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.

A worrying issue is the sale of school playing fields under the Coalition as reported by the Telegraph.

So far 57 playing fields have been sold off since May 2010. ... Some 10,000 playing fields were sold off between 1979 and 1997 under the Tories. But under Labour, between 1997 and 2010, only 226 were sold.

One academy sponsor reported to be planning to axe a playground is Lord Nash, Future Academies founder and schools minister.

That Sulivan primary story was in the Standard tonight although I can't find it online - similar coverage here. This is one of the few London primaries that qualified for Boris's 'Gold Club' despite its disadvantaged intake, many of whom live in flats and benefit from the lovely open space, but Boris and H&F want to force them into a sponsored academy without outside space sponsored by a private school chain - with no experience of running any state school, let alone one with a similar intake. This is to provide a site for a new boys' CofE free school - despite the fact that even the diocese supports Sulivan's campaign.

Very worrying trend. The £6m quoted to replace the Sulivan school buildings sounds very reasonable actually. There seems to be a new tendency to boast about how much more cheaply you can open a free school than you could rebuild a school properly under Building Schools for the Future. I can imagine the same happening in LB Richmond i.e. primaries with elderly buildings being made to merge to free up sites. I suppose the high % of church schools may be the only thing that makes it less practical as presumably they can't be forced to merge with community schools. There are still schools with outside spaces which are very valuable for education (an example that springs to mind is the Hampton Wick Infants Nature area) but which may be seen as fair game given how expensive land is on the open market. I can't see how else free schools will get sites. What's happening on the sixth form site in Twickenham is a version of this really - it's being talked up as the only thing that can be done without any consideration of the fact that it needs to go through a planning process which takes into account the huge impact on the local area.

"There seems to be a new tendency to boast about how much more cheaply you can open a free school than you could rebuild a school properly under Building Schools for the Future"

Rather than something new, I'd say that was always a fundamental objective of the free school policy. I'm not defending it, but the position from the start was "we will create school places more quickly, more cheaply, and with greater parental satisfaction and quality than the last Government". They've certainly done it quickly, and relatively cheaply, but only time will be able to judge the satisfaction/quality outcomes. I think that's the basic overall message of last week's NAO report.

I know it was always an objective but cost has become a bit more of a headline message, whereas before the most prominent objectives were more about giving a "choice" to escape "the dead hand of the local authority". But to introduce choice you have to have lots of surplus places and that's plainly not going to happen now in most areas under austerity and there is criticism of free schools opening in areas where there isn't a shortage of places. I can't see how the Government can compare the building programme of the last decade with now other than by reference to cost. I don't think anyone has surveyed the parents of children who benefited from rebuilt schools under the previous Government to see how satisfied they were after the rebuild?!

"cost has become a bit more of a headline message, whereas before the most prominent objectives were more about giving a "choice""

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think the "choice" message has been toned down as people who are clearly without any choice have become more vocal. Choice will always be a privilege, and unfortunately the Government can't afford to give it to everyone.

"I can't see how the Government can compare the building programme of the last decade with now other than by reference to cost."

Cost and time I think.

" I don't think anyone has surveyed the parents of children who benefited from rebuilt schools under the previous Government to see how satisfied they were after the rebuild?!"

No, by parental satisfaction I just meant the extent to which schools were popular (i.e. well subscribed) by families. I'm not aware of there being any issue with the BSF schools on that front at all. I think the potential negatives of the speedy and cost-effective approach to free schools are intended to be balanced to some extent by their "giving parents what they want" appeal.

I think the potential negatives of the speedy and cost-effective approach to free schools are intended to be balanced to some extent by their "giving parents what they want" appeal.

But that hasn't exactly worked because many free schools have been undersubscribed (in Suffolk some well under 50% in the respective year groups). In an area where parents are denied choice because free schools/academies are all run by the same sponsor (Pimlico primary schools all now academies run by Lord Nash), but there is still a population boom, the newly but cheaply built free school with no outside space is still less than half full in its first year.

Having said that, I do think a lot of money was wasted under Labour on academies and BSF. There is obviously a cheaper way to build or improve schools and they don't need input from Richard Rogers. It just doesn't follow that all new school building should be restricted to academies outside LA control.

