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 Guardian Letters page has David Blunkett's proposals for Labour education policy: 9 letters on David Blunkett’s proposals last week ChrisSquire2 Wed 30-Apr-14.

I particularly liked this from Ray Boffy:

It would help if David Blunkett would define what he means by "standards" that are to be "driven up" by "directors of school standards", otherwise his report is just the usual waffle from politicians which has about as much meaning as the debates between the Big- and Little-Endians in Gulliver's Travels.

Are those standards to relate to outcomes – inquisitive, creative, critical school-leavers, for example? Or to the school environment – clean, dry, safe buildings? Or to exam passes – more GCSEs and A-levels at higher grades? Or to relationships in school – democratic, respectful, collegiate? Or to inputs – qualified teachers, playing fields, up-to-date labs? Or after-school clubs – theatre, chess, debates?

It really would help if we knew what he (and most other politicians seeking to impress with their grip in education) was talking about.

What Blunkett means, I guess, is performance in international league tables of attainment in English and Maths.

This week’s RTT has Dilemma of faith schools, a letter from F J Snelling (p 28) and Gathering support from parents for free school, - yet another advertorial from King’s Group (p 23).

Today’s Guardian has Free schools project put in peril by soaring costs – MPs: Damning report by public accounts committee calculates that £240m has been spent in areas with no shortages:

. . Free schools and the DfE budget also suffered from being squeezed by property developers into paying higher prices. In evidence to the committee, the DfE "acknowledged that publicity surrounding free school applications can inflate the market value of the proposed site, particularly in London" . .

Wow, their pockets are deep with all these cheesy advertorials they are paying for. Non sequitur of the week: 'if there are not enough places for children in local schools, standards are likely to suffer'. No, that makes no sense, because each expansion comes with a capital budget and more teachers, as long as there is space to expand, consultation and agreement from the governing body. But a bilingual school is not a default alternative to a local community school where mainstream places need to be prioritised.

The RTT advertorials will not be costing King’s Group a lot. Their problem is that few of the target demographic, couples with pre-school kids and DINKYs (double income no kids yet) read newspapers, local ones least of all.

Today’s report on BBC Radio’s World at One on The row within the coalition about funding free school meals for all draws on leaked emails between civil servants. One from the DfE asserts that the budget for capital spending on new free schools was ‘already overcommitted by £400 million’ last autumn.

We can infer that their decision to go back on their promise to fund Turing House to start this year was a consequence of this overspend, which had to be canceled somehow or other. In addition it seems that the free school meal for all plan is in fact, contrary to what was said at the time it was announced, being paid for by cutting the budgets for new build and for repairs.

The 'free schools meals for all' idea sounds like one of those promises that sounded nice, but has unintended consequences - for example, the need to divert capital budgets into expanding kitchens to cook meals for children whose parents could afford them anyway, and are already at school, as opposed to children who risk not having a place at all.

A bit like the 'free nursery education' grants which have resulted in prep schools receiving state subsidies for children under 5 in reception.

And private school operators queuing up to set up free schools and grab what they can of overstretched state funds. And I'm not including Turing House in that criticism.

The Guardian has the Letter from Michael Gove to Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, 29 November 2013:

I am currently over-committed on capital in 2014-15 by around £400 million … However, now that my officials have had time to fully analyse this policy, it is clear that it cannot be delivered for less than £449m in 2014-15 and £635m in 2015-16. I am sure that you will agree with me that we must not risk forcing schools to subsidise meals by reducing their spending on teaching and learning. I would be grateful for your assurance that my budget will be increased to fully cover the cost of this new commitment, as I am unable to fill any shortfall from within my existing budget.

More from the Guardian: Half of new primary free schools fail to fill all their places - Parents reluctant to send their children to new free schools, as some delay launches after problems with sites:

Half of the primary free schools scheduled to open this autumn still have unfilled places, despite high national demand for places in reception classes. An analysis of the 26 free schools due to open in September 2014 by the DfE shows 13 primaries still had places available – reflecting concerns in some localities about Michael Gove's controversial educational initiative. Other free schools that had been due to launch have struggled to reach the starting line with seven more pushing back their launch for a year, because they failed to secure sites, because they withdrew or delayed opening, and in one case because the DfE abruptly cancelled its permission to open . .

