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.

LProsser the link system had no impact on RPA whatsoever, but there has been a more concerted effort by local parents to support it this year, because for many in East Sheen or Barnes it really is the only state option.

Nice comment under the RTT article in support of Hampton Academy and its 'fantastic' head - from a parent who hadn't put it first choice originally but concludes: 'Let's make all our local schools a popular choice by sending more of our local kids to them.'

Can I suggest that we stop speculating about sites. In the face of the interested parties emphasising the need for confidentiality to ensure the chances of success, and the impact of the delays to that success I just think it is deeply insensitive and unprofessional. I worked in an environment where commercial confidentiality was very important and I wonder how far the Chinese whispers have helped scupper the process.

You're right that there's no point in speculating on the site and that it might have harmed reputations, if not negotiations, to have done so.

The argument that the LA allocated places are an inconvenient alternative (transport-wise) to a temporary Turing House can't be used either, if we don't know those parameters.

I can see that not speculating about a permanent site that could still be subject to purchase negotiations is a good idea. I don't quite follow the argument about the temporary site that the school will start out in in September as I thought that was secure. I have written to my ward councillor but the reply indicates that we both feel a bit in the dark about whether and for how long September opening will be possible due to site issues. Also whether there is anything Council should be doing about the temporary or permanent site which is what ordinary councillors can lobby about.

@Heathclif: I agree with you on the permanent site but if I had an offer to TH for Sep 2014 I would definitely want to know the details about the temporary site - that site that was secured - before I accepted that offer.

I understand the 'commercial confidentiality' aspect re the permanent site but I see that as a completely separate issue.

With Turing deferred the temporary site may be vulnerable too. We don't know the circumstances but I am sure if they could tell us they would, it would as you say encourage parents. I think the Turing House team have earned everyone's trust and on this one, however difficult and testing, we should respect the request for privacy.

It doesn't help that there is still speculation on the Turing parents 2014 Facebook page about what happened in the permanent site negotiations. All of this stress of not knowing is one reason why there had to be a cut-off point in deciding to defer the opening, and the same goes for the appeal.

I don't think it's fair to open up a Y8 class next year either, if that means children are likely to switch again after they've made friends and got used to one school system, and leave behind schools with a hole in their budget.

I've just read that article on Harperbury Free School (sorry, bit late). It quotes a local MP who claims: 'Michael Gove said Lord Nash was a junior minister with no experience in education.' That's quite startling, but extremely unlikely, seeing as Lord Nash was carefully positioned by Gove to take up the ministerial role as a Tory donor and academy sponsor.

But there are certainly many commentators who think Lord Nash has made a big mess in his Pimlico academies with an inexperienced head and a controversial curriculum. And recently he has made the incomprehensible decision to turn down an application from the Institute of Education to run a teaching school because they 'lack expertise'.

So it would be extraordinary if Gove really said he has 'no experience in education' when he appointed him on the basis of his 'vast experience'. Or it could be that local politicians are likely to exaggerate such statements to curry favour with constituents. Or newspapers make things up.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nash,_Baron_Nash John Nash . . became a barrister before moving into finance . . he was Assistant Director of Lazard Brothers and Co Ltd before moving to private equity firm Advent Limited, becoming its managing director in 1986. He was co-founder of private equity firm Sovereign Capital . . He is also the former chairman of one of the biggest contractors to the NHS, Care UK.

. . He and his wife have donated almost £300,000 to the Conservative Party . . In April 2013, Labour councillors called for an inquiry after the new Pimlico primary school where Nash was co-chairman of the governors appointed an unqualified teacher as headmistress ahead of its opening in September. Further criticism followed when she resigned after four weeks in the job . . ]]

(wikipedia)

Consultation on the proposed permanent expansion of Sheen Mount Primary School; closing date = Friday 11 April 2014.

Lord Nash doesn't sound terribly experienced in education to me - donating huge amounts of money to fund schools isn't the same as having hands on experience. I suppose they regard education as a business now so they wanted his business experience as well as his deep pocket. The TH parents page posters are saying that he made the decision without full knowledge of the facts which seems rather worrying if it's true.