Of course those examples of undersubscribed schools may never have had parental support in the first place but were a vehicle to insert sponsors from the private sector into a newly created 'market'. And I think it's backfired.

"But that hasn't exactly worked because many free schools have been undersubscribed"

Well that's the test I was referring to, but I think more time is needed to judge the outcome - it'll be true of some schools, and there've already been some high profile failures, but what about across the board? And many of the headlines about empty places have only looked at schools in their opening year, which isn't representative (not even for maintained schools like SRR). For instance Bristol Free School wasn't full in its first year (they only announced the site 3 months before it was due to open), and some people were quick to make hay of that, but it is very oversubscribed now.

The Guardian has: Michael Gove unveils £2.3bn extra funding for new classrooms:

Cash injection on top of earlier allocation of £5bn to meet predicted sharp rise in pupil numbers after recent baby boom.

The DfE website has: Capital allocations for basic need and infant free school meals. Richmond borough gets £0.55mn for free school meals and £9.0mn over three years for school places, of which the 2014-15 amount, £3.7mn, has already been announced, in March.

It also has: School capacity: academic year 2012 to 2013 with forecasts for Richmond borough to 2017/18 at primary level and 2019/20 at secondary level. This is a .xlsx table created in Excel 4 which baffles my 2001 Excel for Mac so someone else will have to get it and tell us what it says.

Some have very low numbers for a first year though - e.g. Atherton with fewer than 40 pupils but 27 staff. It's may be fairer to judge after two years (same for StRR).

But an example of how false economies on premises, even if oversubscribed, may affect intake is Canary Wharf College which in its first two years didn't have a single pupil on FSM despite being in one of the poorest boroughs. It doesn't seem to have a kitchen so can only give a small contribution towards a packed lunch which parents are expected to make themselves. Many low income families or single parents are already skimping on evening meals, or may not have the time to prepare a very nutritious packed lunch, so it may be the only opportunity for a hot meal all day. That's the whole point of free school meals.

A couple of very odd statements by the headteacher of Canary Wharf College, referring to her own school as "a big risk" and to the immediate area being "OK" as opposed to a council estate! I would have thought they should be arranging to have hot food brought in from another primary school in the area - would help to create extra jobs too. Or taking the children to the canteen of one of the many huge companies with CSR policies at Canary Wharf?! Presumably Thomson House free school has a kitchen in its converted church with no outside space?

Chris - I looked at the spreadsheet - it seemed to me to show a steady climb in numbers of children each year from now until 2019. There must be a % figure that they apply to reduce the number starting secondary school compared to Year 6.

Thomson House manages to provide school meals 'through a carefully selected caterer' according to its FAQ - perhaps they are meals on wheels but it's much better than nothing.

The RTT has (p 7): Councillor takes school place row to High Court:

Cllr Morris’s case against the council’s decision (confirmed by the appeal panel) not to offer her daughter a place at Sheen Mount is to go to court; no date is given. This is a good thing as we will get to hear both sides’ evidence and to see it challenged.

We discussed the case September 23-7.

Today’s RTT has two letters (p 13): More school places required and We must work together:

The first is from Cllr Gareth Roberts, the Lib Dem spokesman for schools; he writes . . So far the published number of reception places on offer next year is 28 fewer than this September - 2465 vs. 2493 - while the birth data suggests there will be about 105 more children needing places . . three or four extra bulge classes will be needed . .

The second is from Lord True, council leader, responding to the letter from Rob Gray of FORCE about the College scheme two weeks ago.

The Kingston Guardian reports: Government finally stumps up cash for North Kingston secondary school:

The Government has finally stumped up the cash to renovate the north Kingston centre into a secondary school in time for September 2015, it was announced today. The amount of money from the Education Funding Agency (EFA) for construction and refurbishment has not been revealed . .

Timeline:
December 2008 - Council says 'balance has tipped' and new secondary school is needed
July 2009 - Council announces plans for secondary school split between North Kingston centre and Hawker Centre
July 2009 - Residents boo and jeer plans for 'superschool' in north Kingston centre
January 2011 - Church of England loses its bid to open free secondary school in favour of council-led school
October 2011 - Desperate council considers PFI funding for school
April 2012 - Kingston school hit by funding delay
May 2013 - KET free school bid approved for school for 180 children to open in September 2014
July 2013 - Delays to school opening announced as opening set back to September 2015.

