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!

Here are the Minutes of the Call-In Sub-Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 25 February 2015 which reviewed the School Place Planning Strategy 2015-2024.

"So when he says 'we have seven academies', he is representing Bellevue Education"

Muminlondon, the Bellevue Place Education Trust does have 7 academies if you include the four approved to open in 2015. I assumed that's what he meant.

"the reduced intake will be a smokescreen .."

It will more likely be due to the limited size of the temporary accommodation secured for them and it will have been a decision made jointly with their DfE advisers rather than unilaterally.

"what misleading rubbish.."

It wasn't clear whether the interview was written or verbal, but it's the sort of wording that could easily have been a journalistic simplification rather than a carefully worded statement of fact. Probably what they mean is that they and the EFA discussed the permanent accommodation option with the LA, who didn't raise any blocking objections. Obviously it has to go through the full and proper planning processes, but the EFA wouldn't have been sanctioned to secure the site if there was any clear signs that the LA might strongly object. After all, the places are needed - not necessarily in that exact spot, but needed overall.

the EFA wouldn't have been sanctioned to secure the site if there was any clear signs that the LA might strongly object

Rubbish again - look what happened with the Sikh school in Stoke Poges, imposed on a Conservative council despite lack of support. 'They' the council and 'they' the planning committee are democratically elected and composed of representatives of all parties.

And look at Islington - BPET's school imposed against the wishes of the council. This might be a deliberately aggressive act in the case of Labour councils just to piss them off. In Richmond there is much aristocratic mingling in the upper levels of government and outright opposition would create embarassment but there is no evidence that 'the council' approved this site. They have a gun held to their head.

"Rubbish again - look what happened with the Sikh school in Stoke Poges ... And look at Islington"

Exactly. That is why they're being much more careful now. As I keep saying, the free school process is continuously evolving, and now no schools where there is a serious doubt over planning permission will have their funding agreements signed.

And of course not raising any blocking objections isn't the same thing as "approving". I didn't say they had to like it, just make it clear that they wouldn't overtly oppose it.

the free school process is continuously evolving
The free school process could be dead in 12 working days after election 'purdah' begins. The BPET is rushing to meet that deadline with sham 'consultations' in the hope it can get its friends at the DfE to sign a funding agreement. The council is gritting its teeth, nodding and saying 'whatever you say dear' but there is no time for a proper planning process in that time - it will see what way the land lies after May. Perhaps after that the council will get to do some proper planning and propose its own school in an area of need.

It could be, but in name only. If there was to be a change of Government then all of the "lessons learned" would be rolled into the next parliament's academy programme, of whatever colour that may be. They won't throw the baby away with the bathwater.

Only 25% of the public support free schools. The issue of trust will dominate the election and its aftermath.

There are many things the next government would need to change immediately about the whole academy system, not only to regain the public's trust but to prevent collapse (oversight and accountability, role of local authority, planning for the training of teachers, selection of sponsors, length and operation of funding agreements, admissions code, grey areas of profit and conflict of interests - including among decision makers at the DfE).

Free schools are viewed with extra suspicion because of all the elements we have seen with Deer Park Primary, GEMS and others - lack of transparency or meaningful consultation, unnecessary surplus places (and wasted expenditure) when there are other areas of shortage, inability of local authorities to plan, niche schools when mainstream local authority schools are wanted/needed (yes that applies to VA schools too - as the only type of maintained school easily available to LAs), deals with sponsors that have a terrible track record of failure and scandal.

Laura McInerney highlights that even the Policy Exchange, founded by Gove - and whose trustees and directors have included DfE and free school decision makers - advocates that successful LAs should be allowed to open new schools and that the process for meeting basic need should be separate to that of offering diversity of provision (or 'competition' to drive up standards).

If a new coalition took those ideas on board, Bellevue Place and GEMS would not have to be relied on to meet basic need, and could not compete against the track record of Richmond LA with regard to standards.

I'm surprised it's as high as 25% given the relentlessly bad publicity and bitterness from some quarters!

It's been a rollercoaster of a policy, with some major design flaws, and like various other school building policies it will probably have a limited shelf life but there will be some positive aspects to its legacy - for example, hopefully the need to demonstrate strong parental support for new schools will be something that will continue.

I'm equally surprised it was as high as 36% only 18 months ago, but more Ofsted reports have been published since then.

