Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Local

Find conversations happening in your area in our local chat rooms.

Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5

999 replies

BayJay2 · 11/10/2013 19:52

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.

OP posts:
NotatallSnootie · 24/10/2013 14:10

BayJay2 do you have any idea when you will be able to announce a site yet? We're not due to apply till next year, but DD is very keen, and I'd like to be able to move the discussion on with her.

I realise my conversations with DD are the least of your worries... Smile

Heathclif · 24/10/2013 14:58

On Waldegrave it wasn't too long ago that the b area did actually spread into Sheen as far as the borough boundary, I think there are still girls' travelling in on the 33, so then the "regional" rationale i.e the choice of a girls' school for the whole borough might have had some weight, now I agree it is just a bit strange to have two ever shrinking catchments, especially when one now focuses on the most affluent part of the borough, that is an accident of history, but still. That may change though if RPA begins to get the parental confidence that matches all the buzz about it.

muminlondon I just wanted to second bayjay Please do not stop voicing opinions. I always find your posts interesting and informative and you have taught me a lot. Knowing as I do the way in which Turing House was conceived I did think your implication was a bit of a "conspiracy theory" but you are right that is the danger of a still largely opaque process. I do think like you that the whole GEMs thing was Hmm, but crucially they were not approved. Possibly between Turing and GEMS we see the fantastic opportunity Free Schools can present for local parents to get the schools they want, because I worry that with it's last bit of power LBRUT delivered some parents choices, or the lack of them, they did not want, but also the pitfalls. But they were not approved and the speed of action on the Leicester School is also reassuring.

Heathclif · 24/10/2013 15:02

Notatall Turing have a website www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/index.php If you haven't already you and your DD might enjoy a browse.

Their latest newsletter on there says Site News:

We know that the current uncertainty over our site is the biggest question on everyone’s mind. Firstly, some reassurance; it’s very common for Free Schools to be without a confirmed site at this stage in the process, because negotiations over sites can only begin when school proposals are approved by the Department for Education. Ours was approved in May, and since then the Government has been looking at our options in detail and making approaches to local landowners. We’ve been keeping the Site Page of our website up to date, but commercial sensitivities limit the amount of information we can share (in other words, we don’t want to be gazumped!).

You might have seen a local press report back in May, which said that our preferred site choice of NPL had been rejected. In fact, further discussion took place over the summer. Unfortunately, after full consideration, the National Measurement Office confirmed in August that it can’t make any land or buildings available to us. We’re obviously disappointed about that, but we’re keeping open the possibility of still using the NPL Sports Club facilities, and we’ll certainly still be developing a strong relationship with NPL through their education outreach programme.

Since then, the Government have been continuing negotiations over another very exciting local site, and the landowner has responded positively. We can’t publish details at the moment, but will send out an update as soon as possible. We are, of course, sharing confidential information with the Local Authority on our progress, and they are supporting us where they can.

BayJay2 · 24/10/2013 16:02

Thanks Heathclif. Notatallsnootie - I can't really add to that.

It's worth mentioning (for those who haven't been following from the start) that this thread pre-dates Turing House and the idea for the school grew out of the conversation here. However, anything I post here is my own opinion rather than that of the school. It's always worth emailing for an official answer on things, as it is for any other school.

Muminlondon - sorry if I was tetchy the other day. I replied to you after seeing a very silly conspiracy theory on another thread so you probably bore the brunt of that!

OP posts:
ChrisSquire2 · 24/10/2013 18:02

Here is some history from Matthew Paul:

From Report on Richmond upon Thames’s mixed community secondary schools’ Linked Schools Policy: September 2011:

1990-1991: . . 2.1 The admissions policy for the borough’s community secondary schools for 1990 admissions gave priority to children resident in Richmond upon Thames . .

2.2 By 1990, though, local authorities had absorbed the full ramifications of the High Court Judgement against the London Borough of Greenwich in 1989 (which) established that it was unlawful for a local authority to give priority in a school’s oversubscription criteria on the basis of a child’s residence within the authority’s administrative area. In other words, whilst it was – and remains – lawful to use distance from home to school as a criterion, applicants from outside the authority’s area should otherwise be considered for admission no less favourably than children living within the area.

