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.

The TH head would have experience of Ofsted visits and action plans in special measures which would be useful experience to share, although his last headship was not recent. Waldegrave could consider its own admission policy but that could not change until consultation and not now till 2016. How did the quadrant system work pre-2006 or thereabouts (the last time there was a big change to admissions in that area)?

It seems wishful thinking that there is a perfect venue for TH where it won't affect any other school but will only take children who have no other option. Most of the other schools have some overlap in catchment with at least one other. Surely if it gives another option to those who don't fancy the Swedish method but don't mind taking a punt on a brand new school and thus missing out on other aspects (e.g. the age range of an established school) that will be good? If TH turns out to be far more popular than TA or HA that will prove that something needs to change there.

Mum, the Richmond family of schools work together in many ways to support each other, not least through Education Richmond. It's not just the leadership teams, but also specialist teachers that are involved in consultancy work, and sharing of good practice.

Presumably working as a consultant headteacher doesn't count as headship experience in your eyes? It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it - and the London Challenge report shows its undoubted value. TH is very lucky to have CM, and the family of schools will benefit too.

But if there are two options for each pupil it means the less popular school empties out. The funding agreements run for seven years - do they roll over automatically or could there be changes in 2017?

BayJay it's all good experience, but has he led a school that has been judged good or outstanding?

There aren't 2 options for each pupil. There are far more pupils than there are places in the local state system. Unfortunately many families don't get a place that meets their needs, so they either a) put up with it, b) move house, c) go private or d) go to an out-borough school. None of those options are good for the community.

By making sure schools meet parental expectations (rather than assuming parents will dutifully modify their expectations to meet the places on offer), we reduce the number of people put into that situation, and improve our community.

Muminlondon, I suggest you read the Ofsted report for Bristol free school where CM was principal advisor.

Also, I suggest we don't analyse the CVs of third parties on a public forum. It's not appropriate, especially in the case of consultancy work, which is largely done on a discrete "behind the scenes" basis.

I thought CM may have worked as acting head somewhere more recently. I know Bristol Free School was rated good, and its head has handled the media well in this post - I look forward to hearing more about the other RET schools.

Consultant headteachers work as acting heads, school improvement partners, Ofsted inspectors etc. It's a varied and challenging role. Don't expect to see the fine grained detail on their public facing CV.

BFS got "outstanding" for L&M, which was CM's main interface. He's had a similar role at BK, which is due to be inspected.

That's interesting - although wouldn't the BFS head share the credit for that? You might rap my knuckles for speculating about his CV but parents who choose a new school have a right to expect a solid level of leadership experience, just as they would expect to have concrete details of location.

Of course he would share the credit. It's a team effort. RET supports its schools to be successful.

And yes, parents want to see strong leadership in a new school. The hundreds of families who came along to the TH meetings over the last year or so had the opportunity to develop that confidence. Maybe you should come along to one on future rather than trying to judge from what you read online.

I find it hard to assess a headteacher just by listening to them give a presentation - the best heads can seem nervous doing that sort of thing. I read facts about the challenges he faced at his last school - I wouldn't take account of 'rate my teacher' if that's what you mean, as it's written by children, but there are plenty who would judge the heads of schools according to their Ofsted rating. He knows that system from the inside now so he may have some very interesting and valuable insights.

muminlondon, phone him up, and talk to him. Please do. The contact details are here. You will find him very approachable. He has spent much of the last week talking to parents who have been upset by recent events.

And if he isn't able to convince you that TH is the right choice for your DC, then so be it. There are many other families that will gladly take up those places once the school is given permission to open.

BayJay can you help us understand exactly the planning problems with using Metropolitan Open Land? In this specific case, is it that there might be local opposition to reduced access to the golf course? Could this be worked around with some public access via school grounds?

Notatall, as I said upthread, current speculation is just that - speculation. There is some discussion about it elsewhere on Mumsnet here.

To answer your question in a general sense, building schools on MOL requires political will, and consensus over difficult decisions, but isn't impossible.

