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.

Hi Twix. yes I saw that too. It's the latest in an exchange that started in Feb, and the earlier letters are archived on the RISC website here.

Chris, I replied to a really similar letter about a year or so ago, think it was a lady correspondent that time,just depressed that the same arguments are rehashed. I might track down my original letter and adapt and resend!

The most irritating thing about that letter is that it claims 'faith schools tend to outperform non-faith schools' - which is not true at all in this borough, either according to Ofsted or SATS/GCSE results.

A previous faith school supporter at least acknowledged that our community schools are excellent and in no way second best.

Although that letter was quite long, it also recognised that faith schools create tension where there is an increasing shortage of places. It points to the 'postcode lottery' argument, and suggests faith schools have a wider catchment area, although it doesn't properly consider practical, non-selective alternatives (e.g. more random allocation, additional places for boys, a faith school with community admissions, multiple admissions points like Turing House).

"It points to the 'postcode lottery' argument ..."

It's an argument that is regularly aired, but the idea that poor church-goers are leap-frogging rich home-owners to get into good schools just isn't borne out by the FSM stats, or even by logic (because it's just as likely to be rich church-goers who are doing the leap-frogging).

Yes, there are postcode lotteries for school places, but faith-based admissions aren't an antidote to that. They're just another layer of complexity on top. However, there have been some RTT letters on that topic too.

Yes, I agree it's not an antidote - and if you live in a cheaper area, can't afford/don't believe in private, God or eleven plus tutoring, you may also see your local school weakened by lack of support from neighbours who do use those options.

I also don't think parents should be blamed - it's natural human behaviour to to the best for your own children, so those who use the house-move, private, church, 11+ routes are behaving reasonably, especially in a competitive system. It's the policy makers that need to take stock, and realise that unless they can give everyone equal choice (impossibly expensive because it would need a large surplus of places), then there will always be groups who are disadvantaged.

Some people would say that everyone has the choice to be religious. However, many people who aren't religious would strongly disagree, and strongly resent the implications of that assumption.

The Government has been trying to reduce surplus school places since at least 1996. I'm not sure the 'choice' implications (aka 'competition' implications) of that strategy have been audited quite so closely as the raw surplus numbers.

Current national targets for surplus school places are a in the 5% - 10% range (see Q62). Here in Richmond it seems to be 0%, which I think is why we're feeling the pinch more than many other areas.

I do agree with all of that post. I would love people to support their local schools, but you can drag a horse to water (etc.). It is up to government to ensure that admission criteria are fair, and that standards are uniform (and putting two schools with the same new sponsor was risky).

I respect those who are loyal to their local Catholic school. However, if that school was underperforming, as St John Bosco used to be, religion still isn't a strong enough motivation to attract pupils to the school. I'm probably even more critical of CofE schools because there's much more inconsistency in terms of loyalty (some might call it hypocrisy), and mixing of religious criteria with other favourable factors such as academic/aptitude selection or catchment area.

I think the whole of London is feeling the pinch - especially at primary level - see Evening Standard article. There was another shorter piece a couple of days ago which names specific boroughs. Richmond wasn't actually one of them, but I think Hounslow, Sutton and Wandsworth were - and we are affected by the pressures around us.

Today's RTT has three letters: No faith discrimination (p 26) from James Chard, School sites are needed (p 27) from Cllr Gareth Roberts, Lib Dem spokesman on education, and Faith Selection is wrong from Julie Courtis, on behalf of RISC (p 27).

The Kingston Guardian has: Kingston Council told to act fast in land swap deal that could secure north Kingston primary school

. . Opposition councillors have urged the authority to take up an offer from property developers Goldcrest for the Kingsgate Business Centre, in Kingsgate Road, just north of the train station. The company is willing to trade the site for the council-owned Canbury Place car park, in order to build a mixed-use shop, restaurant and office development with 210-bed student accommodation . .

and Cesar Picton, River Park or Kingston Academy? New free school name announcement delayed.

The Guardian has: Pressure on primary school places adds to anxiety on offer day - More than one in five children in areas of greatest demand are expected to miss out on first-choice school

. . Last year, one in five children in London did not get accepted by their first choice of primary. This year that proportion is set to increase – and not just in the capital city. The September 2014 cohort entering reception classes will be among the largest in years, and a forerunner of the surging tide of children, which is expected to crest in 2016. Forecasts from the Department for Education (DfE) predicted an increase of 235,000 pupils of statutory school age by 2015-16 – equivalent to an extra 8,000 classrooms. . .

. . Fox primary school in Notting Hill, west London, has a defined catchment area but last year drew most of its intake from within a 300m radius of the school's entrance. Competition for places is so fierce that the community school requires parents to send copies of Land Registry documents to prove that they own their home when they apply . .