2.3 Following the judgement, the authority experienced a considerable increase in the number of applications for its secondary schools from out-borough residents. It was feared that the schools’ popularity, the elongated shape of the borough and the schools’ relative proximity to the borough’s boundaries would lead to an excessively large number of children from outside the borough obtaining places in the borough’s schools. This would upset the traditional patterns of transfer between primary schools (both within and outside the borough) and the borough’s community secondary schools, and could lead to a shortage of places for in-borough residents.

The authority therefore established the Linked School Policy (LSP) in order to encourage a fair degree of stability in its admission patterns. The LSP also ensured that a large number of Year 6 pupils would reap the benefits of educational continuity by transferring with their peers. The authority believed that the community at large would be made more cohesive as a result.

2.4 The LSP for 1991 designated certain junior and primary schools as being ‘linked schools’ (incuding some out of borough schools) . . Waldegrave School for Girls was linked to all of (them) . .

2.10 The ‘quadrant system’ – four geographical areas covering all of Richmond Borough and part of the five neighbouring local authorities, to which places were allocated according to demand from each area – was introduced for admission to Waldegrave School for Girls in 1992. However, priority was still given to “girls attending a link primary school” . .

2.16 For 1997 entry, an ad hoc sub-committee of the authority’s Education Committee recommended that the criterion regarding the LSP should be removed from the oversubscription criteria for Waldegrave . .

So the current 'A' and 'B' areas are a simplification of the 4 quadrants adopted 11 years ago. I do not know when this change came in.

muminlondon2 · 25/10/2013 10:11

Heathclif and BayJay2 I haven't flounced! I do appreciate the need for sensitivity around individual schools, and that speculation - or even opinions - concerning individuals has to backed up by evidence and respect the private lives of those involved. This is also an anonymous forum and I'm not brave on making a stand or big on volunteering. As you may have guessed, I'm frustrated with so much of Gove's policy and the opacity of the free school process. It's due to his obfuscation that parent-led schools, superhead schools, profit-making schools, religious schools, and experimental labs for untrained teachers and loony curricula (here she goes again ...!) are lumped into the same bucket.

But still, good luck to the schools that I think could have been proposed and would be successful under any government.

NotatallSnootie · 25/10/2013 10:20

Thanks BayJay and Heathcliffe, we know the website, newsletters, FB page, and the Twitter feed (need to get out more) - it really was just that specific question of how long till sites can be announced - not actually looking for an announcement!

Fascinating to read how the Waldegrave catchment evolved.

muminlondon2 · 25/10/2013 10:24

Googled Waldegrave and found this - the change happened for 2006 entry (page 11):

'The quadrant system is too complicated, and it is felt that having two priority areas rather than four would be much easier for parents to understand. The quadrants have also been criticized because of the difference, each year, between the initial demand for places and their eventual take-up, particularly in the NE quadrant, where for 2003 and 2004 entry 27% of the overall applicants, but only 15% of the intake, resided. (No girls living in the SE quadrant took up places at the school in either year.)'

They proposed abolishing sibling criteria too but that wasn't popular I imagine.

swgl · 25/10/2013 11:01

Perhaps they should convert Waldegrave to a regular community school then, mixed gender distance-based -- but that's too much change, isn't it? :)

ChrisSquire2 · 25/10/2013 11:07

The RTT has ‘Made mess of schools’ (p 41), a stinging attack on Cllr Hodgins, the Tory cabinet member for schools by his Lib Dem shadow, Clllr Gareth Roberts (Hampton), who is by nature a much more combative adversary than his predecessor, Cllr Gerry Elloy.

