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!

Well there is a difference because the expressions of interest are in the bag, and the applications aren't, yet. Parents who apply over coming weeks will be making a positive decision to support the school, despite its change of location.

Also, your analysis of the 'risk' ignores the fact that the LA have acknowldeged a need, in its recent report, for DPS in North Richmond, and an additional need in East Twickenham. You might not agree with them, but their opinion on that will be taken into account as part of the approval process.

Of course your view will be taken into account too, if you respond to the current DPS consultation - that's one thing I missed off the list of things that will be taken into account when the minister makes the funding agreement decision.

If the consultation were held by the council or a neutral body with all responses published, I would respond, but any consultation carried out by an interested party is flawed and I wouldn't even feel safe sending my personal details let alone my opinion. That was the criticism directed at the the Diocese over the StRR consultation - isn't that why RISC demanded a 'proper' consultation and we had a public survey and full publication of results by a third party?

I wouldn't cite the need stated by the council for a school in Richmond as endorsement of this site. The admissions forum (July I think) has also made it clear that expansions or bulge classes affect neighbouring schools. Only the impact assessment would reveal the council's precise view and the DfE has repeatedly tried to withhold publication of those - none have been publication prior to funding being granted. This is not a democratic process.

"I wouldn't cite the need stated by the council for a school in Richmond as endorsement of this site."

Not an official endorsement, but an indication of their view, assuming they knew the location of the site at the time it was written.

Their views will be taken into account more formally as part of the decision making process.

Just remind me who expressed this view?

It's so disappointing that there is not a word from RISC about fairness or transparency. For example the timescale is less than 2 weeks!!! Is that what Turing House allowed? You don't have site information but you do have an admissions policy. How many governors meetings or council meetings would be held in 2 weeks (or 10 days even) to discuss a response? What documents and background information (i.e. impact assessment) are available to inform responses?

"Just remind me who expressed this view?"

Assuming you mean the view that there is a short-to-medium term need for a new school in the North Richmond area, and that this need would be met by DP primary school, it's in Section 16 of the School Place Planning Strategy.

'We are reliant on a site for a new school being identified here.' No indication they expected the site to be at the Kew end. Why would those living between Vineyard and Marshgate accept this site and new sponsor over Darell or Holy Trinity, since if they could afford it, they are nearer to Kings House or Old Vicarage? If they did, it still affects schools next door.

I find it very odd that they count Holy Trinity as being in a different area than Darell. The overlap between the catchments of the two schools is pretty extensive.

However, they clearly state with respect to the area in which Darell is located which they count as Kew (and is literally, what, 300 yards from this proposed new school?!) "There is no short- to medium-term need for places within this area."

The need is clearly on the other side of the level crossing, from what they say.

And I have filled in that consultation and clearly stated that I am a resident of North Sheen and do not want the school here. I don't. If we are to expand a school or get a new one, whichever is more sensible, I would like to see it sited more intelligently.

Agree that Darell and Holy Trinity catchments overlap. Darell has always had a stall at the Richmond May Fair - the 'village' boundaries don't coincide with school communities.

Darell always has a stall at both Richmond and Kew fairs. We lie in between the two centres of those places and have plenty of children who live in both areas at the school.

Absinthe do you know if many parents and staff are aware of the plans for this school and the consultation? You and BayJay are right that it is better to voice concerns via the consultation form (it is anonymous so I overreacted on that score) than sit and fume. That goes to all East Twickenham parents who wanted to see a school at Ryde House instead.

No, I don't know. It hasn't been mentioned at school, as far as I am aware though I suppose Ms England is aware of what is happening.

For info, there were some Members questions at last week's full Council meeting about school place planning. You can listen here between 19:10 - 19:13 and then also between 19:22 - 19:25.

Just noticed that Radnor House are expanding at their 11+ entry point and stopping their 7+ intake.

Of course it was reported in December that Newland House are expanding at 4+ entry and removing their 7+ entry point.

