imperial College seems categorical. The playing fields appear to be in active use.

Perhaps Sport England would make an objection, as they did in this case.

Still, the association with NPL and now Imperial College sounds like good PR for a science school, however unlikely the plans are.

Muminlondon, you're getting carried away by conspiracy theories again.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but the source of the story hasn't been identified. Imperial College and Richmond council gave comments that contradicted the headline.

The flood risk map for Teddington shows that much of it (east of Kingston Road) is in Flood Zone 2 (light blue > .1 % risk p.a.) and some is in Zone 3 (dark blue > 1% risk p.a.). Haymarket’s TV studios, which they wish to develop for housing, is all in the dark blue.

These risk estimates will surely be raised after this year’s floods so streets, now in Zone 2, may be regarded as being in Zone 3 - rightly or wrongly, only future floods will decide. I don’t see how the council can grant permission for building houses on this site, against existing national policy which is sure to be tightened up.

The Imperial College Athletic Ground in Udney Park Road is outside the flood risk areas.

Hi, the rumour about Imperial College Sports Grounds was being aired on Twitter last week but being a tactful correspondent I didn't mention it here!

Chris I agree about Teddington Studios - it's in the highest risk zone for flooding and they want to put at least 200 homes there plus extensive underground carparking etc. Mad mad mad....!! I raised this with someone who works n quite a relevant job at the Council and he said they aren't allowed to talk about it! I know they need the money for the new school and rebuild at Egerton Road but I wonder if they couldn't actually get it from Central Government plus some housing on the site and how much they really need Haymarket to move in too.

More news on the fraud investigation at Barnfield College which 'wrongly claimed' 1m of funding for students which didn't exist. The chair, Sir Peter Birkett, left Barnfield to join GEMS UK in July last year, after which it proposed a new primary for Richmond. However, he stepped down from that post in December 2013.

He was featured in a Guardian article in 2012 about running colleges and schools for profit, and named as one of Gove's magnificent seven.

Turing House's website is up and running again, and clearly says that applicants will be emailed on 3 March with letters posted that day.

There is also news posted on Thomson House School's website which I don't remember seeing in the RTT. A new 'headmistress' appointed, and a planning application turned down at 27 Sheen Lane.

Today’s RTT has (p 30) Unhappy with admission policy: a letter from Cllr Virginia Morris complaining about the refusal of a place at the Mount for her daughter, which she describes as “tantamount to child cruelty”; and one from Susan Birmingham, a Liberal Democrat candidate for Riverside ward, criticising the exclusive admission policies of some of our Anglican schools.

We discussed Cllr Morris’s complaint in September (starts Sep 18).

See also my post December 20. Her letter today doesn’t mention her court case.

The RTT also reports (p 10) on the completion of Waldegrave’s sixth-form buildings and (p 16) the appointment of Tracy Ward as head teacher of Twickenham Academy, replacing Nick Jones from September. No details are given of who she is or where she’s from. LinkIn reveals that she is Head of Centre & Deputy Head of Service (Interim Post) at Woodbridge Park Education Centre Chertsey.

On p 28 news of a bid for a new free school from the The Green School Trust, Isleworth, for boys 7+.

And a new principal for Twickenham Academy reported in the RTT and on the school website.

No further news on the mystery source of the Imperial College playing field site story. Oddly, the one letter opposed to such a plan implies criticism of the council, even though they are not involved in buying or selling the land.