The Guardian has: Why is the government being so secretive about free schools?

Laura McInerney is battling with the education department for the right to know how it decides which new schools to approve:

‘I never intended to involve the lawyers. Really, I didn't. I made a simple request for information from the Department for Education, expecting they would just hand it over. But, rather than release it, Michael Gove, the education secretary, has told MPs he will do "everything possible" to stop me getting it. In the coming months, his department is taking the Information Commissioner – and me – to a tribunal in an attempt to block its release under the Freedom of Information Act. This whole saga started 15 months ago . .

And so I ended 2013 much as I finished 2012 – sitting down. . to write an appeal against the DfE's counterproductive desire for secrecy. This one, however, will be sent to a judge in the First-tier Tribunal, who will hear the case brought by the DfE against the ICO and me. These courts are designed with lay people in mind, and no legal aid is available, so I am likely to be representing myself.’

The tribunal is expected in summer.

Thank goodness for people like Laura McInery. It's unbelievable that Gove would take the Information Commissioner to a tribunal to block the release of information. What's the big secret?!

Any update on whether Turing House School will be able to open this September Bay Jay?

"Any update...?"

Latest update is here LP.

Really interesting opinion from David Wolfe QC to the education select committee on academies, free schools, 'sponsors' and transparency. A few commentators below the Laura McInerney article mention him.

Very interesting. I didn't realise that academies that are in a chain don't have a separate legal existence. I though that they were all individual entities with governing bodies that had a management contract with the chain. I am not even clear whether the freehold of school premises are still owned by the local authority and leased to the academy chain or if they have been forced to transfer the premises? What a mess they are creating.

The RTT has Concerns over college plans (p 26) from Francis McInerny, raising once again the many planning obstacles that this scheme will encounter and the complete failure of the council to address them.

. . Council officers and local politicians should be in no doubt that this £70-£100m project is very high risk indeed. The current path is simply not the way to go.

The Guardian has Man arrested over Bradford free school fraud claims: Investigation by Education Funding Agency found serious failings in financial management of Kings Science Academy. Channel 4 News goes further and names him as The founder of the Kings Science Academy in Bradford, Sajid Raza:

. . In 2013 an investigation by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) found "serious failings" in the financial management of the school, following revelations that it had claimed tens of thousands of pounds of public money that had not been used for its intended purposes.

"The Guardian has ..."

For balance, it's worth pointing out that financial mismanagement isn't unique to free schools.

It's good that the Bradford issue was spotted by the EFA, and its a shame it wasn't properly dealt with earlier.

I suppose the fraud potential is higher in a school that is more remote from control by a local authority and/or where a number of people known to one another set up it up and run it.

There do seem to be a number of planning and environmental obstacles to the Twickenham scheme, and the linked Teddington Studios scheme where a total change of use that contradicts existing policy to retain employment land and not build housing on the flood plain is being proposed.

LP: "I suppose the fraud potential is higher in a school that is more remote from control by a local authority"

Well that will be the same for any type of academy, not just free schools. They are regulated, but by the DfE rather than by the LA. Of course, that might change in future, if there's a swing towards Labour in the next Government.

LP: "or where a number of people known to one another set up it up and run it."

I think that's a red herring. Most groups will have been brought together by their common interest in establishing the school. Anything that acts against that interest (such as dodgy accounting practices) would rapidly break those relationships down.

Of course in some cases groups have a common interest in something else, such as a particular faith background in the case of a faith school, but that has long been the case for many maintained schools too.

It is a wider problem for academies - several chains have been investigated for financial irregularities or even fraud, e.g. Priory Federation, Barnfield Federation, E-ACT, AET. In some cases there are also allegations of nepotism like at Kings Science Academy (where several family members were employed).

Free schools are just new academies but in many cases while they have been set up extremely quickly (60% starting in temporary premises according to NAO report), it's taken a long time for Ofsted to do a full inspection and separate investigations into finance that didn't follow procedure from the start.

One free school in temporary premises has just had planning permission to develop a permanent site turned down.