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.

I think LEH qualified just on results actually - the criteria are here and don't require proof of charitable works. Not sure why Hampton Boys isn't in there too - one of about 5-6 London independents qualifying on both measures according to 2012 results. Westminster definitely didn't get the 90% Ebacc required.

It does look a bit odd to have one independent school among comprehensives like Fulham Cross Girls and Cranford Community College. I think the criteria were drawn up by a committee or on a fag packet.

Waldegrave can console itself with the Times Parent Power award.

L Prosser. Very few of the borough's (and beyond's) high attaining girls have a chance of Waldegrave, Teddington or any of the borough (and beyond's) outstanding schools They make up quite a lot of the school's cohorts (on bursaries or with parents just struggling to raise the cash)

Not that we have felt like dipping in our pockets either.

Heathclif many of the high achieving girls - and boys - in Teddington, Twickenham, Ham, Richmond and East Sheen have a good or outstanding school in their locality now. Twickenham Academy's Ofsted report is due any day so that would make a difference to Whitton. For Hampton they may have to wait for improvements, and it's harder around Fulwell, or Strawberry Hill for boys, and for some parents 'good' may still not be good enough. But I'd say that's the majority of the borough.

mum It isn't the majority is it though, when the schools that have parental confidence, like Teddington, Waldegrave, and Orleans have 1000 parents making them first preference, that is approximately 800 parents who are not getting places at each of these schools. If they had confidence in the improving schools they would be filling them several times over. You can't entirely put the reason this borough has one of the highest proportions of pupils going private at 11 down to affluence because it exceeds the proportion in more affluent boroughs. I agree the picture is improving, especially with a new school like Turing following the model of the most popular schools, and hopefully schools like RPA getting to the point of having parental confidence but they are not there yet. We will see what OFSTED have to say about TA but even with a good OFSTED at best it is still offering a different educational approach to the most popular schools........

Plus schools like LEH are also taking girls whose parents are finding themselves in similar positions from Ealing to Windsor to Hinchley and Cobham to Guildford to Wimbledon...... Given what is coming I don't see any reduction in the number of parents feeling they have to find the money to send bright girls there.

No, those applying to Teddington, etc. are putting it down as one of six choices. The other 800 are as likely to come from Richmond or East Sheen filling up their options as Teddington, despite not being anywhere. The established good/outstanding and popular schools offer nearly 1,000 places, so that's the majority of applicants. Now 150 Catholics have the extra choice of StRR, and on top of that a significant number from Richmond get Tiffin (at least 30). And plenty of people who would still turn Tiffin down in favour of an independent school.

Choices haven't been evenly distributed (the link system prioritised mostly CofE primaries) and still aren't (the schools are not evenly located). But the only places in the country where 99% or higher have been offered first choice only have one school to choose from.

I looked up more on the Place Group and Bellevue Education - Tom Legge is name-checked by Toby Young in his book How To Set Up a Free School as 'the best project manager in the business' and connected to other high profile founders of free schools such as Katharine Birbalsingh and other projects for the DfE. So fairly influential then.

Bellevue Education has expanded rapidly since 2010 with 'significant financial backing from a small number of British and Swiss families'. It would be interesting to know who they are. I wouldn't like to see the UK follow, for example, the situation in the US where some charter schools have been linked to political party funding, and this has happened in Sweden too.

mum I am perfectly aware of how the preference scheme works and that many of the 800 parents disappointed with not getting first preference at each of Teddington Waldegrave and Orleans will be from across the borough, and out of borough. It doesn't change the fact that demand for those schools is overwhelming and that lack of confidence in the improving schools means demand is underwhelming. The reality is that a very high proportion of parents in this borough compared to other, even more affluent boroughs, do feel compelled to go private or move, if they can afford it. There is still an issue with the secondary choices available to many parents in this borough, especially when the educational methods in two of the improving schools, are so different to those in the popular schools. With the pupil bulge coming through, this isn't going to get better either, even with Turing, Egerton and possibly some community places at St RR.

I recommend the first sketch in last night's Mitchell and Webb Sound Radio 4 at 6.30pm!

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jb1wp

Agree that the secondary choices available in Hampton and Twickenham aren't great but still 6 or 7 good secondaries and most children can get one of them. Problem may get worse with more children coming through of course. With removal of linked system would expect to see a lot of children from private system who live nearby apply to the popular secondaries if they are really struggling to pay fees, but I don't think that happened last year. Would like to see evidence of how many girls per year schools like LEH actually give substantial financial help to and where they live.

