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 imagine most couples would find it uncomfortable too, and recognise it as a situation to avoid whenever possible. Of course that goes for all professions - not just teaching.

Talking of couples, it looks like Mrs Varkey (wife of Jay Varkey?) is now one of four new directors of the GEMS Learning Trust. She is given no biography yet on the Gems Learning Trust website.

The terminology is confusing to me (members, directors, advisors - who in some cases are also trust directors). Terri de Quincey is 'director of standards' yet doesn't appear to be 'director' of the trust.

And I notice one of the trust directors (both an 'advisor' and an 'independent member') also works for the Education Funding Agency. This might smooth their path as far as the site is concerned, but I thought the Education Funding Agency was part of the government and had a regulatory role in investigating finances?

For info, some people might be interested in watching the webcast of tonight's Scrutiny call-in committee meeting which was debating the council's school place planning strategy: www.richmond.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/168264. It's about 1.5 hours in total though, so make sure you have a glass of wine in hand before you start .

This week’s print RTT has three letters on the need for a school in East Twickenham and the unsuitability of the Ryde House site for a Lidl supermarket ” ‘So many questions about school and ’Superstore a ‘disaster’‘ (p 20) and ’Lidl bit of common sense’ (p 22).

Those letters have also been published here. The letter about Deer Park Primary raises some really important questions. Not all were raised at the call-in committee but the council probably could not have answered them: 'less than frank' Bellevue Education Trust is responsible for the one-week consultation which seems to reflect a pattern of behaviour in other school projects they have proposed.

Thanks for that committee link BayJay2 - it was very interesting. I thought council officers gave a good insight into the issues even if they did not answer all the questions. Some (Conservative?) councillors were quite Stalinist about shutting down all debate, especially on specific schools, but Nick Whitfield answered questions about the problems around expansions and funding in a helpful way. The problem with some of the questions (sites for free schools, etc.) seems to be that it's in the hands of the EFA, but they have a limit to how much they will pay despite what the council might recommend. Which you have pointed out before.

Yes muminlondon, as I may have mentioned before there's no upper limit as such, but a much more vague 'value for money' test based on various parameters; not just market value, but also the size, age-range, and popularity of the school and the track record of the sponsor.

However, I think one of the officers did say in the broadcast that the council wouldn't have been able to afford Ryde House either.

Hi, thanks for the link BayJay. I have watched the scrutiny call-in committee aswell now (must be a bit mad!) Yes the 6 Tory councillors, two of whom didn't speak at all (Marcel and Howard), just seemed to be sulking and not to understand the democracy aspects of this at all. I was a bit shocked to hear Turing House described by Cllr. Hodgins (round about 59 minutes) as "providing choice" rather than being essential because of the overall numbers. What happened to all the figures showing that there was a need for 2 new secondary schools by 2017 which I thought everyone had agreed? A lot of unanswered questions. No sign of pennies dropping over why Clifden was such an important site given that there are no other obvious sites for secondary schools or decent sites for primary schools. I hope that more parents, especially knowledgeable ones, will participate in the public sessions of the task group.

LP, it was Cllr Roberts that said that about TH. Cllr Hodgins' reply was diplomatic, neither agreeing or disagreeing.

As it says in the Strategy, if TH doesn't open this year, "Contingency plans will .. be needed to provide ‘bulge classes’ at two schools, to cover the period until Richmond upon Thames College free school opens in 2017..... Adding bulge classes in secondary schools could cost more than in primary schools since there would be pressure on specialised spaces, such as science labs, but it is possible that in 2015 additional places could be provided by utilising temporarily empty spaces created by the provision of sixth-form blocks."

So, I can only assume he means TH is providing choice between bulge classes or not.

The fact is that the College free school could not have been pre-approved if the proposers hadn't been able to show that it was needed over an above the places that were already pre-approved for Turing House.

P.S. A reminder of the Borough's secondary transfer figures (these ones from the 2013 school census) ....

Year Cohort size
2013 1676
2014 1847
2015 1913 - Turing House opening
2016 2042
2017 2166 - College free school opening
2018 2290
2019 2412

And the growth doesn't necessarily stop there either. Para 21 of the strategy says "To meet long-term increased demand [i.e. 2021 and beyond], which at present is very difficult to quantify, it is essential that sites be identified where new secondary schools could be provided within the borough"

"if Turing House doesn't open"?

Is there still doubt BayJay?

No Sheila, no doubt from me - it'll open. The strategy was written a while ago, and of course had to plan for every eventuality. Those bulge classes were planned several months ago.

Bay Jay - it was Cllr. Evans the deputy Chair who asked the question. He said that because the school on the Richmond College site was now confirmed had that "plugged the gap" and did that mean that TH was just adding choice for parents? PH waffled somewhat but didn't say that TH was needed in the short term now before the RC school opened - implied it would be needed in the hazy future rather than in 2015.

Sorry, yes - that's who I meant - there are a lot of Gareths on the council!

Same answer though.

You are very kind to them Bay Jay - it may be clearer in print but I don't think Cllr. Evans meant that - I don't trust those sulky councillors to have read the papers I'm afraid! With only an extra 66 predicted this year over last year I expect they are still thinking those extra children can be squeezed into TA, HA and RPA plus 16 in the Waldegrave bulge half class if TH doesn't open in September. I suppose in a few weeks we will hear something about how many places have actually been filled.

