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.

Report in the Telegraph: the Catholic Church has ruled out creating new academies or free schools unless the 50% cap on faith criteria admissions could be dropped.

The only Catholic free school backed by the church was a very small private school, which increased in size when it joined the state sector.

Interesting news about IES, the Swedish for-profit provider which advertised a free school proposal in the RTT last year and is managing a Suffolk free school in a commission basis.

IES Breckland recently dismissed six staff and there were suggestions it employed unqualified teachers, which the principal denied. Now the principal has resigned.

There seems to be a big turnover at West London Free School too, according to a post on a mumsnet thread, although no suggestion that they were unqualified.

Maybe Ms Zand will be coming to a free school near here in due course if she is relocating to Surrey?!

There's a suggestion on this blog that she didn't even have deputy head experience, and was on sick leave. I do feel sorry for her from that perspective, but she is, apparently, moving to another role within IES. Other posts/comments on the same site suggest the school was employing unqualified teachers and couldn't offer single sciences.

The RTT has Where are these extra classes? (p 24) a letter from Lib Dem Cllr Malcolm Eady and Focusing on free schools (p 24) another letter from me replying to a letter last week (p 26) from Tony Shoebridge.

Working from borough birth data by ward, Cllr Eady forecasts that the number of places needed next September will increase by c. 110 -.e 3.5 forms of entry; just four extra places over what was finally provided last September are planned. So where, he asks very reasonably, is the Council planning to put the 3--4 extra unplanned emergency bulge classes that will be needed?

My letter sets out the recently published London Schools Atlas forecast for Richmond borough, posted here at ChrisSquire2 Fri 08-Nov-13 11:50:29: 4.5 extra forms of entry each year for five years.

So you are counting all extra children in all extra wards irrespective of the numbers traditionally going private in those wards? (E.g Barnes has only 42% of primary age children attending state schools yet Lowther has a catchment of over 3km despite being a 'good' school with a new build .. Perhaps because local parents in Barnes are mostly wealthy and privately educated themselves?) I'm sure there are other areas with more pressure but aren't your calculations a little simplistic? And do you welcome all types of free school - because they are many and varied. Turing House is more the model Labour would accept as a parent-led school.

muminlondon2: my calculation included the different participation rates rates for each ward, which are:

West Twickenham 95%
Heathfield 94%
Whitton 94%
Hampton Wick 88%
Fulwell and Hampton Hill 87%
Hampton North 86%
Teddington 82%
Hampton 80%
South Twickenham 79%
St Margarets and North Twickenham 77%
North Richmond 77%
Ham, Petersham and Richmond Rive 75%
East Sheen 75%
Mortlake and Barnes Common 75%
Twickenham Riverside 74%
South Richmond 65%
Kew 64%
Barnes 41%

Average: 78% (Kingston: 88 %)

But you still took the total number of children and applied the percentage of 78%? That would still be simplistic and you would need to take into account whether it is appropriate to expand schools that take a larger number of out of borough children, which the LibDems may have done in the past. Not that there isn't demand, but funding is applied differently now.

Interesting also that in some areas there is a big disparity between state primary school attendance and secondary. East Sheen and South Richmond have 26% and 32% respectively at state secondaries. I think participation will go up now the link system has been dropped and Grey Court is a magnet school. But if you were planning secondaries in the same way you would have to take account of vacancies nearby and mobility of pupils too (how many of the extra children are from families who rent privately and may move out of the area?).

But I'll leave it up to the council to work it out!

"So where, he asks very reasonably, is the Council planning to put the 3--4 extra unplanned emergency bulge classes that will be needed?"

Chris, ME's comment in the letter that "the administration has known since last December that there was no bid for a new free primary school" isn't accurate. There was the GEMs bid. It wasn't approved, but they didn't know that until May. As we know, it's now being resubmitted for 2015.

I heard this week that there's also another primary free school bid proposed for the St. Margarets/East Twick area, again for 2015.

We know Collis is taking an extra class in 2014, and may be encouraged to expand permanently.

Plus, the (still unanounced) Turing House site may be large enough to provide primary places.

MuminLondon2: Here is the full calculation, ranked by the final column, ‘Forecast increase in pupils’. For Mortlake, = 75% of (1374 - 956) = 314, etc.

Ward Name - Children age 4 to 10 mid-2012 (GLA) - Children age 4 to 10 mid-2017 (GLA) - Change in age 4 to 10 population to mid-2017 (GLA) - % Change in age 4 to 10 population to 2017 (GLA) - Estimated Percentage attending state funded school 2011/12 - Forecast increase in pupils

