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!

I don't think there is anything unusual about parents coming to mums net to talk about schools. In fact, I believe that is the very purpose of this website.

I was a great supporter of Turing the year it was pulled. Most of my Twickenham friends are fed up and have lost interest in Turing. There is nothing local about a school who wants to take a catchment from a well to do population that does not sit at their door step. Turing is a business who wants to succeed and they are looking for good students to help them fulfill that ambition. Local community or not... It's looking like not.

Another option worth checking out is The Green School for Boys (for this years year 4s and later as not opening until 2017. The Green School for Girls is lovel and successful, Ofsted Outstanding. If you qualify for a church, your chances of getting in from Twickenham/redding ton are very good.

Boris, there is nothing unusual about parents coming to mumsnet to talk about schools. There is something unusual about people who join mumsnet specifically to attack a school in three different threads simultaneously - it suggests they want to attack the school, rather than find out about it or ask questions in the context of a prospective parent. However, in the current climate it's not surprising.

Re your other comments, the permanent site for TH hasn't been decided yet.

I didn't actually think ZoeTedders was rude or unreasonable in her questions. But I feel for you BayJay2 in that position of defending the school when others just employ corporate PR and otherwise refuse to interact. There have been people on these threads defending the case for St Richard Reynolds before it was approved, and although I disagreed and/or saw things differently from them, occasionally arguments got quite heated and personal (e.g. when discussing council officers, etc.) so I felt for them too. At the same time, I know parents are worried about their options. So for the same reasons I am sorry for referring to specific individuals in any comments I have made. I try to make points about policies not people.

Thanks muminlondon. I didn't say ZT was rude or unreasonable. I do suspect he/she was launching an attack on the school aimed at unsettling local parents, rather than simply informing her own choices as claimed. (And, by the way, the email she said she would send to the school still hasn't arrived)

I did say you were being unreasonable because you were expecting immediate website updates. You'll see some clarifications have been made now, and there'll be a couple of FAQs added later. If anything else is unclear, now or in the future, please do PM me before launching another trial by Mumsnet (and I do have other plans for today so if your proof-reading reveals anything else that is unclear then, once again, it might take a little while to deliver ).

Presumably borisenthusiast thinks it's fine for Green School for Boys to take children from some distance away so long as their parents are religious? Turing House is only in the position of (apparently) being offered 2 sites that aren't in the area where places are needed because the Conservative run Council gave Sir RR the site that was in the right catchment area so it could bring lots of Catholic children who didn't live locally to Twickenham. I'm sure Turing House would be very happy with a site in the middle of its catchment area but there doesn't seem to be one. Twickenham parents probably have more choice in future as the new school at Richmond College opens in a couple of years although that wasn't known about when TH started. But parents in North Teddington, Fulwell and nearby don't have a local school.

Fair enough . Good to know the school does support a policy of qualified teachers. I hope the site and admissions policy get resolved so that they fit the vision of a good local/inclusive school with no detrimental impact on others.

There are two things I'm pleased about with StRR - (a) that it's successful and fully subscribed and (b) that it's mainly populated with Richmond borough children. In that way it's not a waste of council tax payers' money. I also get the impression that fewer Catholic children are going private and am interested in seeing whether that is reflected in census figures. One RISC argument was that it would allow Surrey-side Catholic children to avoid RPA when some of those were going private or taking up places at Christ's. I don't think RPA is suffering now anyway.

I'm a little sceptical on whether the permanent location is not known, or Turing does not want to publish the information. Surely, Twickenham/Teddington parents who have other options will be less likely to choose Turing if they know the school will be on the Hounslow side of Whitton, where bus transport is not great.

Presumably, if Turing goes to Whitton/Hounslow borders, it will also impact the already (or should I say "still"?) struggling Twickenham Academy.

And why is it that Turing is promoting itself as a local school, but doesn't actually want the local students? Is it because Turing is a business focussed on their own success; and they know that any school's success is largely determined by the quality of the intake.

Today’s print RTT has New free school on the way? (p 2)

A planning application for a new primary free school in the St Margarets area will be submitted next month . . To register an interest in the school, visit richmondbridgeprimary.co.uk]]

No details are given of where the school might be. The Ryde House site is in East Twickenham, not St Margaret’s.

Richmond Bridge School say: “(it will be) a new primary free school proposed to open with two Reception classes in the St Margaret’s/East Twickenham area in September 2016. Part of the Bellevue Place Education Trust family of schools, Richmond Bridge School will be the sister school to Deer Park School which is set to open in the TW9 area of Richmond in September 2015.

