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.

Cross-posted with you Chris, but more details on the background of Twickenham Academy's new principal on their website.

Mum in London I don't think the average vicar on the street understands that the Council is not responsible for building new schools any more, especially when he already has a grievance against that Council! Presumably the Council does actually get consulted about the sites purchased by the Government for free schools, although it is hard to see how the Council could give the nod in advance to a site that is currently Metropolitan Open Land. As you say it is quite well used as playing fields at the moment not derelict. Some schools e.g. Newland House use it during the week but maybe there would be agreements to allow continued access to what remained of the playing fields if a school was built.

Latest on the Virginia Morris school places row in Evening Standard:www.standard.co.uk/news/mother-claims-child-cruelty-in-row-over-daughters-school-place-9151427.html

Presumably the Council gave her daughter a place at Darrell as nowhere else was available by the time she had turned down the place at Buckingham and done a month's home education? I suppose her legal challenge must now be on basis that she says she is lower down the waiting list for Sheen Mount than she should be given that she lives 50 yards away not in Hampton as Council alleges. Rather than on former basis that she was only being offered a school place in Hampton. My friend in Kew is thinking of writing to her to say that her children went to Darrell and both of them ended up at Cambridge so it really won't be a problem in the long run!

Working link:

. . The pending court action is against the independent schools admission appeals panel as Ms Morris is “out of time” in challenging the council directly. Ms Morris, her husband Clive Hills and their two children moved in with her mother over Christmas 2012 when their family home was rendered “uninhabitable” by delayed building works.

The house is now without several walls and, due to a cash crisis, is unlikely to be competed for two to three years. Council officials declined offers to visit the property and, according to documents obtained by Ms Morris, suggested that the move — five days before the deadline — was done purely to apply for the school place. The fact that Ms Morris and Mr Hills paid council tax at their Hampton home made that the relevant address, the council insisted.

The council said it had changed its school admission policies “in order to remove any element of doubt as to how temporary addresses would be treated . . It was not made in response to any one specific case, but in response to general concerns from elected members, officers and, most importantly, parents. We have seen no evidence to support Ms Morris’s allegation regarding ‘child cruelty’ and wholly refute it.”

The issue now is maladministration not the rights and wrongs of the original decision.

Surely if the council offered Darell then they must have accepted that they are living in East Sheen as opposed to Hampton unless Darell is the only school with space in the entire borough.

It's a peculiar one and I am not sure where my sympathies lie. I do agree with her though that it isn't right for 4 year olds to not have a chance to prepare and settle in and attend a local school with friends nearby, for that I do have sympathy, but it's unclear exactly what has driven this situation.

I think sometimes with all the admissions hysteria we forget about what is in the best interests of what are really very very young children. Just this week I have been trying to explain to my 3.5yr old that we don't know what school she will go to or if she will know anyone there as she had been asking. I dread to think how it may go if we end up without a place until the summer which isn't entirely unlikely.

DonsDraper But that is the point. Obviously it is hard to comment on the detail but I have known many many 4 year olds left without knowing what school they will be going to. When we lived off Clifford Avenue we were first on the waiting list for Sheen Mount, and third on the list of Darrell but my daughter never rose up either list. Nobody left Darrell (which then had a very inspiring Headmaster, my mum, a teacher, will be pleased to hear the pupils went on to Cambridge because she thought it was a fantastic school making sure every pupil, regardless of background, was encouraged to want to learn. In contrast to Sheen Mount which she found complacent "too many bored looking pupils twiddling their pens")

Near Sheen Mount there were a handful of short let rentals doubtless with extortionate rents where you could move to get your child in. The Council happily provided us with a list of the addresses of those who had got in on sibling preference and there were more than 10 well out of borough, Chiswick etc., including a family who were bought in by a driver from Chelsea. That was 17 years ago. The council has quite rightly put in processes to stop that level of unfairness to local parents. Whatever process they put in to stop that happening is bound to disadvantage someone but balancing unfairness it is unlikely to be on the scale it was in the past. I gather the number of people who have building works and rent in the vicinity of desirable schools over the period of applying / taking up places, presumably making sure Council tax is paid in a way that doesn't disadvantage their application,
is another variant of the phenomenon that has evolved to get round the process.

