Richmond Borough Schools Chat 6

[BayJay2]

Hello! This is the latest thread in a series originally triggered by Richmond Council's Education White Paper in Feb 2011. We chat about local education policy, the local impact of national policy, local school performance, and admissions-related issues.

Please do join in. 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.

If you have a few hours to spare and want to catch up on 4 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 run in parallel, as one was started on the national Mumsnet site, and the other locally:

1a) New Secondaries for Richmond Borough? (Feb 11 - Nov 11)
1b) New Secondary schools for Richmond! (Feb 11-Nov 11)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2 (Nov 11-May 12)
2. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 3 (May 12-Nov 12)
3. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 4 (Nov 12-Oct 13)

1. Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5 (Oct 13-Nov 14)
2. Richmond Borough Schools Chat 6 (Nov 14 - ????) : This thread!

I know - too much information! RPA could improve, you're right.

Interesting and a bit puzzling. Is the target for a high attainer really only a B? My daughter is at Teddington which compares quite badly with schools with similar numbers of low, medium and high attainers when you click the comparison button - only 41st out of 55 in its group. Waldegrave is 12th in same group. But there are still lots of children (about 20%) getting at least 8 x A*/A when the target for a high attainer is a B. So presuming they some of the 50% or so of high attainers it must be really letting down its low and some of its medium attainers. No better than RPA and worse than most of the other local comprehensives.

LProsser agree it does throw up some puzzling anomalies - hence I do think it is worth asking the school about the strategies in place.
I was at a school today (not as parent, ancilliary capacity) in North London and noticed that they get 100% A* -B) in my subject at 'A' level, which is anomalous ( in a good way!) for a non-selective comp. So intend to ask them what it is that they do - because clearly, it works!

This is how progress is explained. But next year will be completely different.

Given that students doing GCSES in summer 2014 are very unlikely to have sat level 6 SAT papers that surely means everyone who got an A* or A is massively skewing the results upwards by getting a result one or two levels above expectations? There is always a big range of ability in top sets for maths and science from the handful of geniuses to the fairly bright and diligent. Are they introducing more different bands of attainment next year?

OK, progress from 2016 (not 2015) will be measured according to Progress 8. This is based on 'Attainment 8' - point scores 1-8 from G-A* multiplied by 8 subjects of which Maths and English (Lang or Lit - best of) are double-weighted. Progress is then compared against the average point scores of the cohort according to their English & Maths SATs results. But instead of broad levels it would go on sub-levels. And obviously progress doesn't just cover English and Maths results - if you got 5c (equivalent) you'd need e.g. Bs in all of your best 8 qualifying subjects (or 4 As and 4Cs) unless the overall national average was lower. You wouldn't get any marks unless at least five of the subjects were the approved ones but that could mean English Language, Lit, Maths, three sciences, Music and Art if they were your best subjects, and you wouldn't be penalised for not having a language, etc.

Phew. Schools will need some good admin staff to compute all of that. Is any of that old news to you?

muminlondon you explain it very well, thanks for unentangling it for us...
In practice,the actual data-crunching can easily be codified so all the admin staff will have to do is put in the data, the machinery will then spew out the results... The difficulty will be for the SLT to work out how best to game it

Gosh I knew nothing of this! I can see this is fairer in many ways but quite complicated unless you get a detailed explanation. Will it lead to pressure on primary schools to publish their end of KS2 results in detailed sub-levels not just level 4, level 5 and level 6 and to tell parents exactly what sub-level their child got? Do they actually have that information already and share it with secondaries but just not tell the parents?! And why did they pick the names "Gillian" and "Hardip"?!

I don't think the secondaries are very happy with the teacher assessments given at KS2. They seem to downgrade them at Y7. There is going to be tension if those predictions extend to subjects beyond those tested at KS2. As it is, if they are intending to privatise academise primaries as well as secondaries, what's the hope for a consistent and coordinated language/PE/music etc. strategy across chains to help the transition? I know BayJay2 will tell me that even GEMS or Bellevue will join Richmond Music Trust.., not the same as heads working together with each other.

And if I were the Darell head I'd be wary of sharing best practice with Bellevue.

It would be churlish of maintained school heads to refuse to work with academy/ free school heads on mutually beneficial projects as part of the local family of schools.

At least on one level that working together can now be formalised (and financially contributed to) via the Richmond Schools Partnership.

Perhaps that will act as a comfort bridge for the wary.

The interim head at Darell is an excellent leader who has worked at several borough schools and I wouldn't question the professional integrity and collaborative attitude of any of the current heads. Under the local authority there are also clearer roles and lines of accountability.

I don't see how Bellevue is setting up in the spirit of collaboration - they're obviously out to compete for pupils and funding.

Well, I'm pretty sure I've seen council minutes indicating that all the current free school proposers have expressed a desire to be part of the family of schools, and that the council are facilitating that, so it might be worth giving them the benefit of the doubt until there's evidence to the contrary. [Smile]

The current head at Darell is only there for a short while longer until our usual one returns from maternity leave (it's a shame, really, as she has really come up with some good initiatives and the school does seem more efficient generally, which is not usually Darell's strong point).