Chris, quoting from one of the comments under that article "Could that have anything to do with the constant misinformation bordering on abuse heaped on the free schools by some politicians and some parts of the media for their own biased reasons, not caring about the impact on the hard working teachers, parents and community governors trying to do something for local children?".

Yes, the policy has had some deep issues, but many of the schools will be popular and successful and therefore its unwise to treat them as a homogenous group. There are sometimes threads on the national Mumsnet site started by people wondering whether to accept a place at "a free school" for their child, and often people responding negatively without asking which?, or where? or in what context? etc.

However, one of the most recent ones did get some helpful responses, including this one which just about sums it up ....

Steview "Maintained secondary schools - get their money via the local education authority; have to teach the national curriculum; have to stick to national pay scales for teachers; get OFSTED inspected

Converter Academies - schools that have previously been judged as effective and have chosen to break away from the local authority (some very effective schools choose to stay as maintained schools); get the money direct from government; can deviate from the national curriculum (many don't); can have own pay scales (many don't); get OFSTED inspected.

Sponsored Academies - schools that have previously been judged as poor and have been taken out of local authority control and into the control of a 'sponsor' who receives the money from the Government and passes it to the school; some sponsored academies are parts of 'chains'; can deviate from the national curriculum (many don't); can have own pay scales (many don't); get OFSTED inspected.

Free schools - school set up by local group (sometimes parents, sometimes another local school, sometimes an academy chain) with funding from the government; get the money direct from government; can deviate from the national curriculum (many don't); can have own pay scales (many don't); get OFSTED inspected.

The honest answer is that there are Great, Good and poor schools of all these types - you can't read anything of substance about the quality of the school from it's type."

This is much worse - it's not about free school meals at all, they've been raiding the mainstream basic needs fund:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/10/gove-lunatic-raid-free-schools

'senior Liberal Democrats said Michael Gove had raided £400m from a fund that guarantees school places for pupils in order to plug a massive financial "black hole" in his free schools programme ... Gove had secretly taken the money from the Basic Need fund for local authorities last December ... Gove did not deny that the Basic Need budget had been raided, but said that the free schools budget was "demand-led"'.

Right. And the figures and evidence of demand have been published?

That will cause a stink. BBC version here. To put it (very slightly) into context, it's the 2015 - 2017 budget, and there does seem to have been a shift of the Free School policy towards only approving free schools fulfilling a "Basic Need" for 2015 onwards, although the most recent guidance for applicants still implies a wider definition of need, saying: "The programme is responsive to: the need for pupil places;the need for an alternative to low quality local provision; and local demand for new provision (including innovative and distinctive models)"

They can never claim to be meeting demand through free schools until new LA maintained schools are once more an option for parents.

Guardian latest: Michael Gove warned to bring free schools spending under control: Concerns expressed by senior Treasury officials and at ministerial level over the cost of free schools:

‘ . . "This isn't just David Laws [a Lib Dem schools minister] and the Liberal Democrats who are very concerned about the free schools budget spiralling out of control," a senior government source said. "The Treasury has now made it crystal clear to Gove and the Department for Education that they want to sign off all future rounds of spending on free schools and won't do so until the capital budget for free schools is back under control."

The education secretary's free schools policy is now being put under much greater scrutiny by Alexander, who is in charge of all government spending. A separate Treasury source added: "Concern has been expressed by very senior Treasury officials and at ministerial level over free schools in a whole variety of ways, in meetings and in correspondence." . . ‘

It’s ‘special measures’ for Mr Gove! About time too.

The latest implications of opening a Sikh free school in a rural village (Stoke Poges in Bucks): local non-Sikhs and atheists were initially allocated a place there by the council, and had to go on waiting lists for their preferred schools. But it has had two planning applications refused and one was withdrawn. After July permission for its temporary premises expires.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10745673/Row-as-atheist-pupils-are-sent-to-vegetarian-Sikh-school.html

www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/11194348.Bucks_children_re_allocated_schools_after_Sikh_school_admission

www.getbucks.co.uk/news/local-news/local-residents-overjoyed-after-free-7105015

Does anyone know what happened in relation to Councillor Morris' case against Richmond about school admissions? As it doesn't seem to be getting publicity I'm guessing it failed, but I don't know if I missed something.