Mortlake and Barnes Common - 956 - 1,374 - 418 - 44% - 75% - 314
Fulwell and Hampton Hill - 946 - 1,131 - 185 - 20% - 87% - 161
St Margarets and North Twickenham - 1,111 - 1,301 - 190 - 17% - 77% - 146
West Twickenham - 1,033 - 1,182 - 149 - 14% - 95% - 142
North Richmond - 939 - 1,117 - 178 - 19% - 77% - 137
Hampton - 885 - 1,048 - 163 - 18% - 80% - 130
Hampton Wick - 950 - 1,092 - 142 - 15% - 88% - 125
Teddington - 852 - 986 - 134 - 16% - 82% - 110
Whitton - 805 - 912 - 107 - 13% - 94% - 101
Heathfield - 888 - 987 - 98 - 11% - 94% - 92
South Richmond - 773 - 912 - 139 - 18% - 65% - 90
Hampton North - 781 - 880 - 99 - 13% - 86% - 85
Kew - 1,073 - 1,198 - 125 - 12% - 64% - 80
Twickenham Riverside - 840 - 947 - 107 - 13% - 74% - 79
South Twickenham - 816 - 901 - 85 - 10% - 79% - 67
East Sheen - 1,058 - 1,118 - 60 - 6% - 75% - 45
Ham, Petersham and Richmond Rive - 914 - 968 - 54 - 6% - 75% - 41
Barnes - 944 - 977 - 34 - 4% - 41% - 14

Totals: - 16564 - 19031 - 2467 - 15% - - 1959

Extra forms of entry = 65 at 2017 = 4.5 extra forms of entry each year for five years 2012 - 2017.

The average pupil increase = 110/ward = 22/ward/year.

It is mildly irritating that the promoters of the Richmond Bridge Primary School nowhere acknowledge that the school will be in Twickenham and seem unaware that the name ‘Richmond Bridge’ now identifies the very posh gated development on the riverside on the former ice rink site. It is backed by the Bellevue Education Group which runs nine preparatory schools. The news page has a post by Tom Legge - does anybody know him?

The St Margaret's school doesn't appear to name a site. The partner is a for-profit operator of private schools (one acquired from GEMS) backed with venture capital. It has caused controversy in Islington after taking over a site earmarked for social housing.

www.islingtontribune.com/news/2013/nov/ashmount-argument-‘-choice-between-housing-and-free-school’

Two of Bellevue Education's schools are Swiss boarding schools. It has been expanding rapidly since 2011:

www.educationinvestor.co.uk/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=2453

Tom Legge is Schools' Development Director of Place Group:

As part of its ongoing commitment to building capacity in the Free Schools Market, Place has recently launched a group on LinkedIn specifically designed to build knowledge and capacity in this field.

With a membership that is growing rapidly, The Free Schools Resource Group has already brought together senior figures from the education world and promoter groups. Commenting on the Group, Tom Legge, Place Group’s New Schools Director said,

'The Free Schools movement transcends issues of competition and territory within service providers, our group recognises this through its own inclusive admissions policy. Whether you are a parent, teacher, or a competitor organisation, you are welcome to join the group as it seeks to build a collective knowledge base that will serve the ultimate aim of improving life chances for young people.’

Bellevue Education used to trade under the name Really Great Education Company. It's mentioned along with GEMS in this 2010 report by a right-wing thinktank as one of the new proprietors in the private school market - still the minority as most independent schools are charitable trusts. It advocates profit-making in schools, unqualified teachers, and praises Kunskapsskolan in the Swedish market, although events have superseded many of its assertions about quality.

The thinktank report I linked to that looks to Sweden should be read in light of developments there such as bankruptcies of large venture capital-backed chains (prompting new curbs on such companies) grade inflation, increasing social segregation and Sweden's fall in international education comparison tables. Recent Economist article and commentary here.

The Mayor of London has announced his [[http://www.londonschoolsgoldclub.org.uk/gold-club-members 2013 'Gold Club' members. It is 'annual scheme to identify and celebrate those exceptional schools in London that are succeeding with all their pupils – but especially the most disadvantaged' and to 'share their good practice'.

This scheme is entirely voluntary but schools nominate themselves and only 7% are allowed to belong.

The Richmond schools are: Barnes primary, East Sheen primary, Marshgate primary, Stanley primary. Only two of these schools feature in the top 10 for Level 5 results (2012) for all pupils or disadvantaged pupils, although both have a below average number of pupils on FSM. 2013 results are out in December but the schools with the best Level 5/6 results don't appear to be a Gold Club schools either.

The only secondary in the list is Lady Eleanor Holles. Does it give a lot of bursaries to disadvantaged girls?

Sorry, I misread the criteria and hadn't meant to post.

2013 Gold Club members

No Richmond state secondaries made it - only Waldegrave passed the pupil premium and 20% Ebacc test, but didn't manage 100% GCSE inc E&M coverage of all except low attainers. To be fair, not many made that list!

Lady Eleanor Holles did make it because it obtained more than 90% Ebacc and 85% A/A*s.

The primaries which made it all passed the pupil premium benchmark (79% L4). Many of the others which achieved more than 50% at L5 last year (e.g. Queen's, St James's and St Elizabeth's) had only 3 or fewer pupils eligible for pupil premium - all 3 would have needed to pass L4 to meet the criteria.

So well done to those schools which did qualify.

I should think any organisation that is hoping to acquire a site near Richmond Bridge with room for 420 pupils who won't be paying fees would need to be earning a large profit from Swiss boarding schools! How much is the Dept. of Education willing to chip in for land in such an expensive area?