Notatall ultimately whether Council owned MOL site like the one being discussed can get through the planning process to be built on will rest a lot on the political will to do it, which is why a petition to get The Councillors to debate the issues in public and lots of letters to ensure they understand the issues cannot go amiss even if the speculation (which seems to get stronger by the day) is for some reason (andI haven't seen any reason to dismiss it as a site) amiss. On the other thread there is a link to information on Christ's getting permission to build their sixth form on MoL.

Today’s RTT has MP backs furious parents left without a school place (p 3) and five letters (pp 23-25): Kids let down by school delay from Molly Gartland, Why (the Teddington) society is opposed (to using the Imperial fields) from Michael Foss, Reversing decision from Jon Hollis, Not anti-religious but we want fairness from Jeremy Rodell and one from E Johnson re church schools.

NotatallSnootie: the planning problem is that the planning status of the MOL land has to be changed to allow the development. This is formal process which includes consultation and takes time and may fail.

Wikipedia says Land designated MOL is afforded the same level of protection as the Metropolitan Green Belt . . planning permission to carry it out cannot be granted by a London Borough acting alone, but requires the concurrence of the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government . . Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken . . through the Development Plan Document process.

Para 4.1 Open Land and Rivers of Richmond’s DPD says:

The land at Twickenham and Fulwell golf courses is held under "The Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938. An Act to make provision for the preservation from industrial or building development of areas of land in and around the administrative county of London." Under this Act owners are required to request permission from the Secretary of State to build on or dispose of this land. This requirement is separate from and in addition to any requirements for planning permission. Most of this land is protected in the Local Development Framework by its designation as Metropolitan Open Land under Policy DM OS 2, . .

Any attempt to remove the MOL status would stir up fierce opposition which would have a good chance of succeeding. We have been here before:

[[http://cranevalley.org.uk/catchment/history/ Friends of the River Crane Environment (FORCE) was set up in the summer of 2003 in response to Richmond Council proposals to remove Metropolitan Open Land status from around half a dozen pieces of riverside open space . . FORCE put forward a case for the environmental and social value of these open spaces; . . this was recognised by the Inspector as a key argument at the subsequent Public Inquiry. Following the Inquiry FORCE have supported the long-term improvement and management of these open spaces as environmental and community assets.

Two years later in 2005, the Crane Valley Partnership was founded . . In 2009 . . the Crane Valley Park feasibility study . . investigated the potential to set up a metropolitan park of 100 hectares . . a regional park of some 450 hectares, and . . a larger regional park of over 1000 hectares.]]

As London's population increases, more and more difficult decisions are going to be faced over land use, for both houses and schools.

I think it's unlikely there would be as much opposition to building on this land as on the River Crane corridor where it was proposed to put a housing estate on land that had become a nature reserve but you never know round here!

Its also worth noting that Policy 3.18 in the 2011 London Plan supports the provision of new secondary schools, including new builds.

Part D of Policy 3.18 states "... proposals for new schools should be given positive consideration and should only be refused where there are demonstrable negative local impacts which substantially outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school and which cannot be addressed through the appropriate use of planning conditions or obligations."

I am sure there will be some opposition to building on this site. However in planning terms this is a very different issue to Crane Park. Crane Park is a well used local amenity, wildlife reserve (when Thames Water are not killing everything) and a natural corridor through the Borough. This particular land is unmanaged wasteland that is used for access to the golf course and anti social behaviour. The golf course is the valued amenity. Amida have already been allowed to extend on their own part of the MOL, an extension to the changing rooms and small swimming pool. The planning pages are not responding at the moment but you can search on the postcode TW2 5JD. There were objections, some referring to the origins of the MOL but mainly on the grounds of noise! and that this was an extension on MOL that would benefit only the club and it's members. I am sure that since the school will of course wish to work with their local community and will also have a lot of support in the community, that with community access and public access to the golf course many of those objections would be overcome. Indeed were David Lloyd to share sports facilities the whole site would become of more community benefit. The Planning Officer did not seem to regard the issue of it being MOL as an insuperable obstacle and the extension and pool have been built. Of course there are no precedents in planning but it does suggest that the Planning Officer would not automatically advise discounting development on MOL.

This report on the Proposal to site Christ's sixth form on MOL, since built, is particularly interesting given the section on MOL and educational use idoxwam.richmond.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Report-1426384.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1426384&location=&contentType=application/pdf&appid=1001