:-) not [smile ] .... i.e. wasn't meant sarcastically ... just having emoticon trouble!

I'm afraid it's hard for me to see the point of Bellevue's Deer Park school at all, let alone trust them with the benefit of the doubt. Even if it had been Richmond Bridge Primary where there is need, they are rushing the proposal without clarity on temporary accommodation timescale or location (see also Islington latest). Their location map in the TES advert places them right by the Pagoda in Kew Gardens...

Hmm, slightly draughty for a temporary site, but pretty

No scooters, bikes or dogs. High on gravitas

I can't see the point of Deer Park School, either, unless they are really expecting another sixty Reception children a year or whatever in the local area within the next few years (I don't believe they are). Deer Park will ponce about with its bloody blazers and ties and probably affect the viability of other local schools (it's really not that long since Holy Trinity was massively unpopular, and Darell remains so). I could see the point of rushing it through if it was for an area with genuine lack of places but this is just nuts.

What, btw, would be the point of sharing resources and best practice with a school that is actively competing for the same children since they will be ranked by distance largely, like every other local school? It is one thing to have Kew Riverside and Darell and Queens working together to improve from good to outstanding, as they do - the very nature of the area and the premium on school places means that they're not competing for the same children. So it makes perfect sense for them to share ideas etc. I genuinely cannot see why it would be beneficial for Darell and Holy Trinity (as the two closest schools) to share stuff with Deer Park when Darell in particular is a direct competitor. The two schools (if the location of London House goes ahead) are a five minute or less walk apart, Holy Trinity might be as much as 10 minutes away (at child pace). Darell is not full, especially in KS2, and places are usually available pretty quickly at Holy Trinity so it obviously isn't always full either (just going by anecdotal experience of parents who have moved there from other schools, even in KS1 and Reception where infant class size rules apply).

I don't think it's churlish to want to ensure that your own school has a sufficiently large number of children on roll as to be viable.

Well, overall there are enough children to fill both - just not necessarily in the right immediate area.

In theory DPS will need to re-demonstrate parental support by getting a viable number of applications before its funding agreement is signed - although I'm not sure how that works when there's an issue with basic need, and the potential for children to be without places if it's not approved.

In the hypothetical circumstance of it being approved without a viable number of applications then that would mean children being allocated places without having put in an application. I'm not sure if there's any precedent for that for free schools in their opening year (anyone know?). As I said a few posts back, there's (arguably) a presumption that basic need would be catered for using the LA competition process, rather than by this route.

BayJay the LA could not allocate parents a place at Deer Park as it isn't going through their admissions. It might suggest to parents that they contact the school. But it might find that where it has allocated places, parents will hang on to two offers until the last minute - at which point both schools (or three if counting Holy Trinity) end up undersubscribed.

As for demonstrating parental support, Bellevue has advertised the head position assuming that support is in the bag from East Twickenham parents. So the Deer Park school may be able to demonstrate demand yet still be undersubscribed as in Islington. It's not really clear who is behind the petition for Ryde House - for many parents, their acceptance of Bellevue as a proposal was, of course, pragmatic so they have signed up. But the website still directs parents to the Deer Park site without putting into context how an expression of interest in a school that they might not use, and would not benefit their own area beyond the short term, may affect the sustainability of other schools in the wider community for longer.

"the LA could not allocate parents a place at Deer Park as it isn't going through their admissions. It might suggest to parents that they contact the school."

Yes, I agree, that is how it would have to work.

"advertised the head position assuming that support is in the bag"

It's for a Head Designate - they won't be able to fully appoint until the funding agreement is signed, and for that they will (theoretically) need applications. The DfE is quite clear in its guidance that expressions of interest aren't enough on their own (see section 8.114)

The advert makes little distinction between expressions of interest and applications - a llarge number of parents who have already registered their interest in a place for their child(ren). The applications hadn't even opened when that job went live. By suggesting the choice is 'risk-free' they are appealing to the original parent group expressing interest, of whom most would accept a school nearer to them and would probably accept an established school ten minutes further on if they really knew how long their children would otherwise be in portakabins.

What's the official level of applications required to make a school open bearing in mind a smaller proportion will convert to actual take-up ?

There's no official level - or at least if there is then its not published.

There may be an algorithm or checklist, that incorporates a recommended level, along with other factors like the local need (presumably at LA scale, the track record of the proposers, the cost-effectiveness of the site, and the opinion of the LA. Or the weighting of those factors may be more subjective.

Currently the Schools Minister makes the decision, taking recommendations from the Regional Schools Commisioner / headteacher board.

After the election it will be the regional schools commisioners that make the decisions, though any groups wanting to open this September will need the agreement signing before the election (ie by 30th March when purdah starts) , to give them time to recruit teachers etc.

Then there really is no difference between expressions of interest and applications because LA offers aren't made until 16 April or accepted until 30 April. We won't know how parents will respond to offers until after money is committed, and spending millions on a school in the wrong area would a terrible waste.

And then it would be even harder for the EFA/council to secure an expensive property owned by Lidl on top of a building no one likes which is likely to be undersubscribed. There will be many other priorities and probably cuts. So a massive risk for East Twick parents to register support for Deer Park as well as a risk of undermining good existing provision.