It failed - she didn't even get granted a judicial review. Her husband has written a couple of bitter letters to the RTT though.

They have been door to door leafleting apparently, claiming to want to start some sort of pressure group for parents who have been unfairly treated by the admissions process. not clear if having two addresses is a prerequisite....... Their child is now at Darrell which seems a more than fair arrangement, but they are complaining they have to walk past Sheen Mount to get there. It is either going to be a small pressure group, of those with two addresses, or a very large one, of all those parents, especially of eldest children, who don't get their first choice school.

And if the latter it begs the question what exactly Councillor Morris did to address that very long running scandal when she was representing all those affected parents in her ward as a Councillor.

If her child had been a couple of years older, and a Sheen Mount parent, would she have resisted the expansion of that school?

And as far as her multiple addresses are concerned - they own two properties and had moved temporarily to her mother's house. Their Hampton property had been habitable and inhabited by them for a number of years, while Mortlake property was presumably still being rented. Are they living there now?

Interesting Schools policy from our local UKIP candidates

"Above all we need to offer a school place to every resident in the borough and there are still school place appeals. How is the Borough going to build more and more schools to educate half of London and a lot of Europe? It simply can't; local school places for local families must be a priority and rest assured we will find a way to make it happen. "

A bit odd considering UKIP's only councillor was a firm supporter of the exclusive Catholic School that has swiped the only site available from the inclusive Turing House School, set up and supported by local families. Will be interested to see whether all of the children starting at Sir Richard Reynolds in September are from Twickenham or at least LB Richmond with parents who have been paying their taxes for many years! I don't think UKIP have a very firm grasp of national education legislation but I heard a UKIP candidate on the radio saying that all foreigners' children would have to be privately educated for at least 5 years so that will make some failing private schools very happy!

In relation to Virginia Morris' pressure group I think there is one point in her favour which concerns the way in which LB Richmond refuse to accept that people live or will be living where they say they do when they have moved temporarily. I know VM totally messed up by failing to change her registration on the electoral role and other details, but they do treat people who have had to move away temporarily for work or family reasons appallingly. I have another friend who had to go abroad for a year moving back here to exactly the same house that she owns and has rented out for a year, producing all the bits of paper showing how it all ties up eg. tenancy agreements, job contracts, and they are giving her the run around too. I think children who have already been at a school and have had to move away temporarily should be given some sort of priority on the waiting list for that school.

I believe the rule they apply is that you live in the house you pay council tax on - is this correct? This criterion is objective, easy to understand and to apply and sounds fair but I can imagine that it produces its own crop of hard cases. Were the Morris family paying two lots of Council tax? Perhaps we don't know.

It sounds odd that Hampton house was rendered 'uninhabitable' just five days before the application deadline, and that the situation seemed to last so long rather than being temporary. And she was applying from her mother's address when she owned another property less than half a mile away (just not in Sheen Mount's catchment). It would have been more understandable had they waited till they could move back to Mortlake (which was rented) when scheduling the building works. She may still have been allocated Darrell from there.

We don't have the details, do we? Perhaps her mother was ill. We don't know what proof she provided.

Lottie Richmond are not unusual in that, it is something you take into account as an expat, however long or short your time away. We were in exactly the same boat, with the same house that we had been allocated a place in a local school from before we left, and plenty of evidence we were returning there on 1 August but the Council had zero flexibility. I can see it from both sides having been denied a place at Sheen Mount and Darrell by people renting temporarily and then moving away. That was clearly unfair. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and the fact that the perceived unfairness to Councillor Morris is something we are debating suggests that unfairness is a bit ambiguous. It was at best naive and possibly arrogant of Councillor Morris not to check where that line was and plan her renovations and moves around her daughter's best interests. I think all these bitter accusations and trying to hijack other people's traumas does not put them in a good light either. There is not much evidence of genuine empathy for other parents in this.

And yes Councillor Naylors stance on St RR and as a governor of St Stephens his overseeing an increase in the number of foundation places there was one of the sources of my , along with the evident ignorance of admissions frameworks etc. perhaps they mean local school places for local families providing they sit in a pew.......