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.

Today's RTT has: Missing out in scramble for first-choice schools (page 9) and Mums back (King's Group) free school plan (page 19 advertorial).

In Merton there were also 76 without a place and 200 not offered any of their preferences. There has been planning permission problems with expanding one primary school because it affects recreation land, and a Christian free school failed to open because it did not have a site.

I find it quite hard to swallow that LBRUT thinks the "plan is working" when 75 have no place. We also don't know how many were allocated a place without preference.

I don't know the Merton area well. I wonder if the council there are also relying on people going private or moving.

I would love to know how the percentage of first time applicants that got their first choice here. It was also particularly sneaky not to announce the extent of the bulge classes. How can parents best judge where to apply if they don't know the roll of the school.

Smoke and mirrors. I have no faith in politicians. Wish I had the cash for private

DonsDrapers: there always has been a waiting list in recent years. It is actually a bit shorter this year than last, down from 89 to 75. Experience shows that every child will be offered a place in a borough school (the extent of the borough’s obligation) but only some will be offered a place close enough to their home to be practical.

If the offered place is impractical the best option may be to go private for a year - if you can and can find a practical private place - and go on the list for a nearby vacancy in Year 2 in 2016.

I don't think it's a good idea to "go private for a year" - even if you find a private school near enough your house which is acceptable and you can afford, after a year your child will be settled and have friends and you will feel extremely mean if you decide to move them, or have to move them for financial reasons. The politicians are a bit rancid Dons Draper but going private at 4 is a slippery slope. Even if you don't get to the top of any waiting lists, when you get to your 4th choice school you will find that most of the teachers and other parents and children are lovely and you will be happy and so will your child. I'm afraid I've watched quite a few families (especially husbands in jobs they absolutely loathe but can't give up because of the school fees)suffer the crippling burden of paying for two or more kids to go private as well as a huge mortgage, and at the end of the day, in very middle class area like this, their kids end up at the same universities as many of the children of their neighbours who went through the state system. So although they may have had a very wonderful experience, learned to play the harp and made some posh friends I still can't see that it's worth it! Obviously if they have some special need that's not being met in the state system that's different.

I am interested to know what the rules are about home education and waiting lists. If you say you are going to home educate your 4 year old until a place at a school that is acceptably local to you comes up does the LA agree to keep them on the waiting list, especially given that they are not legally obliged to start school until they are 5? If I was in the situation of not being offered an acceptable place in a school that was close enough to be a long term option, I would be tempted to get together with other parents and pursue home education in the short term if at all practical.

Chris, the reality is that parents end up struggling to go private for the rest of their child's primary education, and often secondary too, as it is hard to move a 6 year old who is happy and settled. It is also difficult to find a private school place in April / May unless you are lucky with waiting list movement. That is why people end up keeping their children at home. This is all a direct result of the Head of Education under both political parties planning to fill every last place rather than planning for 4% spare capacity as per the local government guidelines. The result is the risk is transferred to parents to manage. It is also a result of church schools imposing ever more exclusive admissions criteria.

Neither political party is offering parents any real prospect of change, in fact it is hard to see how they are going to avoid it becoming worse. It really would be a vote winner if the parties stopped sniping at each other over the sinking ship and came up with some proactive policies. I know I am not the only parent who finds it exasperating. Elsewhere in the country parents are in disbelief when you describe the situation you just described, and it would be regarded as a scandal if parents here had not become used to a situation that has endured for decades.

Lottie, cross posted and agree with all you say, yes my children's peers who went through state primary to Waldegrave, Teddington etc have ended up with similar out comes in terms of uni to those who went to private schools, however selective (and indeed Tiffin). However lets not forget that for some of those peers Waldegrave or Teddington or a good / outstanding primary /secondary were not an option. If you lived in certain parts of the borough you were basically disenfranchised from any prospect of an equivalent state education. In some areas of the borough children have remained on the primary school (that were accessible to them) waiting lists throughout their primary years, certainly where Dons Draper I think probably lives, without a place coming up as people move into the borough closer to the school and take any places that come up. Hence the prevalence of moving or going private. Home Education as a long term option is not for the faint hearted.

Newsbiscuit's take on all this: Adoption agencies inundated with middle-class toddlers post ‘Offer Day’

Just a bit more context in this Evening Standard article. 102,400 applied to London primaries and Richmond represents about 2% of those. 5,000 did not get allocated a place of their preference or at all. I think that came to about 6% in LBRUT - about 150? Neighbouring Wandsworth fared a lot worse - perhaps fewer of them managed to get into Richmond schools in Barnes. London figures here.

The information on cut offs that went out with offer letters. www.richmondinclusiveschools.org.uk/files/view/useful-data/primaryCutOffDistances2014.JPG

No figures for the church schools - but the expansions/bulge classes will have helped a lot in Richmond and East Sheen. And maybe there are fewer pupils from Wandsworth in Barnes.

There is some unusually negative posting about RPA on another thread

"Have a look at the Expected Progress figures in the link posted by antimatter though. 29% of high achievers not making at least expected progress in English, 55% of low attainers not making at least expected progress in maths...www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136208"

I seem to remember mum doing some detailed analysis on these figures.......