What facts would Turing parents know that Lord Nash wouldn't, and how do they know? Intriguing as it is, it's speculation again, or someone has been indiscreet, again.

Well the latest rumour doing the rounds, the scrubland behind the Amida, wouldn't cause a problem with commercial confidentiality since it is Metropolitan Open Land owned by the Council. The only problem that I can see is that the Council gave an undertaking that leasing it to the Amida would not result in further development / public access being denied. That was invoked by Councillor Samuels a couple of years ago when Amida started closing the golf course gates. However as one of the dogwalkers involved in that campaign I am sure no one would feel strongly against the scrubland being put to good use for the community as long as access to the golf course was maintained. At the moment it is just a venue for anti social behaviour and somewhere you walk across quickly to get to the golf course.

Lord Nash know that presumably, if the EFA knows that? Aside from planning issues, it's only a mile away from Hampton Academy (whose catchment was 6 miles last year) even without a river crossing. It would obviously have a big impact there.

Just catching up on this thread ... I think the TH admissions point is fixed isn’t it? According to the website they will move a % to the school when a permanent site is announced but not all. So it doesn’t matter that the school is near HA if at the Uxbridge Rd site or near Teddington if at Udney Pk Rd, if it’s oversubscribed it’s the West Twickenham, Fulwell, North Teddington community who will get the places. As far as I can see, unless Squires decides to up-sticks and move, there is no site where the school is actually needed.

The school was never approved by the DfE using that admissions point. The council may have supplied the information to suggest a temporary admissions point, but it was not a formal decision by anyone. There has never been a statutory consultation. How do we know it doesn't matter to Hampton Academy if they haven't been asked?

You can't sign a funding agreement for a school without a consultation and impact assessment.

Muminlondon, the admissions criteria for the opening year were devised in consultation with the LA and approved by the DfE as part of the pre-approval process.

As it says on the website, there will be a consultation on the subsequent year's admissions criteria, which will determine the split between the admissions point and the school site itself.

It's quite hard enough to find a site already without worrying about proximity to other schools - a mile doesn't seem too bad to me but the Amid a site is very near the Borough boundary. If the Council has had this site up its sleeve for years it might have hurried it along a bit.

Straight from the TH website, the admissions point policy has been approved by the DfE:

“Please click here to view our proposed admissions policy for September 2014, which we have produced in consultation with the Local Authority. This policy has now been approved by the Department for Education, and therefore formally adopted.
As part of the Funding Agreement consultation outlined above, we will be consulting on the admissions policy for September 2015 onwards, ideally after confirmation of our permanent site. We are, however, happy to consider feedback at any time.”

Looks like the TH team have worked very closely with the LA on this and want to keep any negative impact on local schools to a minimum.

HA is only one mile away and so is TA. What a waste of money it was to rebuild those schools if they then put another one in the middle.

Or maybe the DfE has decided that site is unsuitable for the same reason. Better to wait and see how far Kunskapsskolan improves its schools in the next couple of years.

Muminlondon, as you say, any site rumours are just speculation.

However, no matter where the school goes it will fulfill a need, because of the bulge of primary pupils coming through the system. The admissions point was chosen because it was where some of the council forecasts showed the black hole would initially hit. Obviously forecasts aren't always accurate, but as it says on the website, the policy will be kept under constant review in consultation with the LA and other local schools.

Sorry, the 'need' argument doesn't work for that site or even the temporary admissions point. Hampton and Twickenham academies already have to recruit from 10 km away to fill their schools up. Local Richmond residents would always have distance priority over the Hounslow pupils should they put those schools down in their preferences.

'Want', yes.

You're talking about 'basic' need, but as you know, the current process for approving new schools uses a wider definition of need.

There are more than enough children in the borough to fill all of the local schools and more, provided they're offering people what they want. We need to support all of our local schools to make sure they're doing that.

The location of TH in that area would not be supporting the KS academies at all - it's in direct competition for local children. No point pretending otherwise or it would look disingenuous. But the decision to hand both of them to the same sponsor was not a wise one.

The location of Waldegrave doesn't support them either. However the Waldegrave leadership team support the family of schools in other ways. Turing House would be part of that same family, and would be similarly supportive.