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!

So I've just found a February 2015 press release that refutes the claim in 2014 Richmond 'failed to offer a school place by the start of term to all children with on-time applications'.

There were more warnings this week from the Local Government Association that London faces the biggest shortage of places, the worst case being Newham which may have a gap of 1,784 children this September.

The LGA has just released a report in which the Conservative chair of its Children and Young People Board recommends 'restoration of decision-making on the provision of new schools to local level, as it was prior to the Academies Act 2011' i.e. the option of establishing community schools (YES!), and 'a greater role in judging and approving free school proposals'.

It has a picture of a beautiful newly expanded Richmond school (page 9), and a case study on page 17:

'Richmond has created 27 new primary forms of entry from a base of 57, most of that since 2010 and most through straightforward expansion. Two schools have expanded twice, and one of them onto a third site. Two have been converted from three-form entry infant and junior schools into two-form entry all-through primary schools. ... Richmond has exhausted the “easy” expansions and the remainder are more difficult and expensive – such as building an extra storey or dealing with difficult access issues.'

Here's the report: The council role in school place planning: Making sure there are enough school places locally (L14-86 LGA March 2014 so the report itself is not new).

Thanks, I've found the original LGA press release and there's a link both to this year's data and last year's report.

I've also just noticed that the Facebook pages for Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign and a group opposed to RET's school in Hove called No to King's School Hove, use the same logo. Coincidence? I guess RET is an organisation that links the two campaigns although I thought RISC came first. King's House has religious admissions and an admissions point for the 'open' places, and it also intended to take over playing fields, so there are various grounds for opposition - although some are opposed to free schools in general.

Now there's a brand new Whitton Aganst Turing House which seems to be growing fast.

No, the use of that logo is (sort of) a coincidence in that it's an open source image that is used a lot to represent inclusivity or exclusivity in schools.

And you're right that the Hove Campaign wasn't as tightly focussed on admissions as RISC.

To correct you on one thing, it wasn't king's school that wanted to be on the Hove field. As we discussed at the time, the EFA were steered towards it by council officers, but the plan was reversed by the Schools minister when local council leaders and others objected. Of course that was back in the days when it was possible to open a school in temp accommodation before a permanent option was considered secure. Things have changed since then.

Muminlondon - just catching up after a few days away, but the answer to your question re King's permanent site status is here.

before a permanent option was considered secure

So Whitton is the default option then? Udney Park can hardly be secure if bids haven't been considered yet and criteria which may include legal covenants are unclear. The two sites are being presented as equal options but my impression is that Udney Park is still aspirational rather than realistic. The availability of council-owned land (Hounslow) which can be a forced sale to the EFA is only difference I can see from last year.

Stephen Knight used the unfortunate phrase 'bizarre fantasy' last year about the lack of site apart from Imperial College 'rumours', but he also criticised having to depend on a temporary arrangement in portakabins or converted offices. That hasn't changed although Udney Park would be useful as playing fields which would make Livingston House more palatable in the interim.

Meanwhile the Whitton Against Turing House campaign thinks that 'Richmond Council have already withdrawn their backing for Turing House to be built on the Imperial College grounds' but these rumours could have been started by Stephen Knight, to stir it before the election (and move on from the upset he caused last year when he actually gave his real opinion).

I see no advantage whatsoever for LBRuT to 'favour' the Whitton site unless it really is the only realistic possibility which is not the same as 'favouring'. Its own consultation response to Turing House was to criticise its future admissions point policy because parents wouldn't understand it, and it has another school opening nearer Whitton. You can't justify the Whitton site to Whitton locals by saying 'but Fulwell pupils need a school!' because half the intake of e.g. Hampton Hill Junior (in Fulwell ward, as you pointed out) now go to Hampton Academy while others try to find an alternative, which is similar to current choices in Whitton.

"So Whitton is the default option then?"

Mum, as it says on the TH site page "it is only possible [for schools to open in temp accommodation] if the Schools Minister considers there to be a permanent site option with sufficient security to mitigate the risks of the temporary site being outgrown. In our case, the confirmation of our funding agreement by the Schools Minister is indicative of that certainty". However, as you know, the site option that has given rise to that certainty has not yet been announced. Anything in the public domain is therefore still just conjecture and rumour and I'm not aware that Richmond Council has expressed any formal opinion on the matter (so not sure why the RTT and others think otherwise ).

"my impression is that Udney Park is still aspirational rather than realistic"

Whatever your impression, if the rumours of the identity of the "secure" site did prove to be true, then as permission for new schools has only ever been granted on MOL as a last resort, the EFA would have a continued responsibility to pursue all reasonable options, and the council would have a responsibility to support them in that.

Imperial has put the UPR site on the open market, so the future of that site is their decision and nobody else's. The restrictions on its planning status are, by definition, of lower significance than any restrictions on MOL.

