Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Local

Find conversations happening in your area in our local chat rooms.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Richmond Borough Schools Chat 6

999 replies

BayJay2 · 07/11/2014 10:53

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!
OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 31/03/2015 08:11

a lot of Parents ... are very upset and angry to find themselves excluded and offered instead a school at the other end of the borough
Are you sure those parents have not now been offered a place at RPA? Perhaps you should redirect the FOI request specifically to RPA and enquire if they will offer another class?

they suspect LBRUT are expecting them to go quietly and spread out between whichever schools across the river have places
They might suspect that if you continually assert it. But the decision to offer places up to PAN rests with RPA.

I am a frankly confused as to why you feel so strongly that Surrey parents, especially Barnes parents have any less right to expect adequate provision than Middlesex ones, and should meekly accept that their fate is to have to seek creative out of borough solutions, move or go private?
You're attributing words that I did not say. I feel strongly that you should acknowledge the situation is less clear-cut this year with Turing House operating a separate admissions round, and while I believe in transparency, their justification for delaying the release of that information is logical because the situation will change quite radically in some areas once final acceptances are made. Otherwise, if you use it as a stick to beat LBRuT with, you could be misleading people in offering a picture that is more complex and has since changed.

Thinking about it, it would also apply to other new free schools close to Lowther like Fulham Boys School with random allocation within a 1.5 m catchment. This might have influenced RPA's more cautious approach this year. Perhaps you should also address your FOI to them and Turing as it might be critical to understanding the situation?

I've suggested that there are other nearer state alternatives than RPA and certainly than Twickenham, but that they were not within the LA's boundaries so it could not have offered them. But that I do think RPA's waiting list will move. I do not suggest families should move or go private in lieu of a place at RPA so do not to attribute that to me.

As I stated before, while 70% of Barnes ward choose to go private - and this statistic was gathered while RPA had spare places - the admissions process cannot distingush between those who are likely to depend on a state school and those fully intending to go private. But making provision for all these children would assume 70% surplus places which are not funded within a school's budget. Unfortunately this only becomes clear after offers have been accepted.

I gather that the private schools offer 'process' is stressful. Part of the reason is that they all make offers independently, resulting in some people having several offers at once, and others having none - some parents therefore have to wait for places given up by others. This stress and confusion is similar to reintroducing separate admissions routes in the state sector resulting in some parents having more than one available state place while others have to wait for them to reject one of them. This used to happen with church schools which was unfair. If the Conservatives claim free schools offer the best of the private sector, this aspect is not what I would have put at the top of the list.

At the same time, private offers are made before any state options are known. It is therefore likely that the majority of those going private have already been preparing for this. I know parents who last year took up a private place over an offer of RPA, seemingly at the last minute, so I know late applications to private schools can be successful. But I doubt that RPA's fortunes have reversed so dramatically that parents already with a selective private place, for which they have spent months tutoring, would have rejected it in favour of RPA.

BayJay2 · 31/03/2015 09:43

"but that they were not within the LA's boundaries so it could not have offered them"

The logical consequence of the Greenwich Judgement is the need for a regional approach for school place planning. It's just a shame it's taken this long for people to start realising it. [simle]

"I gather that the private schools offer 'process' is stressful"

Some of them require a commitment in the form of a big financial deposit by a certain date - e.g. I know Kingston Grammar's date was the Friday before the LA's decision date. Presumably the more popular and oversubscribed private schools set their dates as early as possible, and that has a domino effect on the others. It would be interesting to do an analysis of decision-dates to see if there was a strong correlation with private school popularity Smile.

Following the same logic, it would be a reasonable hypothesis that those people who hang on to private offers until very late in the summer are a) not holding offers at the most popular private schools and b) waiting to hear whether they get lucky on the state school waiting lists.

OP posts:
Heathclif · 31/03/2015 09:45

mum Yes I am sure the situation is as I describe it, that as things stand there are a significant number of upset and angry parents on the Surrey side with no school offer and there are ongoing discussions with both AET, RPA and LBRUT to secure short and long term provision for pupils in those areas where that is now the case. I do not need an FOI as, without outing anyone involved, the information is freely available. I am merely reporting what is happening, though certainly not in a position to influence feelings by continually asserting anything hmm Reassuring parents that the list should move by 40-80 which should accommodate most of the affected families is both stressful for the families involved and seen as yet another sticking plaster, since RPA is now clearly a school that has the confidence of parents and there are now long term black holes of provision on the Surrey side.