While this school will be subject to the approval of an application to the Department for Education which we will be submitting in May, Bellevue Place Education Trust remains committed to opening a school in the St Margaret’s/East Twickenham area and will work hard to deliver on the promises they have made to the community.

We are actively seeking a site for our school in this area, so if you are aware of any sites or existing buildings which may be suitable for development, please get in touch.”

Also “Most receive first choice" (p 12) and a 2-page ad for Richmond upon Thames College (pp 16-170

Boris, no it's not a business, and hopefully that's clear to anyone who has been following the school's progress for some time.

Your scepticism re the site position is unwarranted. There is no advantage to TH in parental uncertainty. As someone mentioned up-thread, site statements from the school (and approved by the EFA) have made it clear that two sites are being considered. That remains the position.

Boris if you care to go back through the several thousand posts on this thread you will see that your speculation could not be further from the truth. Turing was born out of parental concerns that Richmond Council in pursuing an agenda to set up a Catholic School with exclusive admissions was in danger of failing to address the issue that shrinking catchments would result in black holes of school place provision in the near future. That is exactly what has happened, the Council acknowledge that the Fullwell area is now just such an area and this year the Council has had to introduce bulge places to cope with the increased demand. These are, because of the introduction of sixth forms, a short term solution. As Lottie says had the Council not given the Clifden site to the Catholic Church then nobody would be having this discussion and Turing would indisputably be the much wanted local school sited at the heart of it's community. However there is no site at the heart of its community, just one that is up for commercial auction and the EFA may not be able to secure and possibly one in Whitton, but there is no official information on that.

As to the Turing catchment it is no more magically full of bright middle class children than Whitton.

The nature of Twickenham Academies "struggles" we have discussed at length as well, but to be succinct it offers an idiosyncratic proposition to parents in contrast to Turings proposal to follow the model of the mainstream inclusive popular comprehensives like Orleans.

Richmond Council ... failing to address the issue ... shrinking catchments. That is exactly what has happened

Not exactly, because at the beginning of the debate we didn't know about sixth forms, link policy or the availability of a site at Richmond College which a result of the sixth form policy. Without sixth forms, schools may have been able to expand, but as academies LBRuT can't control admissions numbers anyway. At the same time Clifden Road would have been too close to REEC as a mainstream school with a 100% distance admissions policy. That would not have helped Teddington. It might have worked as as a Catholic academy but it's clear now the Catholic Church wouldn't have backed that and it could have been as undersubscribed as Trinity Academy in Clapham. It could have worked as a boys' school too.

RTT On line has Conservative candidate Tania Mathias comes out against Whitton school site:

" . . In a statement on her campaign website on Monday, Dr Mathias said: I've been speaking to Whitton residents and I absolutely sympathise with their concerns about the stories of a possible site for a school, specifically Turing House Free School in Whitton, that might have 80 per cent of pupils coming from Teddington and Twickenham. I would not support this site for such a school in Whitton. . . "

mum Presumably a Turing opened on the Clifden site would have had the same strategy of meeting the school place need by having an admissions point focused on the original or current spot. I seem to remember that before the admissions strategy was set in stone one of the factors in it's development was actually to avoid it having a socially selective catchment, so it did reflect the social make up of the wider borough rather than surrounding streets. As things stand Clifden Road and quite a bit of any notional catchment based on the Clifden site is still just about served by Orleans and Waldegrave so there would not have been an issue with that strategy for local parents as there is for Whitton parents. Nor of course would there have been any planning issues so the school could have been delivered on time and with the certainty for parents of a local and accessible site. Of course we can and have speculated and argued until the cows come home but I still think the RISC risk analysis of those forecasts was sound and the Turing parents were right to foresee the need for the school that only they could deliver for themselves, since LBRUT would not. That is quite apart from the issue of delivering the sort of school they wanted for themselves.

Just to throw another bit of speculation into the pot, had Twickenham Academy followed the path of RPA in delivering the sort of school parents wanted instead of what some Swedish educationalists think they need I suspect it would now like RPA be full and the pressure on places even greater, perhaps needing yet another school to Turing and Richmond College Specialist School of Publishing.

And on the Turing bashing, strange isn't it that we have had no posters coming on addressing detailed questions about teachers and curriculum and slightly more appropriate accusations about the sponsoring organisations motivation to Belleview and GEMS concerning Old Deer Park School or Twickenham Green Schools, though of course they would get no answers.

If I were going undercover as a local parent to undermine the sponsors of a school, I would do a better job than claim to have a teacher husband and then mix up the Ebacc and Ibacc though................