Both LEH and Hampton Boys ask for £100 up front just to register your child for a place and have the opportunity to apply for a bursary! I imagine that puts quite a lot of people off, especially when the criteria for getting a bursary aren't transparent - there's no published guidance on what level of income might qualify for 100% bursary.

I do know one family who turned down a bursary from Hampton because they still couldn't afford the fees, despite the discount. That's a lot of hassle to go through (form filling, interviews, exams, etc) for such a disappointing outcome. I imagine many people who apply for them are just doing it on the off-chance, and otherwise intend to pay the fees in full.

Bayjay In the local primaries they work in, and through the Shine scheme, they actively seek out bright girls from disadvantaged backgrounds and support their girls and their parents through the process. The registration fee would be unlikely to be an issue in those circumstances. They are also part of the London Schools Fees Assistance scheme and certainly I know of pupils from the wider catchment who have found out about the opportunity through that. My impression is that you would find pupils being identified through local schemes within a 3 -5 mile radius but also know of girls from as far as Hanwell benefitting from the bursary process. It is all for obvious reasons not made public with regard to individual girls and I am not prepared to be too detailed but honestly some of the families are not middle class and savvy about what they could get, though perhaps there is a little more preparedness to push through the process amongst families who are from other cultures where the opportunity to get ahead through academic success is strongly valued.

They are fairly open about the process on the website

"Bursary awards are subject to repeat testing of parental means each year and may be varied upwards or downwards, depending on parental circumstances. As a very rough guide parents / guardians whose combined income is less than £20,000 could be offered a 100% discount on the tuition fees whilst those with a combined income of £50,000 + are unlikely to qualify for assistance. Though awards are generally tied to this scale, they may be varied upwards or downwards depending on individual parents /guardians' circumstances (e.g. their savings, investments and realisable assets, as well as their income, the size of their family, any other persons dependent upon them and like factors), compassionate or other pertinent considerations."

"Over 2010/11, some 167 pupils (19.2% of total number of girls at LEH) received financial disbursements, at a cost of £740,087 (6.48% of gross fee income). Of these, 41 receive financial support through bursaries, of which 28 were full bursaries. For 2010/11, bursarial support has been increased to £812,400."

At the end of the day it is a private school, and not a little of it's motivation is doubtless to get the brightest pupils who will keep it's results up top in the league tables (my main source of about what it offers is the emphasis on getting the results that will keep it at the top, can't help thinking of it as a bit of a poisoned chalice for those given the opportunity) but it would not be accurate to say it goes through the motions of charitable status because a. that is part of it's founding ethos and b. it is an ethos many of the staff actively embrace.

I would say knowing the current parent cohort that at a rough guess if every pupil in Richmond had access to an outstanding state school it would lose about 20% of it's pupils.

Whilst there is without a doubt a strong contingent from affluent families
who were always going to go private. There is also a strong contingent from immigrant communities and from the local community who are stretching themselves to afford it, alongside those being assisted with the fees.

Fair enough Heathclif. The family I was talking about were applying to Hampton Boys where the criteria aren't given in such detail.

if every pupil in Richmond had access to an outstanding state school ...

There are no London boroughs (and London tops the regions) with 100% outstanding schools. Westminster is closest with 9 outstanding and 1 good, but half of their schools are faith schools, they're all academies, their average results are lower than ours and their intake more disadvantaged (with more pronounced differences between schools).

I think Richmond borough is second highest only after Kingston on Ebacc results in 2013, yet Kingston parents look on admiringly at Grey Court and Teddington. The more diversity (selectives, more single sex schools, more faith schools), the less choice people feel they have.

... But looking at Westminster on the schools map, most of its boroughs have far lower numbers at state secondaries than Richmond - several wards lower than 20%. By 'outstanding' some people also expect 'socially selective'. If one more class of local primary pupils attended RPA it would certainly boost the size of the top set by 20%.

mum Hasn't the London Challenge helped unhook that connection between outstanding and socially selective, and proved that you can have a high proportion of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and be outstanding in improving their outcomes. Now in London 29% from the poorest fifth of neighbourhoods get exam results in the bottom fifth compared to 46% outside London www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/londonfacts/default.htm?category=3

I am not going to rehash teh argument we have had on here again and again but it really isn't a surprise that in London's most affluent borough Kensington, almost half of pupils are in private schools. However that the figure is 30% in Richmond, higher than in borough's of equivalent affluence, is I am sure a reflection of an education strategy that has long relied on deterring the parents there are not the places for in good accessible schools, primary and secondary, into going private or moving away.