A September 2013 analysis by the LGA . . shows that in small pockets of the country the problem is particularly acute:

. . In Costessey, Norfolk, Purflet, in Thurrock and central Croydon there will be at least 75 % more pupils by 2015 than the number of places currently available (by) 2016/17, Croydon, Waltham Forest, Newham and Hounslow Councils (will) need to increase school capacity by 25 % or more . . Redbridge, Ealing, . . Barking and Dagenham and Sutton councils will have to increase . . by at least 20 %^ . .

Richmond parents should count their blessings, relatively speaking.

The Guardian has [[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/16/school-age-two-nurseries-childrens-commissioner Compulsory school age in danger of becoming two, survey shows - Children's commissioner says almost half of parents admit to using nurseries to improve chances of getting school places
:]]

The children's commissioner has warned that the effective age to begin compulsory education is in danger of becoming two rather than four as parents try to gain advantage in winning places in coveted primary schools by putting their infants in the school's nursery provision.

In a separate poll of parents, . . involving more than 1,000 people and conducted by the Netmums website, . . almost half said they had used nurseries strategically to improve chances of getting a place at a particular school.

The report . . titled It Might Be Best If You Looked Elsewhere . . noted that schools were allowed to favour children who had been in nursery classes. However, the fact that parents pay for some nursery provision could count against poorer families, it said . .

That's really interesting Chris, because I thought schools weren't allowed to prioritise children from their own nurseries when allocating Reception places. I'm fairly sure that used to be the case pre-2012, and it was certainly in the consultation document for the 2012 admissions code (see para 2.47, page 25). However, it looks like it was dropped from the published <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-00014-2012.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">2012 admissions code.

Richmond's community schools don't use that criteria, but the local primary admissions brochure says on page 6 that "some church schools do give such priority".

I can sympathise with it as a policy. To pre-school parents it makes intuitive sense to prioritise in that way because it gives children valuable continuity. It's just very uncomfortable from a fairness perspective when not everyone can access a nursery place at a school, and when there is so much competition for Reception places.

Primary school places: fewer parents get first choice - About 600,000 children chase reception places at thousands of state primaries in England as country deals with baby boom:

This is the Guardian's report filed at 1345: no doubt it will be updated as reports from round the country come in.

. . Many local authorities will email offers later on Wednesday afternoon to parents who applied online, while for others it will be a nervous wait for the post on Thursday . .

The %s getting first choice are down everywhere but only by 2-3 %.

Many of the people who get first choice are siblings or have some other priority status. It would be really interesting to see the stats for distance only.

First timer here for reception admissions...we got 4th choice. Not a disaster, but well, 4th choice. Waiting to get more information on the distances presumably will be in letter tomorrow.

No doubt I will be playing hysterical waiting lists (a bit like musical chairs) all summer.

Did someone say wine ?

The Guardian @2128 April 16:

Primary schools: recent baby boom puts pressure on admissions system - In London one in five fails to get first choice; better news in some other English areas as rush to add classrooms eases crisis:

. . In Brent, Leopold primary school has added an extra 4 reception forms by taking over an old administrative building in Neasden and converting the offices into classrooms, while Stonebridge primary school has converted a community centre into classrooms. The borough is also creating an extra 450 school places by September by converting former council buildings and placing temporary classrooms in existing schools. But despite Brent's efforts this year, the council expects that it will still need to add 5,000 more places by 2019 to meet demand. . .

For anyone interested in the reception offers, from our letter today...

"An extra 30 places have been offered at Collis (temp), East Sheen (temp), Nelson (Perm), Sheen Mount (Perm), Russell (temp) and Vineyard (perm). Both Darrell and Thomson House have also admitted additional pupils this year. (Admins says 65 offers and 52 respectively).

30 extra places have also been offered at St Mary's Magdalen Catholic Primary and St Mary's Church of England Primary (Twickenham)."

The smallest distance was Barnes 288 m!

I was wondering how many parents had no offer as I had thought we might be included in that number. I have searched LBRUT website press releases and there is nothing on school places.....I am feeling a tumbleweed moment prior to elections. I am not sure the amount of temporary classes is something to be treasured although it is clearly better than many having no offer or a long distance to travel.

Hi if not to much trouble dons drapers could u post this distance for Hampton wick and collis as interested for my chances in 2015

Hampton wick 5229 (1982 last yr)- intake 90 siblings 27

Collis 828 (740 last yr)- intake 120 (extra 30 this yr) siblings 51.

5229 seems a big distance vs previous but I've no local knowledge there as we're other side if the borough.

Report in RTT - 136 more applications than last year, 75 still unplaced (14 fewer than last year).

Those 75 mentioned in this article from the Telegraph...

[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/10770065/Crisis-warning-as-up-to-four-in-10-refused-first-choice-primary-school.html ]]

Alas no..;-)

DonsDrapers Telegraph story