He refers to Appointment Of Consultants Special Educational Needs/14-19 And Phase Two Primary Capital School Building Programmes (Cabinet paper April 19 2010) which sets out the Phase Two Primary School Capital Programme. That meeting, the last before the election in May, authorised the appointment of architects, etc. for 8 school expansions and refers to work already underway at 9 others (Phase 1).

muminlondon2 · 25/10/2013 11:16

swgl they can't touch any of the schools now because they are self-governing academies! Only Ofsted or the DfE can intervene where a school starts to fail but they wouldn't change a popular successful school. For fair admissions, we'd need a future government to change the Admissions Code along with the complaints and appeals process, and create new oversight boards to coordinate planning and access to a range of schools within a local area. And regulations on inclusive places in new faith schools including VA schools.

BayJay2 · 25/10/2013 11:16

Sorry notatall - would love to help. I know its frustrating.

Muminlondon - Brew Smile

swgl: Waldegrave have made a small step towards going mixed by allowing boys in their new sixth form. Perhaps they'll go further in future.

OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 25/10/2013 11:54

Brew Thanks

Heathclif · 25/10/2013 12:11

bayjay I know that quite a few of the staff are a bit Hmm about admitting boys in the sixth. They feel that the school champions girls' education and the benefits, tailored teaching methods, girls being able to assert themselves without the inhibitions that arise with the opposite sex around, giving girls powerful identities to help them assert themselves in the workplace etc (I am not necessarily supporting those arguments, there are valid arguments on both sides but I think they do apply for some girls) and do not see why the governors have chosen to dilute that.

It does seem that parents tend to like single sex education for girls but mixed for boys, hence privately we have KGS and Latymer going, very successfully coed but no corresponding move in the girls' schools. I totally understand the issues for the parents of boys in the area but you are also going to have a lot of opposition from the parents of girls, I am not sure there is a solution that would please the majority of parents either way.

BayJay2 · 25/10/2013 12:40

"I am not sure there is a solution that would please the majority of parents either way."

I agree, and that is part of the rationale for the location of the Turing house Admissions Point.

OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 25/10/2013 13:27

Just reading the RTT and seen 'Brightest students: GCSE pupils from Richmond are among the brightest in the country, according to the latest results.'

Richmond borough ranked 14th for five GCSEs including English and Maths and second for English Baccalaureate passes, up from 30th and seventh respectively last year. It's really good to see that. And with that success the area will probably attract and retain more pupils in secondaries than ever before.

swgl · 25/10/2013 14:27

Oh that's interesting re the 6th form so perhaps I wasn't that far off.

"girls being able to assert themselves without the inhibitions that arise with the opposite sex around, giving girls powerful identities to help them assert themselves in the workplace"

Well after leaving school girls will have to 'confront' boys anyway, in the workplace and elsewhere, so why not start to prepare early for that? and construct those powerful identities in a school environment that mirrors the fabric of the society - different genders, different social classes, different religions? :)

Personally I think both publicly-funded single sex schools and faith schools should be abolished. No matter how you look at it they discriminate against some categories. I do realize it won't happen for a while here in the UK.. but still nice to think about it :)

Heathclif · 25/10/2013 14:57

I did say I saw that there were valid arguments on both sides! I have two daughters, single sex education worked for one but not the other. It gave one the breathing space to develop confidence before she encountered the opposite sex, she is a Scientist and the problems girls can have in being motivated to specialise in Science in a mixed environment have been documented. I don't think anything would have put her off but I could certainly see her not asserting herself whereas now she is writing essays about gender bias in scientific method Grin (interesting stuff, when you think of conception has your education taught you to think of the egg as female and passive and the sperm as male and penetrating the egg? complete rubbish biologically as both contain male and female genetic material and the process of the cells merging is facilitated by changes in both. ) Like it or not we are still a way from an equal playing field for men and women so perhaps some girls do need space to develop their own identity. For my other daughter coed has given her a social environment she feels more comfortable in, as you say it is the norm they are going to experience, unless they end up in a women's prison......

Totally agree on the faith schools though Wink

Heathclif · 25/10/2013 16:04

And the key issue is that with a shortage of school places it is totally unfair to privilege any section of the community be they of a faith or have children of a particular gender, with choices others do not have. Hopefully Turing House will help correct the issue for those with boys in the area around Waldegrave.

muminlondon2 · 29/10/2013 13:23

Heathclif

'I do think like you that the whole GEMs thing was Hmm, but crucially they were not approved. '

GEMS appear to be resubmitting their bids both for Richmond and Kingston:

www.gemslearningtrust.org/contents.php?pageid=5167
www.gemslearningtrust.org/contents.php?pageid=5166&submenuid=6206&parentid=1185

It's also reported in the Kingston Guardian that 'GEMS had been in discussion with Kingston Council over the move for some months' although it's quoting from GEMs not Kingston.