So now the A316 is not just a social divide in the minds of some people but may perhaps also have virtual spies crossing it going undercover in virtual Boden and driving virtual Chelsea tractors and painting their virtual houses in virtual Farrow and Ball.......

The REEC school will be a mainstream school. The justification for TH's new admissions point is REEC's proximity and avoiding overlap. Following on from that, why should only Teddington have benefited from 50% or 80% of the places, and not e.g. Barnes or Richmond as some of the bulge classes needing a place? Lottery selection borough-wide would be a solution although in combination with a USP for a wide area. Academic selection is out. SRR does have a lottery and a USP, but just for Catholics. A boys' school works more widely.

Alternatively the original admissions point at Brunswick Close would have slotted in with Waldegrave for a boys' school based on distance, and fixed a hole there as well as Waldegrave effect.

Otherwise, to counteract shrinking catchments at oversubscribed schools, without creating surplus, it's solved by a smaller school school nearby but not too close - REEC will do that for OP and TH might do in Teddington too. But three Twickenham schools? Silly.

It's a can of worms... With regard to Kunskappskolan, it's quite striking that applications to those schools are nearly identical to how they were before academisation. The Whitton Against Turing House FB page is very supportive of Twickenham Academy so a local loyalty is still there.

mum I wasn't saying the Richmond College School won't be mainstream just that it is to have an "enterprise" specialism via it's connection to Haymarket.

The admissions point reflects the positioning of all the surrounding schools as the best way to focus on the area of need.

And yes as we have discussed there is now a need for places for children in Barnes and parts of Richmond but not over the Middlesex side. Even the trip to Waldegrave from Sheen, when it was still in catchment was regarded as far from ideal, but the black holes of provision in Kew and Barnes are not even that accessible. I understand that the need for places to be in Surrey has been acknowledged and assurances have been made that it will be addressed so it will be interesting to see how they do that. But Turing with it's community base firmly in Middlesex cannot be an answer, especially if it ends up in a far corner. Catholic pupils over in Barnes and Kew are still travelling to other closer Catholic schools outside the borough if they can get places.

Hmm, not sure I'm completely following you Muminlondon. Are you saying that TH should have transformed itself into a boys' school when the REEC school was announced, or that REEC should have been a boys' school?

Either way, there's no obvious demand for a boys' school. There used to be one (Teddington), and it eventually became mixed because it wasn't popular. When I started this thread back in early 2011 and asked people what sort of school they thought was needed for the area, there was no obvious clamour for a boys' school - people may say they think there should be one for 'balance' but actually there aren't huge numbers of people who say they would like to send their boys to a boys' school - I certainly wouldn't, and I'm not sure it would have been me founding the steering group if that was the way the wind had blown. (And if I recall correctly, you have a DD, so it probably wouldn't have been you either ).

If Turing House had known REEC was to be announced, AND had won Clifden Road after all - so no Catholic school - then TH would have worked well as a boys' school, It would have served not only the whole of Middlesex but part of Richmond as well. But TH was proposed before REEC was announced, however, without the benefit of foresight/hindsight: it might have been what REEC will now provide, had the council omitted to plan. But it isn't, so it's found a different niche.

REEC only works as an 11-16 mixed school - all linked to the college. Turing House as boys' school at Clifden with sixth form, and lottery or Waldegrave admission point - would have complemented that. The wider effect of the two schools would have been:
(a) fewer boys at Orleans Park, Teddington, Christ's, etc. where catchments overlap with Waldegrave - so more balance
(b) wider catchments at aforesaid schools, because of fewer boys - so extending beyond black holes
(c) more places freed up in Surrey, thus easing the Kew and Barnes problem
(d) wider catchment at Waldegrave because of extra co-ed choice, attraction of more co-ed balanced schools, etc.

So many more people than just those with boys might have benefited.

However, Turing House ISN'T at Clifden Road. LBRuT couldn't have opened a boys' school either, because academies are so much harder to set up than VA schools.

So, instead, LBRuT delivered the Catholic school and second school it promised - and what it was capable of. For Turing, a big co-ed school and smaller co-ed school in both Twickenham and Teddington with girls' school in between is a good alternative, as suggested in my last post. Which I hope for your sake will happen.

heathclif - see Christ's admissions map. Kew was (mostly) covered. What wasn't covered was close to other out-borough schools. Its catchment widened this year.

BayJay argued for a Catholic academy with 50% cap which would have been the similar. But not everyone likes a faith school, even with inclusive admissions like Christ's or an academy. So not a black hole in Kew, just limited choice. Faith schools can be a problem when they're the only nearest school. Or undersubscribed in an area of shortage. See this Sikh school in Leeds.