Virginia Morris's letter was I thought all the more insensitive for her having been part of Council administration that is responsible for the long standing schools strategy that leaves people without places.

I would be surprised if places haven't come up at Holy Trinity as well as Darrell, or the new Free School.

Heathclif do you know at what point the council would override infant class size and actually admit a pupil if nearby schools are full? Does this ever happen or is it the case that the council will offer a school at unreasonable distance instead? Surely the majority of parents can't afford private and even those schools are full (I have called them).

The Darell consultation document had a table that explained the expected place shortages now and for the next few years in Richmond/Kew. I believe for this year it was about 40 places rising to about 60 but I don't have the link at hand. The 'extra' Darell capacity doesn't cover shortage by half.

I recently visited a nursery near Manor Circus for my youngest DC and they told me they had a 5yr old till Jan as the council couldn't find a place. So ironic when you consider that the council appears extremely reluctant to consider delayed starts (summer borns starting at 5 in reception).

It is a very worrying time for a lot of parents.

Dons When you appeal against being not offered a place at a school the board, as I understand it, have to balance your child's need for a place, taking into account any alternative school place offered (or presumably that the Council claim will be offered at some point in the future when waiting lists move) against the issues for the school should they exceed the maximum class size. They almost always come down in favour of the school unless you can demonstrate some overwhelming case in relation to the needs of the family / child. 17 years ago the people who were winning appeals had letters from GPs etc. showing that parents had some physical reason that they could not get their child to Holy Trinity where they had established a bulge class in a portacabin (at that time Holy Trinity was a very unpopular school only half full in the older years). People were literally turning up to the Sheen Mount and Darrell appeals wearing a neck brace or on crutches. That though was 17 years ago so the process may have evolved.

I have every sympathy. That is the thing about the Council's long term education strategy. They claim that it is merely "unfortunate" (Nick Whitfield Head of Education's exact word) that parents do not get offered a place of a school at first allocation but that with bulge classes set up reactively and the fact that lots of parents go private or find other options, by the time school starts all parents will have been offered a place (and he gets to maximise the number of school places filled, even in less popular schools, and balance his budget by minimising the risk of spare capacity). That is however to completely ignore the number of parents who, offered places at distant schools they cannot access logistically (the child who stayed on at nursery had probably been offered a place at a school, I don't think the Council had any pupils who had not been offered a place by September last year, but not necessarily one acceptable to his parents) or faced with the prospect of not having a place at all, are positively deterred into going private or moving (even if they can barely afford it), and all the angst caused to families facing the prospect who cannot afford to go private or move, and the fact that the communities built up in anti natal groups and nurseries etc get broken up. In effect he passes on the risk of his strategy, that there will be children with out a place, on to parents, and it is them who have to take the actions to avoid that happening.

I do hope that you will get a place at a school close to you. If not please write to the papers, your Councillor (who will doubtless claim that this is a new problem, they have been doing that for 17 years at least!!) Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign who are monitoring the impact of the Council's Education Strategy (and you can post on the Facebook page) etc. etc. With an election coming up if enough parents highlight their worry then perhaps the two political parties will listen and propose some substantive change (the current strategy ignores the advice given to Councils that they should operate with 4% spare capacity to ensure parents get the chance of a place in local schools). Part of the problem is that once parents solve their particular problem they tend to become disinterested in the issue, and other parents do not become aware of it until the time comes to apply for places (or when they find themselves without one)

Thanks Heathclif. I think I have seen somewhere that no parent has won an appeal for 2 years with RuT, maybe longer. I think it's largely lip service with infant class size appeals.

I do despair with what seems like their current strategy. It is about maximising capacity/budget and not about children and what is best for them.

Does anyone know of any info sources on Home Educating for Richmond? I'm just thinking of other options here as private just is impossible if we don't get a place that is closeby.