This is the thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/1974722-Richmond-state-secondaries-Christs-Richard-Reynolds-RPA-Greycourt-vs-west-London-independents-advice-please?

It's not perfect, but it's improving, and its 2013 results were OK in terms of largely matching the national average (which reflects intake from 2008 when it was in the limbo of waiting for decisions on academy status). There's another tool you can use here: Guardian schools guide. The only below average result is for science - a low proportion getting A/A* but also a low number entered for single sciences (and a low pass rate - which affected Ebacc too). But it's worth visiting the school and speaking to them directly about this. Their facilities were poor before, but they will have had brand new science labs built recently, and with a larger intake this year they are more likely to recruit extra specialist teachers.

It did get good results for humanities, arts and social science subjects comparing with Christ's for example - doing well in Geography, Art & Design and performing arts.

Ofsted inspectors have a lot more data than we have, so a 'Good' rating will reflect much more detailed information about what is happening lower down the school.

I heard that Waldegrave School has dropped out as a partner in 'Richmond Education and Enterprise Campus' planned for the RuT College site in Twickenham. (Perhaps not surprising given the way some of the other partners behave!) Waldegrave is not one of the proposers of the free school there either. Anyone know why they pulled out?

That's interesting. It's often unpaid work supporting a free school prior to approval, isn't it? Hard work when schools are setting sixth forms, rewriting the school curriculum, reorganising careers advice and supporting other schools on teaching practice/CPD, etc. I have lots of admiration for the parents voluntarily supporting Turing House, but this is another reason why the whole issue of LAs being blocked from setting up new schools directly is a pile of tripe, and it's a set-up that favours the corporates.

Maybe Lord True and Vince Cable now regret voting for the Academies Act.

There are many different interpretations you could put on it, so I'd suggest speculation isn't sensible.

All schools (maintained and academies) need the right mixture of expertise and enthusiasm to set them on the right track and keep them there. That is why strong parental support is absolutely crucial, but pro-bono expertise in the form of governorship is needed for all state schools, and not just at the set-up stage, but throughout their lifetime. Very many schools struggle to get that input, despite being supported by their LA's, which is why charities like SGOSS exist.

It's also worth pointing out that Waldegrave has Teaching School status as well as being an approved Academy provider (hence its support for Nelson), so it does have some capacity (and presumably funding (tbc?)) for that sort of thing.

As an aside, May's edition of The Richmond Magazine (which should be online soon if you haven't had one through the door yet) has a good article about Grey Court, and mentions that it may be federating with Hollyfield School in Surbiton. The Grey Court head will be leading both schools from this term.

Yes, Waldegrave had been doing some good work developing the curriculum for the new school and was included in the partnership. It was reassuring that at least one of the top local schools was involved.

From what I have read about the new school’s curriculum, there is nothing at all about modern languages and the visual arts are barely touched on either. Does the choice for parents and many pupils in Twickenham seems to be narrowing?

Not sure what you're basing that on tw2dad, because according to the website ... "The vision for the curriculum for the school is based on the solid foundation of the National Curriculum but with an emphasis on the creative arts, digital technology and enterprise. We will publish further details on this website once we have approval from the government to open the School."

The National Curriculum foundation will make sure the offering is broad and balanced, like other local secondaries, but you might have to wait a little longer to see the detail (unless its already published elsewhere).

Speculation may indeed not be a good or fair thing without having the full information, but as stated in your link, some Waldegrave parents even expressed concern about Waldegrave supporting Nelson while preparing for the Sixth Form, so by extension they may have the same reservations about the Richmond College proposal. The governors decided there were benefits in sponsoring Nelson as a feeder primary, but this was to be done 'within our existing staffing structure'. There is still only one LA governor at Waldegrave.

"There is still only one LA governor at Waldegrave"

All of the local converter academies have one LA governor. I think that is one more than the vast majority of academies, although the appointments haven't been without controversy (see Item 78 here).

Yes, but that's my point - Waldegrave does not have any additional pro bono LA support compared to other schools in the borough, and while I agree that input from/collaboration between local schools is a good thing, it would have been better if the LA itself had been able to give paid professional support, through EducationRichmond (as in North Kingston's new school, although much of the planning and consultation had already been done over several years by the council).

Going back to a post from Wednesday 16 April about prioritising children in nursery classes at a primary school: the article Chris linked to was amended to point out that the schools adjudicator has ruled against schools favouring children who had been to their nurseries for primary school places. It is judged unfair and therefore against the main principle of the 2012 admissions code. This is because attendance at the nursery is not mandatory. Some families may prefer to make other arrangements that fit in better with siblings or carers.

The solicitor arguing for the arrangement had pointed out that the code was silent on this issue. However, the adjudicator argued:

'The Code is clear that admission authorities must not require parents to take up their school places until the term in which the child reaches compulsory school age. I therefore conclude that these arrangements are unfair and not compliant with the Code.'

'if the LA itself had been able to give paid professional support, or it could have been done through EducationRichmond'

"'if the LA itself had been able to give paid professional support"

But it is doing that for the REEC school already because the LA is itself part of the REEC partnership. I understand they can provide up to