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 just reading Stephen Knight's letter in the RTT. He says 'Sadly, Richmond Council seems to have dismissed [the Whitton] site and is instead steering the DfE towards a site in Whitton for the school, close to the Hounslow borders.'

I guess there is an election and the LibDems need to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, but this sounds like a similar blame game to Ryde House. Where is his evidence on this? Why would the Heathfield councillor not have known about this but Vince Cable and Stephen Knight gave him the party line?

I do blame Stephen directly for not influencing the exclusive admissions policy at St Mary's and St Peter's where he is/was chair of governors, though. Or is that different?

Sorry for the politics BayJay2 but I just wonder if Stephen Knight is actually helping or hindering. He puts my back up and it's not as if I haven't voted LibDem (strategically ). Carry on Stephen, you'll lose my vote forever.

Sooner them than me with that site, I wouldn't fancy sending my children there.

From the Guardian letter, 01.04.15: Church schools admissions policy open to abuse:

. . A survey by the Sutton Trust in December 2013 showed that 6% of parents with a child at a state-funded school admitted to attending church services when they would have not otherwise so a child could go to a Church school. Considering that a quarter of pupil places in the state system are at faith schools and many faith schools do not reward Church attendance (many show preference to baptised or local children), the survey points to widespread abuse among those that do. Worryingly, among parents of socio-economic group A the level of false Church attendance rose to 10%.

. . We urge the Church to review and then amend its national guidance on pupil admissions, so that schools are guided towards having open admission arrangements. Church of England schools should look outwards, as an expression of the warmth and generosity of its mission to the whole community. Ensuring this would achieve a more positive standing for the Church in society and better serve local communities . .

Membership of the CofE has always been ill- or undefined: 50 years ago many, perhaps most, were what my father called from his service days ‘parade only CofE’, so it was impossible to draw a line and declare some to be abusers and others not.

I imagine that the true level of hypocrisy to get a school place is much higher than 10 % but many feel some shame and see no reason to own up.

Sorry guys, I've been out of Wifi range all day. It is the Easter holidays after all!

Foursquare, there will be an email to all early next week. Applicants were told about LH late on Thursday.

Otherwise the site status is as per the site page on the website: www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/site.php

SK isn't correct to imply there's uncertainty about TH opening in Sep, though to be fair the announcement about the funding agreement being signed hasn't gone out yet. It'll all go our together early next week, now that LH is sorted.

As it says on the site page,, Imperial's parameters for selecting a bidder aren't public, so goodness knows whether local opinion counts for anything.

The RTT reports that the Green Party have called Deer Park School at Manor Circus 'insustainable and ridiculous'.

Or even 'unsustainable'!

Good on them. I might vote for them this time round.

The LocalGuardian has Green Party attacks plans for free school on A316

There is also a petition you can sign:

Find a different location for the new 'Deer Park' primary school in Richmond. The proposed site on the busy A316 at Manor Circus is unsuitable due to heavy traffic, access difficulties, air pollution and road safety. The children deserve better.

Hi, I think when you quoted Stephen Knight from the RTT on Saturday muminlondon you should have put [the Teddington] site. He is supporting TH coming to Teddington (or remaining in Teddington now it's confirmed the temporary site is at Livingston House but he wouldn't have known that at the time he wrote the letter as only announced on Thursday). I find that he and Cllr. Churchill are quite tuned into school issues having two young children, and probably knowing more parents of young children than most of the other councillors, and having people who would previously been in the catchment but have struggled to get places at Teddington School lately in their ward. I agree it's all likely to become a bit political. I suspect the Tory Hampton Wick councillors (Arbour, Tania Mathias and Evans) may come out as opposed to building a school at Imperial College playing fields. The site is smack in the middle of some of the poshest housing in the area and on the boundary of Teddington and Hampton Wick wards. Council has already expressed some doubts over expanding Collis to 4 forms because of traffic issues and Imperial College site is just over the road from Collis' back entrance.

Also feel I must defend Stephen Knight over the exclusive admissions policy at SMSP - I discussed this with him back in the days when RISC were active and he said he and ex Cllr. Eady had both tried hard over years to get the governors to moderate it but had been outvoted. The governors include two local vicars who were against change and C of E representatives/parents who fell in with the wishes of the vicars. Hard for an outsider who is non C of E to bring in a change like this.

Agree about the awful polluted site on A316. All must try harder.

LProsser is quite right: Knight clearly refers to Imperial's site in para 5 not the Whitton site, which he says is in the ''worst possible location for a new school' (para 6).
edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=c7955673-549d-44a9-9a9c-a642bedeaef8 p 19.