These schools know where the pressure points are!

However, it could actually be helpful for the state sector if these private schools take fewer at 7+, because as Muminlondon pointed out a few posts back, with reference to September's admission forum minutes, the syphoning off of children from our primaries at age 7 drains school budgets and negatively impacts the Local Authority's basic need funding.

My experience as a state primary school parent was that a number of children left at age 7 - 10 ish to go to Radnor House because they had needs that were not being met in the state system - usually dyslexia - and were feeling dejected. Radnor House had just opened at that point so I suppose they took those children as a way of building themselves up but have now decided to concentrate on secondary as their site is rather small to do the whole 7-18 thing. I also knew one or two who transferred there at around year 5 from other prep schools because their parents felt they were being over pressured about exams to get into secondary schools and wanted to move them early. Overall I think there is still a demand from parents to move children during the junior school years when they realise that they are struggling a bit and will get more attention going private. The state system ought to be able to cope with this but it doesn't in my experience and as buildings get more and more overcrowded and budgets get more and more stretched there is less opportunity for small group teaching/coaching of those who need extra help. Teachers also seem to lack training to diagnose dyslexia and to be reluctant to do so.

Bumper education page 3 in this morning's RTT including the news that Livingston House in Teddington is to be the new temporary site of Turing House but the permanent site will be in the Whitton area? Also further moans about Ryde House site (a primary school sharing with Lidl - really?!) and the development of the Imperial College sports ground in Teddington.

Today’s print RTT has (p 3): Disused office block could be school’s site and MP ‘using places for election boost’:

Turing House School . . hopes to open at a temporary site in Livingston House this September . . this newspaper understands the (school’s) permanent location will be in Whitton . .

Chris/LP, you both missed off the quote from RET, so here it is:

"We have a good temporary site which we will be able to announce in the next few weeks and the EFA has been in discussions about two possible permanent sites, both of which would work well for us.

We will tell parents as soon as it is commercially possible to do so."

There is also a quote from the Education Funding Agency .....

"The EFA is responsible for securing a site and until a solution is identified and finalised, any suggestion of potential locations would be unhelpful to the process and jeopardise any ongoing discussions."

Livingstone House has a sign up saying that it has now been let so the deal has now been done either by EFA or someone else.

LProsser I thought the dyslexic support offered at Radnor House was extra to usual fees? I do know people who have stayed at their state schools and paid for targeted specialist help - a lot cheaper, anyway.

muminlondon2 maybe that wasn't the case back in the early days or maybe the parents didn't want to share that! Obviously a lot of people can't afford to go private but 4 boys from my daughter's primary school class left to go private because they were dyslexic. I think their parents were also worried that, given the huge numbers of bright kiddies in local state schools bagging level 5 by the end of year 4 etc., they needed to be removed to somewhere where they wouldn't feel quite so bad about themselves or end up in the lower sets in secondary school.

The RTT story about the Imperial College Playing Fields is now online with comments suggesting it would be a good site for Turing House but a bad one for residential development:
www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/11776348.Imperial_College_sports_ground__good_for_residential_development_/

Radnor House SEND policy. 'A specialist dyslexia tutor is available to tutor pupils either before or after school or during any free periods they may have. Additional tuition is arranged through the SENCo and is charged to parents.'

I was wondering how prep schools actually make money - fees are lower, margins tighter. GEMS obviously didn't make a profit and sold up - that's why it wants a piece of the state sector. I remember reading that Lord Nash made profit from selling up the property portfolio rather than his Alpha Plus prep schools. But in the state sector it's about selling 'innovation' which wouldn't work in a private sector where parents (understandably) expect more teaching time and attention, which costs more. The Place Group is in a trust with Mosaica Education in Crawley (currently having a property boom as there is less opposition to airport expansion and more to gain). Mosaica makes money from its patented curriculum. Other businesses - including Pearson - are selling IT with 'blended learning' etc, a bit like the Kunskappskolan knowledge portal.