"You can't justify the Whitton site to Whitton locals by saying 'but Fulwell pupils need a school!' because half the intake of e.g. Hampton Hill Junior (in Fulwell ward, as you pointed out) now go to Hampton Academy while others try to find an alternative, which is similar to current choices in Whitton"

While not signing up to that hypothesised justification, I think it's a reasonable assumption that there is less of that sort of pressure in Whitton than in Fulwell & Hampton Hill because much of Whitton has access to the outstanding Heathlands School and other good schools in Hounslow. In contrast there is a big hole in the Fulwell and Hampton Hill area, extending up to Hampton, as shown clearly on this map.

And of course we don't know what's in TH's funding agreement so we don't know what site is stipulated ... But if you compare Fulwell and Whitton:

(a) fewer from Whitton get Waldegrave according to the London Schools Atlas
(b) not all of Whitton is in catchment for the Heathlands - same situation for Fulwell pupils who might get Teddington or as we have discussed, Grey Court or Kingston
(c) as many go to Thamesmead in Surrey from HH as go to Isleworth & Syon from Nelson but not many overall
(d) Whitton borders in W. Twickenham will have temporarily reduced choice till REEC opens. That does give Fulwell a longer-term problem but not necessarily solved by a tricky commute to Whitton.

That information is from the London atlas which states feeder destinations as:

North Teddington/Fulwell

Stanley (90 pupils - rising to 120): Waldegrave 40%, Teddington 38%, Hampton Academy 7%, Twickenham Academy 5%
Hampton Hill Junior (90 pupils): Hampton Academy 53%, Waldegrave 23%, Thamesmead 11%.

Whitton/West Twickenham

Heathfield Junior (90 pupils - rising to 120) - Twickenham Academy 51%, The Heathland 18%, Hampton Academy 9%*, Waldegrave 7%
Nelson - (60 pupils - rising to 90) Heathland 34%, Twickenham Academy 29%, Isleworth & Syon 10%, Waldegrave 10%

There are two bulge/expansion classes coming through at SMSP and Stanley but even with those, half of the intake of TH might still be a switch from HA/TA in the short/medium term. Two half-empty Kunskappskolan schools would be unsustainable. A creative solution could fix that when/if that funding agreement gets renegotiated, if admissions criteria for all schools could be coordinated by an oversight body. Perhaps the next government will mandate that.

This map of bulge classes, permanent expansions and new housing developments might help inform the longer term view too.

For info, HHJS have published last year's transfer stats here. A lot went private but, anecdotally, not all went private willingly.

Nice map. So 2017 and 2018 pretty key years then.

To me it confirms that the council were right to plan around that date. REEC will fit in with Orleans Park to provide for all parts of Twickenham, St Margarets and some of Richmond. Kingston TH will help accommodate extra pupils further south. It wouldn't have been full anyway had a site been up and running this year so cutting the intake to 100 is useful. TA/HA aren't full now and that won't be different in 2015 - while some pupils might have gone private instead, the schools could have offered more places to Richmond borough pupils both on distance compared to pupils from Hounslow, or through expansion. It's difficult to imagine that turned round in the short term while both schools are under Kunskappsskolan.

I'm interested in the extent to which LB Hounslow can be forced to sell land that it owns because of the need to expand the cemetery. Do they have a duty to provide burial space? There's a row in Teddington as the Council wants to take back Teddington's last allotment site in Shacklegate Lane which is adjacent to the cemetery as it is running out of room. Plenty of other areas of London are having to look at creative ways of reusing their burial sites but this is controversial and has equalities implications as certain religions require burial not cremation. Perhaps the whole site isn't needed for the school and part of it could be retained to expand the cemetery.

The idea that it's a particularly tricky journey from Fulwell to the Whitton site is not sustainable I think. The journey to Teddington School from Fulwell is similar geographically and there are no direct buses to Teddington School which is about 10 minutes from the nearest bus route. They put on a couple of school buses a day to the site. Surely they could do something similar from Fulwell to Whitton?

Does anyone ever talk about the fact that LB Richmond is selling the Clarendon site in Hampton? It's adjacent to Carlisle Infants so would be the ideal site to expand HH Juniors since that is the main feeder school. If they rebuilt HH Juniors on the Clarendon site then the current HH Juniors could become a free school.

The Whitton Against Turing House Facebook page is awash with outrage and misunderstanding e.g. of the fact that the Teddington site also isn't in the catchment area of Turing House and is also surrounded by narrow residential roads. Local opposition in Teddington via Friends of Udney Park Playing Fields has gone quiet since SpacetoPlay was set up. I think there would be more opposition if Teddington locals weren't looking at a range of options of with Turing House somewhere in the middle in terms of disruptiveness - with the range from best to worst going something like 1) sale to community sports' organisation, 2) sale to Newland House for sports, 3) sale to Harlequins for sports, 4) sale to EFA for Turing House, 5) sale to Newland House for building of a new Newland House (more Chelsea tractor implications than a state secondary school!), 6) sale for housing. Fear of sale for housing now seems to be suppressing opposition to other options.