I'm not familiar with the Whitton site at all but from the FB page the people of Whitton certainly seem to think it's got "issues" particularly the access from the main road. I am tempted to join in the discussion as they seem unable to get into their heads that the places are needed for children in Fulwell and South Twickenham at present and the alternative site at Imperial Sports ground is also not in the exact area where places are needed and has "issues". They really should be emailing their Tory councillors . I hope TH will come up with an innovative design to help overcome the opposition to either site being used not go for cheapest bog standard architecture.

Yes you're right LProsser I got that mixed up. SK right about the site but wrong to blame the council as if it's (a) their land or (b) their responsibility. On Ryde House Vince Cable also stirred this up - I think there are many who are confused enough about this. Where they have got involved with land purchases as with REEC it's because the whole project is linked with an LA maintained school and they are involved in the trust - and it's very complicated. VC implied that the council were recently criticised for poor school place planning but that happened in 2003 or something and the LibDems were resistant to Ofsted recommendations for a director of education.

I know too much having followed this thread for so long but I can see when politicians are hiding things or stirring them up!

The Vince Cable quote was in this article:

'there is an element of serious embarrassment by the council because they were singled out by the government for having the worst record in England in terms of planning for schools places and being able to provide for children'

Do you think he referring way back to 2001? It's performance was reported as unsatisfactory under the LibDems in this year but it seems to have improved by 2002.

Has there been any recent criticism? The academies and free schools presumption has made planning difficult everywhere so I don't recall Richmond being singled out. And it's also something VC voted for.

Surely the leader of the opposition can blame the administration for failing to plan for the two community secondary school sites that were needed in its area when it could have done so. A sensible authority would have said "we need two sites in the next few years on our own prediction and we have two sites (Clifden and Richmond College) so they need to become community secondary schools) rather than giving one away for a school that wasn't needed. I'm sure the EFA rely heavily on the local authority for advice on where it can find sites in its area and the local authority still has the responsibility for providing places.

I suspect that as the land in Whitton is owned by the immensely cash strapped LB Hounslow, and is probably not so sought after by multiple groups, it may well be easier, and possibly cheaper, to buy and that may be why the Council is pushing the EFA towards that option.

Not sure what you mean about Ryde House - the local residents seemed to do most of the opposing there but even ward Tory Cllr. Marlow chipped in with some opposition.

Maybe VC was referring to the fact that the Council was recently the only one to fail to provide places for all on-time primary school applicants, although not sure it was criticised by the Government for that?

You know I supported RISC's arguments against a Catholic school, but the arguments about basic need were made before we even knew Egerton Road was a possibility. They were also based on total figures coming through primary schools throughout the borough, but these weren't broken down. It should have been acknowledged that they include:

• 10-15% from out of borough
• extra RC primary pupils looking for Catholic schools
• all those much further away on the Surrey side (e.g. Lowther) who - I agree with heathclif - cannot be expected to travel to Twickenham
• areas served by Twickenham and Hampton Academies, which may have a greater proportion of unfilled places after TH opens.

REEC is at least one school they planned - do give them credit for that. In an FOI request made by an MP (Vince Cable)? of November 2014, Richmond Council has given the numbers of places needed in the next five years, not including the places that will be provided by TH, REEC, Orleans Park and Waldegrave (since they weren't announced and/or funding agreements not signed at that point). They admit we 'need' TH next year, and in the longer term, but no doubt without it, the sponsored academies could have increased by a class each, and REEC would have met the bulk of that need. But that would have gone down like a lead balloon because the KS academies don't offer choice and so far have not impressed on quality either.

the Council was recently the only one to fail to provide places for all on-time primary school applicants

Is that true, though? I'd like to see evidence. Vince Cable suggested that too, but the headlines I saw last year were about 4,000 pupils failing to get a place including 15.1% in Kensington and Chelsea, 6.9%, 6.8% in Hammersmith and Fulham and 6.7% in Hackney. Those figures are so high that it may include those allocated a place that was not a preference so I'm not sure that was accurate. In a different article it was reported that 75 were without a place in Richmond (about 3%?), 26 in Camden and 10 in Somerset. So there is a problem, but it's not the 'only LA'.

I've found that primary school offer date on the gov.uk site here.

I'm not saying it's good, but there were 33 councils where there were children with no offers. Richmond is the LA with the has 12th highest percentage in the country, and 7th highest in London. The figures are:

Kensington and Chelsea 146 (15.1%)
Islington 144 (6.9%)
Hammersmith and Fulham 107 (6.8%)
Hackney 190 (6.7%)
Waltham Forest 225 (6.1%)
Nottingham 238 (6.1%)
Walsall 154 (4.4%)
Newcastle upon Tyne 123 (3.9%)
Leicestershire 279 (3.9%)
Sunderland 106 (3.8%)
Westminster 50 (3.7%)
Richmond upon Thames 85 (3.4%)

Perhaps Bellevue Place should find itself a site in Waltham Forest?

data

How on earth can any LA plan tho' with people moving in and out, the census only happens every 10 years. Perhaps everyone should be required to list the people in their house with birth dates when they register for council tax, and then update when new births etc (and deaths) - this would also help with planning services for the elderly.