And then the Schools Admission Forum mentions 'consultations in progress regarding a primary free school in Twickenham' but then confusing under point 6, and the heading 'Turing House', refers to 'proposals for a new primary free school'.

Who knew about this meeting on Monday, 14th October 'with local Richmond residents'?

twick13 · 30/10/2013 18:06

Just seen Turing House is running its own admission this year. Isn't that going to be chaos. Families hoping for Orleans will apply to Turing as a back up (I'm thinking Archdeacon and Trafalgar kids)If they get Orleans they will turn down Turing. But more a problem The kids from those two schools and Stanley and possibly Heathfield who get Twickenham Academy will turn down Twickenham Academy. Twickenham academy could loose a significant portion of their pupils after national offer day. Or am I missing something.

BayJay2 · 30/10/2013 18:21

Twick13, I think you're assuming too much when you say people will automatically turn down TA for Turing House. TA is on a high, with a brand new building. Both TA and Turing represent an opportunity (or a risk, depending on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist) so people will choose based on their preferred ethos. People who really really don't like the TA ethos won't go there anyway, they will move house or go private ( ok, so many can't afford to do that, but a significant number of people do, often crippling themselves financially in the process).

OP posts:
Dirtyflorrsandhappykids · 30/10/2013 19:30

Am I being niave just simply sitting on a waiting list for the local school I want. We didn't get our first choice but were only no. 3 on the waiting list for it. So I've happily sat on said waiting list all Summer and moved down it and back to the same place and yet I never seem to get anywhere closer.
Some say I am niave and I should have carpet bombed the school with fruit baskets and calls. But the head told me to simply ring the council once a week to chase, which I have done. I've also sent the school a letter telling them how keen we are and how we will accept as soon as a place is offered. However it seems that despite numerous departures throughout the first half of term we never get any closer. I do appreciate people move into the area - but surely in my once weekly check on waiting list position I would drop down the list when the register their interest, rather than simply never move whilst they get offered all the spaces. I also know number 2 on the list and they have the same issue.

Richmond Council of course have a standard line. "Madam I can confirm that the last place offered was based on distance from school." But I'm beginning to think it's rather untrue....

muminlondon2 · 30/10/2013 20:27

Dirtyflorrs sorry to hear that. The really frustrating thing about waiting lists is that the admissions criteria apply, not the date you registered - so it is about distance and siblings (or both combined).

One thing to bear in mind is that in some parts of the world (Australia?) the school year starts in January. So sometimes you get movement then.

muminlondon2 · 30/10/2013 20:45

Was going to add a bit more about GEMS as I've found out it has sold more than half of the 13 UK schools it acquired 9-10 years ago. Nearly all were prep schools and it has generally acquired rather than started from scratch. A few links below:

2003: Acquired first 3 schools: Sherborne House, Bury Lawn (now named Webber Independent) and Sherfield School

2004: Bought 10 more schools from Nord Anglia for £11.9 million, bringing total to 13. ‘hopes to manage around 200 schools in the UK within the next five years’

2005: Aims to have ‘5,000 schools on a global basis in 15 years' time' (from nearly 60). Nearly sponsored two state academies. But pulls out due to bad publicity over Bury Lawn.

See also profile of chairman’. ‘It takes seven to 10 years before you make any money [in a school].’

2007: Sells Kingswood College to developers.

2009: Reported to be interested in acquiring one of 25 schools (no evidence this happened).

2010: Chief Executive quits after 7 weeks

2011: Sells two schools for £2 million. ‘We're looking to buy more schools… we want to buy 20 in the UK.’

2013: Sells five schools in Yorkshire and Lancashire to Alpha Schools for £2.5 million.