I have read the info from the RISC campaign. I managed to gather from their stats in conjunction with info in press that it is only about half of First born parents of no faith that get a school of their choice which I think is pretty low. The LA always seem to claim there is high level of satisfaction with school places - there is always a press release to that effect claiming that @75% get first choice or something to that effect. When you consider that about @38% are siblings and about another 15% are faith places, you would assume these get first choice, that leaves 75-53=22/47 as a percent of first born parents get what they preferred. Then assuming 7% get no place (this was in the press a month ago), then it is more like 22/40. But the risk of getting no place if you are a first time parent of no faith is really about 15%. Not good odds at all. I would need to relook at the data to explain properly as I'm rambling a bit.

Certainly among other nursery mums there is zero certainty about where kids will go. There has got to be a better way!

Heathclif, much sympathy as always for your situation 17 years ago and that of parents more recently who have to walk past three schools to the one allocated, from the home on which they pay council tax.

There have been on-off problems with planning and funding coupled with massive demand in some areas. Still, calling this a consistent 'strategy' for 17 years when there have been so many changes to staff, political administrations, governments, rules and regs on admissions, capital budgets, establishing new schools, expanding old ones, etc. is as much of a conspiracy theory as any speculation on badly thought out RTT headlines.

The issue with Virginia Morris is that the council considered her home at the time of her application to be in Hampton, her marital home, registered for council tax for many years and where she applied for planning permission etc..

The rules on infant class sizes have been relaxed and there are a few reception classes starting with more than 30 pupils but it's still mainly children with SEN or twins who qualify on appeal. LAs still have to find places 'within a reasonable distance' of a child's home. Morris is disputing 'home' but apart from that, 30 minutes' walk does seem to be a reasonable distance. Some discussion of that on Netmums suggests for primary pupils beyond 2 miles, or roughly 45 minutes' walk, school transport should be provided. But that is not a legal definition in terms of a right to a place.

MUM We have argued this before, but not conspiracy, complacency. Throughout all variables the Education Department can rely on parents who care deeply about their children's education, when faced with the prospect of no school place or one beyond 30 minutes walk (eg the standard offer for the Central Twickenham and Teddington black holes, Heathfield, which few understandably, take up), do whatever it takes to find a suitable school place. That takes the pressure off. I don't know if you lived in a catchment of a primary school that is well within catchment of a secondary but those of us who have not been so fortunate know so many people that have been affected throughout the 17 years and still are.

I know several people who were disappointed or without any place at all last year and they live much nearer to the school where my DC goes than I do. Yet to experience secondary. But about a third of the schools in the borough have expanded even since I last went through the admissions round, and Ofsted reports changed people's perceptions of local schools, so a number of parents who were disappointed all those years ago have better options in their area. Richmond continues to attract many families, despite the impossible and depressing house prices.

Isn't the issue with V Morris that the Council made an understandable decision the first time but refused to renew it when given new evidence? It's not clear whether they are still refusing to admit she has moved. We don't know if she got Darrell because it was only school with a place or because they accepted her new address.

I am really sorry for all parents of children with no place or serious doubts about where their child will be sent. My daughter was very shy and would have been very scared in that situation. My interest in all this started when friends in Teddington were ordered off to primaries in Hampton and Heathfield that were almost impossible to get to. Now my road is a black spot for non Catholic and church of England families.

I'd agree with muminlondon that it hasn't necessarily been a deliberate long-term strategy, but rather a trend in policy that has had a significant effect. At some point there must have been a decision to reduce planning margins from the nationally recommended 4% (which was already a reduction from a higher figure) to 0%. The effect of that policy change needs to be recognised, scrutinised and debated. To date it has been convenient to ignore, or even celebrate, the effect, because it reduces costs to the public purse, but should that be the only parameter?

If, as DonsDrapers said, the private schools are full to the brim too, then they will react by expanding. The 0% policy will inevitably drive growth of the private sector, not because the private schools are perceived to be better quality (as has always been the traditional reason for people going private) but because the state sector isn't delivering reasonable capacity.

I really do think more parents are opting for state over private now, driven initially by the recession, but sustained also by improved Ofsted reports and results. There was certainly room, and a need, for that to happen. The dropping of the link policy opens up some secondaries to children at unlinked or private primaries, as well as to newcomers who are helping to fill places that used to remain vacant in senior years at primary, as well as secondary. But it has lifted the lid off underlying areas of shortage too. And as standards get higher, so do expectations and the chance of being disappointed.