RPA are an example of how badly the Council have let down parents in parts of the borough. There is no reason in terms of catchment why Shene School should not have been another Teddington, Orleans, Greycourt (which was a popular school for most of the time I have lived in this borough apart from a few years of poor leadership) etc. The reason it does not attract another class out of primaries, in spite of all that is being achieved there, is because for reasons of poor management (and with Lord True in the governing body) it so comprehensively, and for such a long time, lost the confidence which it had within the local community.

Heathclif is right. There is no longer a connection between Outstanding and Catchment anywhere other than in parents' minds. The new Ofsted inspection criteria say pupils need to be showing outstanding progress not outstanding results, and they need to be doing it across the board in order for schools to be awarded an outstanding rating. That's just as challenging with a high attaining cohort as with a lower attaining one.

And its why lots of schools may be downgraded at their next inspection.

Thanks for that info on LEH Heathclif. Hardly any of it comes out in the marketing they are doing to the people that they want to put their hands in their pockets to pay for bursaries. I suspect they might do better if they did some individual case studies like proper charities do, although not necessarily with the likes of me.

It really sounds from the other thread on RPA as though it is a great place now with features that parents in other schools would welcome around home-school communication, care for year 7s etc. I wonder how long that will take to penetrate the brains of those who could be applying there but are still scared off by its previous incarnation?

I feel from personal observation over the years that some of our local well regarded primary schools do not handle the minority lower attaining cohort very well at all. I have particularly seen how bad they are with dyslexia where wealthier parents are driven to private assessments to get the problem diagnosed, often followed by moving their kids to the private sector, but the less well off are left to struggle. I also think the amount of parental support needed with homework at later primary and early secondary school stages isn't acknowledged and I wonder if they make allowances for it when deciding which children to put in top sets etc. Will be interesting to see how this plays out with Ofsted.

lottie I know from personal experience that a lot of schools do not cope well with Specific Learning Difficulties, including Dyslexia and Dyspraxia, state or private, especially in pupils who are attaining at the average or above average. Even now the extent to which new teachers are taught about Specific Learning Difficulties is woeful. One lecture for my niece's peers training at Roehampton (where you would hope of all teacher training places they would still be at the forefront of understanding different learning styles) with no teaching about inclusive teaching methods which can benefit the majority of the class.

So you still have teachers with the belief that you can't be bright and have a SpLD, that you can't be good at literacy skills and have a SpLD etc. etc. Let alone that in many state schools they will openly say they do not have the resources to help those with above average attainment even if they are not achieving their potential. I am going around the universities with my daughter at the moment and it is shocking to see them giving out to everyone a simple list of the symptoms which if a lot of teachers were just to take the time to read them would enable them to get beyond the stereotypes and common prejudices misapprehensions.

A friend who was encountering all this in her DS's school ended up persuading them that it was an area where they were weak (not this borough, in a more disadvantaged borough) . They undertook extensive staff training, and now pride themselves on being a Dyslexia aware school. Not just that but the changes they have implemented as a result have had benefits for the whole school. The teaching methods that don't work for Dyslexics and those with other SpLDs (around 10% at every level of ability) often don"t work with a lot of other pupils in the class either of the class as well.

The sad thing is that after years of progress the Gove regime has effectively done away with the principle that the playing field should be levelled for those with SpLDs when it comes to public examination with new regulations on extra time etc that effectively discriminate against those bright pupils with SpLDs, reinforcing the prejudice you can't be bright and have a learning disability. So it isn't going to improve anytime soon.

Heathclif the education strategy that may have encouraged more into the private sector was the link policy on top of underperformance affecting Richmond-side schools from 2003 until recently. This side contains areas more affluent than Whitton (with similar underperformance) so links were list quickly and the participation rate also reflects that. They were children locked out of the oversubscribed schools according to that system - i.e. in private primaries like your DCs, in schools that had lost or never formed a link being new, or in Twickenham that were beyond the distance cut-off for their linked school despite being nearer another one - AND the Catholic primaries.

Meanwhile North Kingston primaries expanded in size then snuck in and gained the links to Grey Court thus reducing/eliminating the distance criterion and further reducing options.

Funnily enough, in the wards affected, they tended to vote Conservative, so the LibDems did nothing. I agree the education strategy was unfair.

Shene/RPA is in an affluent ward and has suffered from the problems you mention. But it IS improving, it is 'good' under the new Ofsted framework and and that will not be taken away for a good few years. It was badly managed in the past but both governing body and head were praised in the Ofsted report. Although the sponsor has not performed well across all its schools, it takes a light-touch approach in this case. Branding can be a curse as well as a blessing.

