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!

Also there's a report on the consultation meeting with Deer Park School:

Deer Park School site a "rotten idea", meeting hears

DDqueen40 the REEC school would be open in 2017.

It's at least good to see confirmation that the London Road site would be a complete re-build. It's not ideal, but it's not setting a precedent either - St. Stephen's is in a similar location. (And Twickenham Academy for that matter, although it's obviously more emotive at primary level).

St Stephen's is near a large roundabout and by the A316, true. However crossing arrangements are vastly superior (there are lights at the roundabout so much easier to cross safely, and also a nearby bridge over the A316).

Not only that, but the actual access to St Stephen's is via Winchester Rd which is a cul-de-sac, not via an actual dual carriageway. I don't think the safety issues are at all comparable.

It's the location that's wrong - it's too close to other schools. But you'll never get rid of the roundabout, Sainsbury's lorries, busy road or petrol station next door either.

I think they are going ahead with the idea just to get their temporary location at Parkshot and then aiming to switch locations after that, with some distraction about whether Parkshot could house the school permanently. The sub-committee also suggested this - that a school could get approved for one site and then switch sites.

That's why they are allowed to recruit a headteacher in the face of this opposition (especially from residents) - the DfE can't be seen to wave them through on a temporary site but that's effectively what's happening. That's why they are rather brazenly suggesting they can open two schools in Richmond when they've only be pre-approved for one. I don't think the Manor Circus site will ever get planning permission.

And yes, St Stephen's isn't slap bang in the middle of catchment for two other schools, neither of which has been identified as needing more places. It's in an area with a severe undersupply of places. Totally different circumstances.

I do hope you're right and the location changes, muminlondon.

Well, if you're right that would be a relatively good outcome (although a roundabout way of getting back to the original plan). You never know - Lidl's social conscience might kick in at the prospect of bad publicity, and/or the EFA budget might increase too.

I just can't believe that this would be considered by anyone - including BPET or the council, but certainly not by parents or residents - to be a suitable or appealing place for a school.

However, if I am right and it all changes, that would affect the admissions policy (on distance). I don't see why the admissions policy can't use Parkshot anyway - they probably won't be full it won't make any difference for the first year.

It would look weird for them to be in Ryde House with the name Deer Park School. But The Vineyard isn't on the Vineyard either...

I can't understand why they are considering it either! It seems utterly baffling to me!

And the other possibility is - maybe they have a plan and a back-up, and they are just taking what comes. The Place Group will make a short-term gain wherever they open: the biggest amount of funding comes with the initial start-up and capital costs. That's what their background is and how they will get paid, as a consultancy/project management company. I don't think they care about bums on seats because they don't get as big a return on that.

They are meant to have expertise in 'Advising on how to build consensus and win the hearts and minds of all involved'. While they are used to shrugging off criticism, they got Zac Goldsmith to chair their meeting and look into a possible alternative, so that might give out the impression that They Are Listening. And the local campaign group in East Twickenham could be helping them out too by demanding a better site for them.

In the end, they still get the gig. So it's a win-win situation for BPET but the losers will still be residents around Manor Circus, who have to fight this proposal, the other school communities they are affecting, and the families who (are yet to) choose the school or whose children get allocated a place yet face an ever-changing picture (and admissions point??).

It really wouldn't surprise me if they already have the funding agreement in the bag too. Three days to go before election purdah.

I don't think they care about bums on seats because they don't get as big a return on that.

This is all wrong! It ought to be totally focused around bums on seats. That is the whole point of schools - that they should be full of children learning things. Half empty schools serve nobody adequately - we at Darell are well aware of how hard things can be for a school that isn't getting bums on seats!

Absolutely agree. I think that's my biggest problem with the for-profit sponsors, those likely to be involved in supplying services to the non-profit trust they are setting up. It's not just any moral argument about profit and how trustworthy the directors are, or how tied the school is to a particular company for its services, or a particular pedagogical approach which they patent, or school trips limited to countries in which they have partner schools rather than the needs of the curriculum... It's mainly that it's very short term. GEMS pulled out of its US charter schools in Ohio after less than two years because it made a loss. What about the children?

Even if the UK is different from the US in that trusts can't make a profit, sponsors don't seem to be held to the same service level agreements as e.g. the LA in supporting Thomson House. All they have to do is avoid being rated inadequate, in which case the funding agreement would be in breach. Even that isn't proving easy for companies like IES or Kunskappsskolan!

The more I hear about the whole thing, the crosser I get.

I couldn't go to the North Sheen Rec meeting the other night, but I think I might email Zac Goldsmith about it and state my opposition very strongly.

The RTT has Deer Park School site a "rotten idea", meeting hears:

. . One resident said: "What breaks my heart about this is the assumption anything is good enough for children. What is wrong with Richmond is this attitude to put children on any site. Why are you so determined to go ahead with this? You can see it is a rotten idea - I don’t understand why you are doing it."

. . People at the meeting were unsuccessful in their attempts to find out other sites identified but added the Parkshot site would be an ideal location for a school. Closing the meeting, Mr Goldsmith assured the audience he would make enquiries to see if RACC could accommodate the school permanently.

I was wondering why Zac Goldsmith didn't mention it on his blog. I don't think he's taking a position on the school but he's good on planning issues.