I think politicians read into things what they want to read, and spin things accordingly. I don't blame them for that - they've got to cover themselves for decisions past - and at least we all know they do it.

There are some good eggs on both sides of the council though.

I did snigger at the way they tried to out-do each other over knowledge (or not) of the Greenwich Agreement. That was bizarre!

From the Standard this evening ... "Richmond council said 67 per cent of applicants received their first preference, while 86 per cent got one of their first three choices. A total of 1,742 parents applied - more than 100 more than the previous year."

Eleven Plus Exams' Glossary of Admissions explains:

The Greenwich Judgement (1989) established that maintained schools may not give priority to children for the sole reason that they live within the LA’s administrative boundaries. (But, see the Rotheram judgement, below.)

The Rotherham Judgement (1997) established that admission authorities may operate specified catchment areas as part of their oversubscription criteria provided that, in doing so, they are not in breach of the Greenwich judgement.

This handy glossary is only 1100 words. I suggest that councillors and governors should be tested on it before they are allowed anywhere near decisions about admissions.

Thanks bluestars - 1,742 applications is a bit lower than the 1913 in your figures, BayJay, I suspect because there are so many who leave country/move house/go private in KS2, especially from Y5/Y6. Those bare school leaver figures also need context, e.g.:

(a) how many places on offer?

Christ's 150
StRR 150
Grey Court 210
Waldegrave 216 (extra spaces available)
Teddington 240
Orleans Park 200
RPA 180
TA 180
HA 180
Turing House
TOTAL = 1706

(b) how many of those places usually go to out of borough residents?

I think I counted about 450 which IS a lot. About 150 at Grey Court, 30 at Teddington and Orleans Park, 70 at RPA, 200 at HA/TA. Kingston Academy might reduce that number.

(c) how many Richmond pupils go out of borough?

Not sure about that but I think it's about 200. About 100 going to grammars and faith schools, and 100 going to other borough comprehensives such as Heathfield (from Whitton) and Chiswick (e.g. from Kew/Barnes). There's always been a net import of pupils - StRR would have made some difference but so might Kingston Academy, and there's still a proportion reserved in Hounslow schools for Richmond pupils.

(d) How many are applying to the private sector and likely to give up a place in favour of a selective or popular independent?

I think from past figures about 20% leave the state primary sector to go to a private secondary. So that may be around 350 pupils. I've checked quickly and there are around 1400 places at the 12 most frequently name-checked independents in Hammersmith/Richmond/Kingston areas, the vast majority selective and for which parents may already have sat exams and paid deposits.

(e) How many might therefore be without a place initially, and how many might be turning places down in the next two weeks?

So I make it about 1,256 places left without Turing House and 1,406 with, sought by at least 1,192 pupils but potentially more of those switching from less selective privates. So although initially there may be some 50-60 unplaced pupils (unless some other schools offer more than their published admission number), in the end we are still likely to see unfilled places at some academies, and whether Turing House fills its places will depend on timing of announcements. It's unlikely parents would give up an existing offer, state or private, until they know where the location of Turing House will be.

I therefore see why Gareth Evans point out Turing House was to provide 'choice'. On the other hand, it's been nearly five years since the sponsored academies were taken over, and given the rate of progress so far, it's understandable why parents are impatient for that choice.

"1,742 applications is a bit lower than the 1913 in your figures, BayJay"

Yes, my figures are numbers transferring out of primary, rather than in to secondary, but they're the only way to show the forward trend.

Also, it's not clear whether 1742 is just in-borough applications, or whether out-borough application are included in that figure too.

For what it's worth, we live near Twickenham Green and didn't get Orleans Park, whereas I think we would have last year.

you've got a personal stake in this year's intake then - sounds like the black hole is getting wider in West Twickenham, and Waldegrave's extra places aren't going to be any use for boys.

I expect that figure is just for numbers of Richmond residents applying. Your figures do show the squeeze this year and next year, and in the long term.

I wish you and other parents luck whatever happens, and there will be a very nerve-wracking wait for places at popular schools to be reoffered (if at all).

For comparison, these are 2014 application and offer preference figures.

I have heard that there are pupils from Sheen and Barnes primaries who have not got offers for RPA but are being offered Twickenham Academy. A certain irony given that the arguments not so long ago were about the lack of places on the Middlesex side meaning they pupils would have the long journey to RPA but at least RPA is a little more accessible by bus / train....

I haven't yet steeled myself to watch the spin being delivered to the scrutiny committee, was there any hint of this?

It will be interesting to see if LBRUT have over offered again to the extent they did last year, it meant that waiting lists moved more slowly than in previous years.

Heathclif equally in kew/north sheen kids have not been offered RPA this evening but allocated to TWickenham Academy

Some more info about London boroughs. Adding up percentages for preferences 1-6, it looks like about 150 pupils have either been allocated a school that was not a preference or haven't got a place. There were 110 allocations last year, of which 62 were at HA/TA.

Kingston has less than 2% not offered a preferred school. But they're probably still preferring Grey Court.