It's interesting that Whitton locals don't seem to feel that their first point of lobbying should be the two local Tory councillors in Heathfield (one of whom lives in Weybridge and one in Strawberry Hill!). Aren't they in the best position to represent residents' concerns to Lord True? People organising campaigns seem to rush to set up petitions on change.org now instead of getting people to write to their councillors.

I am entirely neutral on which site TH should get by the way but finding the campaigning approaches interesting!

LP, why are you assuming that anyone is being "forced" to sell land?

There has been no announcement of this or any other site by the EFA, so people are jumping to an awful lot of innacurate conclusions based on rumour. Of course social media abhors a vacuum, and the EFA has learnt to be ultra-cautious, which is a tricky combination.

RTT Online has: Turing House School temporary site officially named after lease agreement secured:

. . A site in Teddington will be the temporary home for Turing House School after a long-lease agreement was secured on behalf of the Department for Education. Livingston House, in Queens Road, will house the school when it opens in September though there is still speculation about a more permanent site.

If Turing House does end up in Whitton then the 80%-20% allocation favouring Fulwell children doesn't make sense to me anymore. From what I understand the new TH admission point is somewhere near Somerset gardens in Teddington, right?

All other local secondary schools - Teddington school, Orleans Park, Twickeham Academy, Hampton Academy, Grey Court, even the REEC new site - are closer to that new TH admission point than the Whitton location. Not to mention lack of public transportation options from North Tedd to that Whitton site, or Whitton residents' resistance (who wouldn't...).

On the other hand, Udney Park Rd fields - while not THAT close to the admission point/area of need - are close enough and also easily reachable on public transport vis buses or even train.

PS. I do hope that TH gets the Udney Park Rd fields, but if they don't I hope it remains a sports field... it would be sad to see that land go to the private education sector to the benefit of a selected few.

Why not have admissions the same for all non faith schools - ie after siblings/lookedafter etc on distances with preference taken into consideration. Then, wherever the schools end up, the 'catchments' for all will just be more fluid. Seems ridiculous to have DC structurally forced to travel further than necessary when they might be perfectly happy with a nearer school.

foursquare, wherever the permanent site ends up, then, within reason, the transport infrastructure will be adapted to deal with it. See here for details.

MrsSalvo, the arguments for and against the TH admissions point are complex, and as I've said before the school can never be a solution for everyone. There are passionate arguments on both sides, and for what it's worth the subject has been discussed at length by everyone closely involved with the school, in full knowledge of the potential permanent sites, and there are no easy answers. TH either serves the community it was set up to serve, or it doesn't. It either provides places where there is a looming black hole, or it doesn't. If it opened 100% of its places next door to another school, especially one that was on an improvement journey, there would be an outcry. If it opened 0% there would be an outcry too. 50:50 might tick a lot of people's boxes, but others would see it as an inappropriate fudge if the need was greater at the admissions point than at the site.

Of course it would have been better to have had the permanent site details in the public domain at the time of the consultation, but it still isn't possible to announce those (despite media speculation), and any delay in the consultation would have prevented the school from opening this September.

However, TH is a community steered proposal, and as it says here the admissions policy will be regularly reviewed, in discussion with the Local Authority, to see if it should be amended in light of local demographic/ population and school changes.

UK edu system is so backwards in many ways... MrsSalvo has a valid point, dropping selection criteria such as faith AND gender would improve the situation.

Waldegrave being accessible to boys, for instance, and not to girls from Richmond. State faith schools dropping their discriminatory admission policies etc.

I get your argument BayJay that TH is meant to serve a black hole but why does that black hole exist to begin with? A bit of a rhetorical question really.

Surely the black hole exist because in the borough because there are not enough places and so the distance criterion creates a black hole. If there are more spaces created because of more schools - wherever they are situated - then the 'black holes' disappear - simple arithmetic. we have seen this with RPA -people don't want to go there, but it exists and so there are places that can be filled. Of course there will be people who think they are entitled to eg a place at Orleans because they have paid for an expensive house based on that expectation, but crazy to manage school admissions on a policy of 'not wanting to upset people with big mortgages'.

foursquare, I agree with you completely. If every school was an inclusive comprehensive (and of course if housing and school sites could be created with grid-like uniformity) there would be no need for situations like this to arise. But, as I said a few posts back, TH can only ever be a sticking plaster for a messy situation - not a cure.

There has been no announcement of this or any other site by the EFA, so people are jumping to an awful lot of innacurate conclusions based on rumour.

It's a believable enough rumour to have been reported three times in the RTT and for Cllr Stephen Knight to have written a letter. The Livingston House report was true, too.

True, but there's a strong element of Chinese whispers - the unconfirmed RTT story, for which the source is unknown, is being embellished via social media gossip. Perhaps it will force the EFA's hand one way or another - and perhaps that was the intention of the originator - but I doubt it, given that we're in the middle of electoral purdah.