Despite this, I challenge you to find a borough with the same proportion of inclusive schools (i.e. comprehensive and non-faith) yet similarly high academic results from a similar intake in those schools. Compare for example with Kingston (88% state secondary attendance) on 2012 results:

1. More inclusive schools: 7 comprehensive/non-denominational, of which 6 are mixed, compared with 6 in Kingston (only 2 are mixed).

1. Similar pupil profile in those inclusive comprehensives: 14% low prior attainers (13% in Kingston inclusive comps, 17.1% state average), 36% high (33% Kingston, 33.1% nationally), average FSM-eligible rate of 26% (21% Kingston, 25.3% nationally).

1. Results in these fully inclusive comprehensives:

• Low prior attainers do a little better: 14% gain 5 GCSEs including E&M and equivalents (8% in Kingston).
• High prior attainers do very well (94% GCSEs both boroughs - national average), and even better on Ebacc: 52% (44% in Kingston, national average of 38.5%).
• All children do better: 27% Ebacc in Richmond but 19% in Kingston - and that group of schools in both boroughs are above national average (16.2%).

It could get even better, I agree - and in 2013 it has.

I gather dyslexia is not usually covered on PGCE courses (not just Roehampton) but according to Dyslexia Action, specialist training is given in the form of further CPD. But you need to have QTS plus minimum two years' teaching experience before being accepted on an accredited course. I agree that if this has not been prioritised in the past, Gove - who doesn't even think QTS is necessary for general teaching, let alone minimum experience - is not going to champion it.

This depressing BBC article on teacher training shortages suggests why he is so keen on unqualified teachers: his Schools Direct policy has been a flop and only 68% of places have been filled. There was under-recruitment in particular for maths, physics, modern foreign languages, design & tech or computer sciences places, but over-recruitment on arts subjects such as history.

Yes mum one of the worst examples of a teacher not "getting" a dyslexic pupil I have encountered was I am sure a result of a background that was ex armed forces via the schools direct scheme.

With huge respect for your exhaustive research, which I very much value, I will shy from your challenge. I am not sure in any case with huge differences in local conditions, affluence, inheritance of schools etc. it is possible to compare boroughs. I am however aware of the history here which is why I will continue to criticise the record of both parties in local government especially when not just inheriting but adding to the proportion of exclusive faith schooling in the borough when so many parents have been let down in terms of places in good local schools for so long. I don't think we are really arguing anyway. I completely agree that, particularly in Sheen things are improving, even If parental perceptions are taking time to adjust, though I do think the record, and improvements in our schools are to do, with good leadership from Heads like the ones at Greycourt, RPA and Waldegrave and hard work by their staff.

I am already fed up of both parties slinging mud at each other in the lead up to the election when neither as far as I can see is offering anything different to the status quo that will doubtless leave parents without places at accessible good schools and even resorting to home Ed again this round of applications.

I don't think we are arguing either so I'll take back my gauntlet! I do sympathise with children who have struggled with dyslexia but that may be a national picture. Teachers are wary of giving the wrong labels and Ofsted has specifically picked up schools that gave done precisely that despite some teachers not even having mainstream qualifications.

I think our schools do really well - it's extremely hard to meet all the challenges that the government is throwing at them but they are doing so in the main. And the intake of the schools as a whole is not especially advantaged because of high private school uptake - which we agree has been encouraged by local politicking.

LProsser: re yrs of Tue 26-Nov-13 21:14:36: my mistake: I didn’t clearly distinguish between ‘forms of entry’ and ‘EXTRA forms of entry’. I agree that 1959 more children in school at September 2017 implies 65 more classes than now; and that we don’t know their ages and which year they will apply so we can’t say how many reception classes will be needed.

Spreading the increase evenly over the 5 years gives us 131 - say135 - more than 2012 in 2013, 260 in 2014, etc. implying 4.5 new classes in 2013 followed by a further 9 in 2014, etc. up to 22.5 in 2017 for a grand total of 67.5 (65 exactly).

Such a massive rapid expansion is clearly not being planned or perhaps even thought about: Today's RTT has another letter from Tony Shoebridge (p 30), responding to mine last week which set out the GLA forecast, this time promoting me to the Lib Dem agent at the last election, another fantasy, and one from Cllr Hodgson (p 31) responding to last week’s letter from the Lib Dem Cllr Eady. Neither have anything to say about this forecast.

I have just heard TAs OFSTED is out, requires improvement

Twickenham Academy just got requires improvement in its ofsted. Not good for the kunskapskollen model. Shame I was hoping the school would turn around and Whitton would have a good option.