Just an update on Thursday's conversation - the TH FAQs have now been updated to include the following questions:

• Will all of the founding teachers be subject specialists?
• How will the staff team evolve as the school grows?

See here: www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/questions3.php#specialists

For info, updates were also made yesterday to the KS3 Curriculum overview and Staff page.

Obviously Mumsnet isn't the normal route for requesting or reporting back on school website updates, so if anyone else has further queries that need a formal answer please do email the school directly using the details on the contact page of the website.

ZoeT, if you're still reading this, I've also PM'd you, so check out your inbox.

I´ve sent the following message to the mumsnet Editors regarding this thread. Those who were following the thread this week will be interested.

Dear Editors,

I am a mum and I have recently joined mumsnet in order to be able to discuss a local school with other local mums. My username is ZoeTedders. I wasn´t clear which thread was currently as there were several recent threads with the school´s name (Turing House) in it so I copied it into those.

In one of the threads I was redirected to the most active thread by an individual who I assumed was another local mum. I´m not sure that redirecting people to particular threads is allowed. Surely, mums can post anywhere they like.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/1999676-Turing-House-school-site?pg=6

Anyhow, it turns out that this individual BayJay is not just a local mum but actually a member of the Steering Group of the Turing House School that I wished to discuss. Therefore, ´steering´ me towards a thread that she herself had started and had many of the school´s supporters on it. She openly admits that she represents the school directly if you read the thread that I was directed to by her.

local.mumsnet.com/Talk/local_richmond_upon_thames/2229111-Richmond-Borough-Schools-Chat-6?pg=32

My main question that I wanted to discuss with other mums was whether the school had recruited unqualified teaching staff which I think is an important issue to consider when choosing a secondary school for your child. Obviously, this is not a question which supports the school and is controversial. I didn´t think that mumsnet was against talking about controversial issues that concerned parents though.

Each time I posted on BayJay2´s thread my comments were shot down in flames and I was insulted by being called ´naive´, ´petty´ and ´rude´. This is think was uncalled for as I hadn´t insulted any of the other mums in the same manner, in fact I had thanked mums for sharing their opinions.

BayJay as a member of the school´s steering group kept telling me not to post on mumsnet about the school but to direct my comments directly to the school in a private email, that she herself was checking to see if they had arrived and then posting on the thread about it!!! She says so in subsequent posts. Which concerns me, is she part of the Steering Group or actually the Head? . I sent an email to the school and it has not been responded to, no doubt BayJay has deleted it.

I believe in freedom of speech. I think this person BayJay should not be allowed to tell people to direct their questions elsewhere either on other threads or outside of mumsnet. I think that behaviour is controlling and manipulative and not in the spirit of public local forums. The title of the thread is ´Richmond Borough School´s Chat´ My comments are challenging some aspects of the school, her viewpoint is clearly the opposite so clearly there is conflict.

It was worse later when she says that I ´attack´ the school and questions my motives for posting. Horrendous comments to make. This is an awful thing to say about another mum on mumsnet.

She says: ´´Zoe, your email didn't arrive yesterday either, so please do send it again. If you do have another agenda or interest other than just as a Year 5 parent, it's worth declaring that upfront too´. and ´I do suspect he/she was launching an attack on the school aimed at unsettling local parents, rather than simply informing her own choices as claimed. (And, by the way, the email she said she would send to the school still hasn't arrived)´

I´m obviously upset and hurt by these comments and consider them to be publically accusing me of being a troll which I am not. I didn´t think that was allowed on mumsnet.

Happily, there were several comments placed by other mums which were in my defense and defended the freedom of speech on mumsnet forums.

I hope that this can be resolved so that other mums can post their concerns about Turing House School and discuss them freely with other parents rather than being controlled by official school representatives looking to avoid any bad press.

Thank you for updating the website to say that Turing House does in fact employ unqualified teachers.

ZoeTedders, I didn't accuse you of being a troll, I said that your attack was unusual, and suggested that if you did have another interest it would be helpful to declare it. You could have simply said that you didn't, like muminlondon did (although I already knew that).

If you read the PM that I sent you this morning you will see that your email did eventually arrive via a circuitous route because you apparently cc'd someone else, who forwarded it to another member of the TH steering group. The reason it didn't arrive originally was because you mis-typed the address. You are welcome to re-send it using a correct address, and you will get an official response.

Regarding your accusation, Turing House doesn't employ unqualified teachers. One of the teachers it has appointed to a role which starts in September is currently completing her PGCE, so will have NQT status in September.

You are very welcome to post whatever you like on other threads, but you are most likely to reach the audience you want to reach on this one, because it is the local thread.