So if councillors ever thought this rising demand would go away as the recession ended, or that they could continue to have control over admissions patterns in the face of new rules on academies, or be able to suppress numbers through the link policy, they got that wrong. In truth, they no longer have much control.

Is anyone aware at which point in time additional classes are provided if they are needed for Sept? Or indeed what the criteria is for proving such demand ? I'm pretty sure there is no additional capacity at reception level this year Vs last. Would be interesting to understand.

The RTT has (p 30) Schools bulging at the seams: a letter from Cllr Malcolm Eady, former Lib Dem spokesperson for schools, urging the council to stop dithering and announce where the planned 3 bulge classes will be; and one from A Roberts re RISC's criticism of St Mary's & St Peter's school's admission policy.

This Sutton Trust report into Secondary School admissions might be interesting to some. It mainly focuses on Banding and Ballots, but it has some England-wide stats for other types of admissions policies too, including the percentage of schools using aptitude tests.

Interesting statistics (2012) - proportion of state comprehensives using:

Random allocation: 2%
Banding: 4%
Partial selection by aptitude: 6%
Religion: 16%
Feeder primary: 38%

There must be overlap between 'religion' and 'feeder primary' but I am surprised it is so high - I think it's a discriminatory criterion, and it is certainly interpreted as such by the schools adjudicator in terms of nursery schools feeding into primary schools.

One of my objections to the link system in Richmond was the fact that most of the primaries linked to oversubscribed community schools themselves had religious criteria.

Some parents may remember that Swedish firm IES advertised in the RTT a free school proposal for primary level, which morphed into the proposal by GEMS (the ex-IES UK Manager changed companies at the time).

There's a suggestion in this Telegraph article that the one UK free school run by IES may have been judged by Ofsted to require special measures. The report is now overdue.

Not sure if it has been mentioned upthread, but Collis in Teddington announced that it was planning for a bulge class this September, way back last July.

Decision due on Darell expansion 20 March in cabinet. Education committee meets 19 March. That consultation began in January.

There is also a feasibility study in another primary to look at permanent expansion from September 2014 prior to proposal and consultation. They are already taking bulge classes every other year.

I had no idea re Sheen Mount. Any idea when this was announced?

The lack of transparency is what I find so difficult. It is probably not right to announce extra space when it is still at feasibility stage but it would be nice to have a clearer picture where the places are planned to help parents make decisions, at least a year before application deadline.

I did put this school on our list as it's 5th or 6th closest, but we are just so far away there is no hope of a place but it may help free up spaces among the schools which are closer.

I read a discussion document on the Darell expansion yesterday on their website. It said that Queens CE was ruled out as additional capacity would draw from the private sector and from Hounslow due to its location.

It would be interesting to know the amount of people that genuinely apply for both private and state. I don't know any. A lot of private schools have nursery classes so are in effect full with their 2014 children already.

I actually considered putting Strand on the Green in Chiswick as one of our choices, but it is fruitless as in Chiswick there are Priority Admission Areas which largely rule out anyone out of borough although the catchment distance was large. It's a shame the same does not exist in Richmond. Again it's another limiter in choice in addition to being a first born, of no-faith, living near the border does not serve you well.

Well that would certainly suggest an implicit strategy to deter people into the private sector

Don there are a fair number of children in private schools either because they applied but didn't get in to local state schools or they didn't even bother to apply because they knew their road was in a black hole. It is possible to get private school places post allocation day. We were a bit dense in not realising we were in a road that was about to fall into a black hole, we were first on the Sheen Mount and Darrell waiting lists. I managed to get my daughter into a private school after I found out we had no school place by virtue of the fact that I had produced a daughter the November before. It was still early enough in the year for her to be high enough on the list to be guaranteed a place and my older daughter then went to the top of the waiting list with sibling priority, and a place came up a couple of weeks later!! I know that was a bit niche but some of the schools do find themselves with places after their waiting lists shake out those who have moved, have other options, did get a state school place etc. Certainly a few of the people in Twickenham's black hole found private school places last year.

There is also movement back from private to state school as waiting lists move, and a few start out in state and move to private, especially at 7.

Yes but if you can't afford private you are a bit stuck...