Are the figures for the increase in the number of children age 4-10 broken down into how many will be starting school each year in LB Richmond and how many are already primary school age when they arrive in LB Richmond or are transferring from private sector? I assume that must have been done or we would be needing 13 new reception classes per year, but I've never seen a reference to needing bulge classes for primary school children of other ages. I have met some parents from Eastern Europe who came here with children of 6 or 7 thinking that they were the right age to start school not realising that they start younger here. My brother in laws ex girlfriend was quite surprised to hear that her son would be in Year 2 as he'd never been to school before (they were from Croatia). I'm sure that situation is more usual in other parts of London than Richmond. Are there figures on how many children leave Richmond primary schools each year for whatever reason freeing up places for new arrivals?

"How much is the Dept. of Education willing to chip in for land in such an expensive area?"

Once the Govt have approved a school they wil pay for the land/buildings - the trust won't be expected to chip in with funds from other sources.

There's no definite upper limit, but there's pressure to keep costs as low as possible (i.e. council owned land, existing buildings where possible).

If they need to buy land commercially then they will look at whether that's a good investment in comparison with the alternatives. They will also look continuously at the popularity of the school (i.e. are those early declarations of support reflected in high numbers of actual applications) as part of that investment decision.

It might be an expensive area, but they still need school places!

LProsser: here are the references for the forecasts:

New London Schools Atlas puts information and transparency at the heart of education in the capital - See more at: www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/11/new-london-schools-atlas-puts-information-and-transparency-at#sthash.KHHrq7k6.dpuf London Schools Atlas and Technical Note: Projections for the London Schools Atlas:

‘ . . The population projections are produced by a three stage process:

Stage 1 projects future borough-level populations by applying recent trends in fertility, migration and
mortality to a starting population (a modified version of the ONS 2011 mid-year estimate). Migration flows
are broken down by source and destination, each with their own age and sex characteristics. This is the
lowest level at which regular migration flow data is generally available.

Stage 2 takes the initial borough projections and factors in the impact of housing development. This is an
iterative process that involves converting a given population into households and comparing with the
forecast number of available dwelling spaces. This conversion into households is achieved by applying
borough-specific household formation rates to the population. Domestic migration flows are then adjusted
up or down until a population is arrived at that yields a number of households that fits the available
household spaces. The effect in the model of new housing development is to cause outmigration from a
borough to fall and in-migration to increase.

Stage 3 distributes the borough population projections between wards. To achieve this, a process similar to
that outlined in stage 1 is repeated at ward level and the ward totals constrained to match the overall
borough population. Because annual migration flow data is not available at this geographic level, dwelling
stock changes are used to generate proxy estimates of flows . . ‘

The tables are at All-London forecasts by ward. There are no more detailed breakdowns.

You don’t explain how you get 13 new classes/year. I get 22.5 by the end year, 2017, = 4.5/year over 5 years. 13 is absurd.

LProsser: here are the references for the forecasts:

New London Schools Atlas puts information and transparency at the heart of education in the capital - See more at: Press release, London Schools Atlas and Technical Note: Projections for the London Schools Atlas:

muminlondon - just reading your post
Any idea why Eleanor Hs was singled out as performing well? When you take the top few % as your cohort you would expect to get a minimum of 85% A/A . These girls would all have left primary with 5As (or more if the L6 tests had been in place. They should all be capable of A/A and Ebacc. These figures suggest the school is only delivering expected levels. See,s strange that they would be identified as achieving above average

Perhaps LEH is singled out because of it's willingness to get involved in outreach schemes, partnerships with local schools, mentoring, sharing facilities, taking activities into schools, the SHINE scheme etc.? The focus of the Club appears to be the fund intended to encourage sharing of best practise? www.lehs.org.uk/pbp/index.php

It does have quite a few bursaries, and it does liaise with local primaries to focus them on the high attainers from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to mentor them to get in. It is trying to raise funds for more, but I don't think it is the richest of indies in terms of bursary funds who would meet the academic criteria, yet it is as far as I can see the only private school on the list. I would have thought eg Westminster, Dulwich College have far more money and give out more bursaries in areas of greater disadvantage. And doesn't City of London Boys do a lot of similar outreach and sharing.

Perhaps it was the only indie that answered the call

Doubtless there will be a press release.....

Chris - I got 13 classes by dividing 1959 children by 30 = 65 classes ie. 13 per year over 5 years - but you say only 4.5 per year in your posting at 14.32 on Saturday which I didn't quite follow. It doesn't say anywhere in the tables how old these additional children are - surely if e.g. there is a lot of new housing some of the people moving in will have children that are somewhere between 4 and 10 - they won't all be starting reception.

As an old girl of LEH I regularly get canvassed to give them money sometimes for bursaries. I have not found it necessary to put my hand in my pocket to rescue these bright high attaining primary school girls from the horrors of, say, Waldegrave! I think they must struggle to raise much - weirdly nearly all the old LEH girls that I know, especially locally, have children in state schools.