Sponsored academies should never be set up without parental support either, I agree. But the council has at least run transparent consultations on changes to schools and within a reasonable timeframe - regulations have required this but were not robust enough in the last Academies Act. It's a shame the level of awareness raised by campaigns since 2010 was not seen when Whitton School and Hampton Community College were being discussed seven years ago, but threads like yours have changed things forever and hindsight makes experts of us all

I thought this BBC article on free schools was well balanced.

Strong parental support for schools is a great thing to have for those schools. I confess to Deer Park having been a real eye opener for me and something which has really changed my view of free schools. Turing and Thomson seem like things that parents wanted and/or needed and I've previously assumed that this was what the free school idea was all about. Deer Park is neither of those things. It's so random that it calls into question the validity and organisation of the entire process. It's in an area where no places are needed by the council's own admission, in a dreadful position for the wellbeing of the children who may have to go there, may directly impact on potential happy enrolment on at least two other schools and has been really underhand in its conduct on consultations etc.

Absinthe, their funding agreement will/should only be signed if they can demonstrate strong parental support in the form of direct applications for places in September, so there is still a safety net.

BayJay I don't feel confident about this safety net. According to a critic of Whitehall Park Primary they only needed 12 per class. If the number of classes has been cut it's even more likely they could open with a handful of pupils. Trinity School in Clapham had about 19.

Correction - Trinity School in Clapham opened with 17 pupils out of a planned intake of 120.

The other point is that we won't know in the next two weeks whether parents in that area would accept an offer because LA offers don't come out for a month. If people have been urged to apply anyway because there's 'no risk' it artificially inflates demand.

They are now opening with only one class instead of two so I don't feel very confident about the safety net either.

A lot will depend on the level of basic need. If that is high (and the indications are that it is, though not specifically in that locality) then it may be the overriding factor.

As I said previously, relying on free schools to fulfil basic need, as opposed to taking some control through the more expensive competition process, is a risky business. (And the outcome may have been the same anyway, if the LA couldn't have afforded Ryde House).

The 'basic need' argument could be stretched beyond credulity, however. Wandsworth needs places. Whitehall Park was recruiting in neighbouring boroughs right up to the opening date in order to fill up.

But the site is 4 minutes away from Darell, 9 minutes from Holy Trinity and 10 minutes from Marshgate. There is already overlap and no need for places there. They might have to bus children in from Twickenham Green to fill those spaces. The H22 will be packed!

How many signatures would it take to show that the community does not want or need the school? One case to watch is a Norfolk secondary - the government wants to hand it over the academy trust operated by a DfE director. The petition against the DfE plans and for the LA option has reached 1,300 signatures.

In the case of St Richard Reynolds there were at least over 3,000 signatures in favour of the school - even if there were as many against. And we got to see the results of the survey and consultations.

I don't think anyone could argue that SRR wasn't much wanted by the Catholic community. If it had been a Free school proposal it would have sailed through the process (with opposition, no doubt, but much less of it). It was the method by which it was set up as a VA school that was controversial.

Out of interest, I just looked up how far London House is from my childhood home, from which I would not now get into either Orleans or St Stephen's (which were the schools I went to) - I would imagine there are plenty of families in the nearby roads who would like school places for their children. It's just over a two mile walk. I know that's considered OK and there are plenty of buses, but honestly that is quite a long way to go for a five year old. I think my 8 year old would find it very tiring to do every day. And of course the person taking the child is quite likely to be walking 8 miles rather than 4 per day, possibly with younger children in tow.

While some people from further into Twickenham may use buses to get there, I bet tons will drive, especially in the morning rush hour when buses are packed and a parent with a pushchair and two kids will find it pretty hard to squeeze on. They will come and park in the nearby roads and clog up the parking for people who actually live there (the only times non-residents can't park in that zone are 10-12 each morning) - it's already very busy and often hard to park. And the A316 doesn't need more cars on it. It is massively busy absolutely all the time. The whole thing just seems nuts. It's very different from secondary level - one of the most important things at primary level is proximity to home IMO. It certainly influenced me greatly, anyway.

That would be the main reason why East Twickenham parents haven't been listing Darell among their preferences up to now.

If you have to drive or walk two miles away, it would be nicer to drive to the Russell School in Petersham which has lovely big green fields. According to Google maps, the walking route is 1.3 miles along the river and across Petersham meadows.

From Ryde House that is (with an unfeasible but interesting alternative route via the Hammerton ferry)