I am equally sure that the improvements at RPA have attracted quite a few of that 70% who would previously have felt forced by the lack of places in good state schools to go private to apply for a place, a substantial proportion of the increase in applications and those who are taking up places leading to it being fully subscribed last year is coming from local primaries. It is the result of a sustained and successful campaign by RPA to win the confidence of parents and encourage them to regard RPA as their local school and a natural progression for the majority of pupils. There is a considerable correlation between quality and the percentage going private, why else would this borough have such a high proportion in certain areas going private, it is not entirely linked to affluence I can assure you. Indeed there are if you read the endless private school threads on here parents who have wrestled with the decision to pay the £1000 deposit for a private school place whilst waiting to find out if they have a place in their preferred state school, if a place comes up at a state school that will, as I am sure you will agree deliver as good an outcome for the individual child, it is much cheaper than committing £100k plus of the families finances. Of course there is no single model, some families may still decide to go down that private route, but RPA's oversubscribed status is evidence something has changed. If you read those private school threads you will see many of those involved are first time buyers of private education and there does indeed seem to be an increase in competition for private school places without doubt driven by uncertainty about state school provision in the face of the pupil bulge, the same uncertainty that underpinned the controversy about giving away the Clifden site, and indeed the support for TH.

TH, and the existence of double allocations which is clearly not ideal for anyone but is temporary reflecting the lack of certainty on site, was on the scene last year when the information was released. Parents are perfectly well able to interpret the information in the light of that. The only thing that has changed is that increased applications made it necessary to have contingency places even with TH coming on stream. I see no reason why clarity for parents currently anxiously on waiting lists is sacrificed because LBRUT for whatever reason Hmm are not prepared to be transparent about where those contingency places were made available.

LProsser · 31/03/2015 09:46

I can't see that any of these issues are sufficient to outweigh the public interest in releasing the information. I can see it's a lot to collate but they have to do it anyway and releasing it a month after the time for accepting offers has passed should be possible rather than waiting until September. It could then undertake to keep it up to date and put the appropriate caveats on it. If the Council knows which children have been offered places at TH, and how many of them have other offers, and how many have offers at their first choice school, and how many have asked to stay on waiting lists, it has a fairly clear picture of who is likely to go there. The people I am hearing about who have TH offers are in the Fulwell area and one is 170th on the Teddington waiting list so pretty likely will be going to TH!

muminlondon2 · 31/03/2015 11:06

The logical consequence of the Greenwich Judgement is the need for a regional approach for school place planning.

I agree and such a need is also the logical consequence of the fragmentation of the school system by academies.

There has not been any new Ofsted rating of RPA but it is possible that there are bulge classes closer to the school at Barnes, East Sheen or Sheen Mount this year. It is equally possible that the demand has come from Wandsworth indicating a higher preference where they have more children. About 33% of school places in this borough are filled by those from neighbouring boroughs and that affects RPA.

But forcing the council at this stage to state whether RPA offered 180 places or 190 places will not clarify how many of the 30 Lowther pupils are still without a place at RPA. It is clear from past FOI requests that the LA does not manage waiting lists for church schools or academies so is unable to provide that info in order to give a balanced picture.

It would certainly be reasonable to expect that information published once TH asks for final acceptances and recommends rejection of the other place. It should be covered in an explanatory press release for example, so that we know the final pupil numbers at schools as well as offers. But that is not likely to be known until September.

Incidentally, pupil census numbers for this year are available on 11 June.

muminlondon2 · 02/04/2015 12:23

The school census figures for 2013-14 are published here. As LAs aren't allowed to reserve places for their own pupils, there is a net import of up to 10% at primary and 20-25% at secondary.

Last year's Y5 figures (this year's Y6 unless they have moved away etc.):

1913 attending Richmond primaries
1722 residing in Richmond and attending
58 or 3% residing but attending schools in other boroughs (cf. 49 or 2% in reception)
249 or 13% attending but residing in other LAs (cf. 255 in reception - 10%)

Last year's year 7 figures (i.e. 2013 entry so first year after link system abolished and first year StRR):

1530 attending Richmond secondaries (1437 year 8)
1277 residing in Richmond and attending (1242 year 8)
489 or 32% attending Richmond secondaries but residing in other LAs (479 year 8 - 33%).
236 or 18% residing in Richmond but attending schools in other LAs (284 year 8 - 23%)

The proportion going out of borough might go down further for the 2014-15 academic year, as more Catholics stay in the borough. So the net import might be even bigger unless there is a bigger proportion of vacant places.

The rest going out of borough would include those going to Tiffin or selective CofE schools, or those close to Heathland or the comprehensives in Hammersmith or Wandsworth (i.e. mainstream comps, but where pupils would be be out of catchment for TH).

muminlondon2 · 02/04/2015 12:30

'net import (from other LAs) of up to 10% at primary and 10-15% at secondary.'

(And yet the lowest funded LA in London with schools seeing cuts to budgets. Hmm)

ChrisSquire2 · 02/04/2015 18:30

SpaceToPlay, the consortium seeking to buy the Imperial College Playing Fields is asking for pledges of support.

LProsser · 03/04/2015 09:30

There's a letter from Stephen Knight supporting Turing House getting the Imperial College site in today's RTT page 19.

ChrisSquire2 · 03/04/2015 11:20

Here is a link to this week’s RTT:
edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=c7955673-549d-44a9-9a9c-a642bedeaef8

Stephen Knight says that the Imperial site is large enough to accommodate a school alongside a large new community sports centre for local clubs.

BayJay2 · 03/04/2015 11:58

As it says here on the TH website, TH and S2P are mutually supportive of each other's bids for the site. However it's Imperial College's decision.

OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 03/04/2015 14:36

It looks like the information on RPA offers was on its website all along - around 200 offers for its 180 places.

I have found figures for take-up in previous years. RPA's waiting list numbers from Richmond will be affected by movement at Grey Court and Christ's, in turn affected by take-up at Kingston Academy.

2013: PAN 220 - 192 offers (63% in-borough) - 103 pupils in census
2014: PAN 180 - 250 offers - 'over'180 pupils by Sep 2014 (56 from East Sheen/Barnes - most of these likely to be in-borough)
2015: PAN 180 - 200 offers - ??? acceptances

muminlondon2 · 03/04/2015 14:38

RPA offers

BayJay2 · 03/04/2015 17:13

TH offer numbers here too.

OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 03/04/2015 17:31

Thanks BayJay2 - would like to ask if TH offered exactly 100 places and how many were re-offered, but I'd expect you to tell me that it's not useful to give out that information until the final site location has been announced Smile

muminlondon2 · 03/04/2015 18:01

FOI requests are very interesting though. I have found one on numbers transferring from certain 'Surrey' primaries to in-borough state secondaries for the 2012-13 year. The figures for Queen's (28%) and Sheen Mount (21%) are very low considering it was a year Grey Court's catchment stretched to their area and you'd expect Queen's (100% CE admissions) to be more committed to Christ's. Perhaps that's why Mr Burke switched schools!

Barnes (65%) and East Sheen (57%) for 2014 are better. But interesting also to compare with a neighbouring Wandworth primary which has has 73% staying in borough and 98% going to state secondaries. It's all relative, isn't?

BayJay2 · 03/04/2015 19:02

The linked school policy was still in place then. Did Queens and Sheen Mount have a link to Grey Court? Can't remember now.

OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 03/04/2015 23:24

No - only Darell had that link with Grey Court. Sheen Mount was in the same ward as Shene School so had a link on the same basis as Sacred Heart with Teddington. I think links were dropped with academy status but they wouldn't have had the 25% of pupils for three years to maintain one. It was a transitional year when Grey Court had a boost in first preferences just before an outstanding rating: most of its links were in North Kingston but others in Richmond could get in on distance to about 4-5km. Christ's gave priority to pupils at primaries within 1km for open places so that was an option for St Elizabeth, Vineyard and Marshgate. Queen's argued for a feeder link but its own pupils had (supposedly) been admitted on faith criteria and there were already more foundation places available, not that all were being taken up.

BayJay2 · 04/04/2015 05:51

Muminlondon, many families who manage to meet church admission criteria when their children are toddlers struggle to maintain that as they get older, even if they want to (and of course many don't). 10 year olds have their own ideas about what they want to do on a Sunday morning, and many have sporting or other extra-curricular activities. You certainly can't assume that the majority of families at CE primaries have an automatic fast-track to CE secondaries, any more than you can assume that community primaries don't have any families who are CE churchgoers.

OP posts:
muminlondon2 · 04/04/2015 09:56

If families at Queen's are bored of going to church, then even fewer in community primaries, with far less experience of or interest in churchgoing, would be applying for foundation places rather than community places. It raises questions as to why Queen's needs to be so exclusive.

Meanwhile, Christ's is still the main option for Marshgate although as many went to Waldegrave/RPA. The link system didn't offer other options before and dropping it hasn't yet extended distance catchments far enough. Kingston Academy might be an accessible option this year and speed up waiting lists at Grey Court. There's still about a third going to private schools, firstly they are more likely to have the means (comparative to the school I linked to in Wandsworth), but mostly because they have prepared for it - the majority on that list are very selective.

BayJay2 · 04/04/2015 10:15

Well as you know, I'd agree with you about the exclusivity thing.

Stories like this one are becoming more common so it'll be interesting to see how things develop over the next few years.

OP posts:
foursquare · 04/04/2015 10:25

So Livingston house is now official? I don't think there was an email from TH on this one, not to the general public?

teddingtontown.co.uk/2015/04/03/planning-update-11/
www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/openingsite.php

LProsser · 04/04/2015 11:24

The worst kept secret in Teddington! Well provisional congratulations to Turing House although maybe Bay Jay is about to say it's not official yet.

Space2Play are now asking for financial pledges to support their bid for Imperial College playing fields.

muminlondon2 · 04/04/2015 11:26

As a matter of interest, what is the RET King's school in Hove going to do in a year's time? The last site news I can find dates back to September 2013. Does Turing House have more certainty in its permanent options?

ChrisSquire2 · 04/04/2015 11:59

Here is the announcement on the TH site: Our Opening Site: Livingston House.

. . At 2212 square metres, the building provides more than adequate teaching space for for 2 - 3 years. A portion of the building is double-heighted, and we anticipate that it will be suitable for an assembly hall and indoor sports. There is external play space on site, and we are in talks with local sports clubs about use of their facilities . . (it) is very well served by public transport, being on the 33, 281, 285, 481, R68 and X26 bus routes. It is an 8 minute walk from Teddington Station, and a 16 minute walk from Fulwell Station. . .