I found an interesting link here - a presentation given by The Place Group's Tom Legge in Twickenham to the Education Building and Development Officers Group conference in Twickenham in November 2013 (was that before the proposal?). His experience/interest is clearly in construction. Projected numbers of children ('ambulant'/'non-ambulant') (not actual bums on seats) are translated into square footage. Proximity to other schools and external playground space are apparently 'not much of an issue'...

And his advice to LAs seems to be a quote from Casablanca: 'I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.'

Speaking as a parent at a school where the playground space is entirely insufficient for the numbers of children using it (these will only increase over the next few years), I can confidently state that external playground space is absolutely vital (and the more the better).

Some interesting research being done on the performance of academy chains here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32038695

I was told Zac had his knuckles severely rapped by Lord True early on when he accidentally opposed some of the local Tory administration's policies not understanding that they had some bonkers very sensible ideas. I can't see how they can fit a primary school in at Parkshot. They've already squeezed adult education into one building so the Catholics could have Clifden - seems very unfair. Maybe they will build it on the car park?

They'd have to move the recycling point first if you mean the A316 side next to Richmond Circus roundabout... Maybe they can take over the inflatable set for In the Midnight Garden Live across the road.

Lots of discussion of Turing House's possible site in Whitton on the Whitton Village Facebook page. Fears that Chelsea tractors from Teddington will snarl up the traffic!

I can see the point of view of Whitton residents - what's so special about Teddington pupils that they would have to have a corner of Whitton reserved for them - selection by house price?

An interesting link on that FB page, with the comment 'History repeating itself?', to an idea from 2003 that involved moving Whitton School to Heathfield Recreation Ground and establishing a Catholic school at Whitton (e.g. now Twickenham Academy). Hmm. I'd rather see Twickenham Academy being taken over by RET and expanded than two schools next to each other with such different admissions policies.

Mum and Absinthe I do agree that there are issues with siting schools / setting admissions policies in relation to demand, the need for schools to understand and meet the needs of local parents etc. However I do also think that parents and local residents in Boroughs like this are going to have to get used to schools popping up in locations that not long ago would have been thought unacceptable, and having unconventional admissions policies, because that is the only way that we will get school place planning to deliver. There is no perfect solution, there is a shortage of sites, pupils do have to be educated somewhere and the Planning process in theory is supposed to balance the amenity of residents with the need, whether it is for schools, or indeed housing.

My children spent some of their happiest years in a multi storey school, with a playground on the roof that was barely bigger than the netball pitch / mini football pitch but the school made it work, more than work. It wasn't in this country but I do think parents and residents may have to adapt to that mindset. I would wait for the plans for the Manor Circus site, though find it hard to see how they will make it work. I certainly think that the Twickenham Green site has the potential to work and a planning compromise is achievable. If Turing ends up in Whitton then perhaps it will become blatantly apparent what Twickenham Academy have to do to win the confidence of parents, so nobody is complaining that one has a main admissions point in the black hole of Fulwell...... Or consolidate the "Choice" it and Hampton Academy provide on a site more in scale with the demand for it. The Clifden site was not perfect though spared having to have any consideration for local residents in it's Planning, it is going to be tightly packed once it is all through and has Strathmore on site.

I suspect that if Turing sets up in Whitton it will not fare any better than Twickenham Academy in terms of attracting pupils. But it could be a bonus for Hounslow families.

i think the success or failure of Turing is surely going to be affected by its location which is why it is holding out for the Teddington site? it needs to be as near as possible to its admissions point otherwise it is ludicrous for children living nearby the school to not be able to go there - it becomes as bad as a catholic school in an area where there is a massive shortage but nobody nearby can go there. the linked schools policy was banned partly because it was bad on the carbon footprint and because nearby children couldn't go to their nearest school - this is just as bad

Heathclif and Icimoi - on the one hand, the admissions policy would only allow 30 children a place from Whitton so Twickenham Academy would not empty out completely, and the admissions policy also has no cap on siblings so that could become a smaller number anyway. But on the other hand, what is the justification to pupils in Whitton who have to walk past Turing House, which they might previously have supported, to go to a school that requires improvement and a chain that has been criticised? With the admissions point moving further into Teddington, what is the likelihood of anomalous black holes emerging - between the Crane river and the A316 for example - that also work against families that originally supported the Turing proposal? The TH consultation responses show some dissent when it comes to moving the admissions point.

In Bristol there has been criticism of Bristol Free School precisely because its catchment area drew from a white middle class area although it was sited in a more deprived area. If TH went down the same path, it would mean that every single RET school has some form of social selection: three(?) faith schools, one additionally with an admissions point, and two schools selecting from areas that are less deprived (generally middle class). BFS also draws children from an area with an oversubscribed girls' school and a Catholic school. There are parallels.

Of course the interests of RET as a chain here is to create a nice attractive school. But does the community supporting the Twickenham/Middlesex (now just Teddington) school want to be seen as fair? After all the debates that we have had in this borough, it's so important to get this right. The thing is, really fair admissions include lotteries and banding tests. Free schools that get to grip with this would be seen as having fairer systems.

Anyway, you can argue with me on this thread, but I doubt I'm the only one with such a concern.