I think we need ID cards. That might help with NHS entitlement, too. I think the LibDems and Conservatives are against that, though!

I've found that reference to Richmond being the only borough not to offer 100% of on-time applicants a place by 1 September. It was Councillor Roberts in a November 2014 council meeting. However, the minutes for an Admissions Forum meeting of 23 September said all on-time applicants had been found a place by that date - although not all of the late applicant. It also said 'Although there are no Year 7 vacancies in the Surrey half of the borough, it is anticipated that places will become available for any movers-in during the 2014/2015 school year.' So there may still have been movers-out shifting the waiting list for late applicants, unless they were crowded out by additional movers-in.

MrsSalvo There are actually a lot of sophisticated planning methods and tools that some Councils use. The most basic is to plan on the basis of probability but to understand the risks and opportunities and the probability of upside and downside outcomes and have contingency plans to meet them. There is as Mum highlights a lot of base information about the environment, not just census, but past trends (the increase in demand for school places is not new), the economic context (surprise surprise an economic downturn resulted in less going private) etc. etc Not least the National Audit Office recommends that there should be 4% spare capacity in schools to account for these risks, and maybe even some element of "choice" that eludes most parents in the borough. Always easy to question in hindsight but if the Council had as it's main aim to meet the need for school places amongst the parents in the borough as opposed to planning for no spare capacity to benefit the budget (to quote the Head of Education it is "unfortunate" that parents face such uncertainty as a result, but one wonders to what extent he appreciates that such uncertainty is further playing into his hands by deterring parents to seek other routes to educate their children thus offsetting his risk that he will fail to meet the statutory obligation) ) and political imperatives like the Catholic School then they would have made different predictions and decisions...............

The Council sends out a survey to parents in (about) year 5 asking about their intentions for secondary school. Not sure what the response rate is but it must help with planning.

Is that questionnaire new LProsser? I've not heard of that...

Looking at the official statistics on offers for primary, about half of the London boroughs have less than 4% capacity if you take places on offer and applications from that borough. Some have way fewer places than applicants - neighbouring Wandsworth, and Merton, were oversubscribed this way for 2014 entry and so was Sutton. Hounslow and Kingston upon Thames also were close, with statistically even less capacity than Richmond.

Unfortunately for Richmond, pupils in those boroughs are more likely to take up places here than Richmond pupils over there, so our council is also penalised by their lack of capacity/planning, quality, choice (e.g. between church/community schools), etc.

Another problem I've mentioned before is the higher rate of exit to private schools and vacancy rate in KS2 which result in a drop in per-pupil funding and schools constantly trying to coax money out of remaining parents in order to plug the gaps. On top of this there has been a reduction in SEN funding yet a higher proportion with complex needs attending state schools. And there is an incredible amount of movement in Reception as people change their mind/circumstances - there was about 15% turnover that year in my DC's school.

There are longstanding issues which I agree have to be factored in, but then we also lurch between short-term emergencies and budget restrictions. The added academy presumption and budget priorities imposed by this government make it even harder, and now we've just about run out of schools to expand. I really don't envy the planners' job.

On a different topic, this is such a good blog post on the Conservative policy proposal to retest pupils who 'fail' level 4 in SATs. Does Nicky Morgan live on a different planet?

Re planning The starting point for the official mind will be Release: Subnational Population Projections, 2012-based projections 29 May 2014 which gives borough forecast totals by 5-year age group to 2037. The 5-9 total is forecast to increase from 12,000 in 2012 via 14,000 (2021) to 15,000 (2027) falling to 14,000 in 2033-37.

Long-term subnational population projections are an indication of the future trends in population by age and sex over the next 25 years. They are trend-based projections, which means assumptions for future levels of births, deaths and migration are based on observed levels mainly over the previous five years. They show what the population will be if recent trends continue.

Total England live births fell in 2013 by 4 %:

This fall represents a change to the increasing numbers of births that has been reported each year since a low in 2001, with the exception of a 0.3% fall in 2009. Between 2001 and 2012 live births rose by 23%. The fall in live births in 2013 represents the largest percentage annual decrease since 1975.

Statistical bulletin Births in England an dWales 2013 16 July 2014

As statisticians sing:

A trend is a trend is a trend
The Question is: Will it end?
Will it alter its course
Through some unforeseen force
And come to a premature end?

This week's RTT has September opening for school (p 3 re Turing House) and a letter from M Curtis (School site concerns p 21)