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!

Oh my, this has got a bit ugly. Zoe, I hope it hasn't put you off Mumsnet. I have been getting (and giving) much needed advice here for yours. I love this website, but you do need a thick skin sometimes.

Interesting to read that the local residents in Whitton don't want their local area to host a school for kids in Teddington. Can't say I blame them.

Turing really out to sort out and announce their permanent site very soon. It is damaging their reputation.

m.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/12911675.Conservative_candidate_Tania_Mathias_comes_out_against_Whitton_school_site/

m.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/12911675.Conservative_candidate_Tania_Mathias_comes_out_against_Whitton_school_site/

"Turing really out to sort out and announce their permanent site very soon. It is damaging their reputation"

Unfortunately it's the responsibility of the Education Funding Agency to sort out the site, not the school, or the Local Authority. And even if it was "sorted out" tomorrow, they would be unlikely to announce it until the end of electoral purdah - especially now that it's become political.

If there's no agreed permanent site, the school is only temporary and arguably shouldn't open at all until the permanent site is sorted out. The smaller the school, the more difficult the staffing issues, as discussed. A consultation on admissions policy in relation to a unannounced permanent site was flawed on several levels. There are no bulge/extra classes in Fulwell/Hampton non-Catholic schools till 2017 (one each at Stanley and Buckingham) while there are currently unfilled places at TA/HA; Teddington numbers change little too until 2017. Kingston Academy and Grey Court are newly available options for Teddington - accessibility is no more of an issue than to Whitton. The new REEC school has easier transport links for Teddington than Whitton.

The EFA isn't really fit for purpose either. I came across more news about a free school in Bournemouth that suggests the sites it is finding are not only unsuitable but even unsafe - not only asbestos but explosive materials.

"If there's no agreed permanent site, the school is only temporary and arguably shouldn't open at all ..."

No muminlondon, because the funding agreement has been signed on the basis of there being a secure permanent site option. That doesn't mean other options can't be pursued in parallel until a decision is made.

And here we go round in circles again, because those options weren't public when that consultation on admissions was run, when pupils were asked to accept a place, when site investigations were being discussed without residents being aware. So the EFA's idea of a suitable option may not be Whitton residents' idea or even Turing House families. The funding agreement shouldn't have been signed on that basis.

Whitton is a controversial option and Udney Park isn't secure, or wasn't at the end of March - we know nothing of other options. Heathclif denies any social differences between areas. RISC used the FSM measure as an argument against faith schools that take from an area further than their own locality. So look at the statistics - Heathfield has two or three times that FSM proportion compared to Hampton Hill or Stanley. In Teddington, Collis and St Mary's & St Peter's are even lower, and SMSP has the lowest proportion of EAL speakers in the borough. Whitton schools and even St Elizabeth's on Richmond Hill are highest but closer to a London average.

" those options weren't public when that consultation on admissions was run, when pupils were asked to accept a place, when site investigations were being discussed without residents being aware."

Mum, those options still aren't officially public. They have been leaked by someone who clearly had their own agenda. It has caused an upset because of the way the information has come out. It's hugely emotive to talk about people being "kept in the dark" and "secret talks" but if you were an EFA official discussing something sensitive like that when would you choose to consult the public? Before consulting the site owner and tenants or after? Before a general election or after? Before all the other options were ruled out or after?

It's also easy to say that the funding agreement shouldn't have been signed until it was all finalised. But irs worth pointing out that if TH had been deferred again then it would never have opened - not this year, not next year or any year after that, because everyone involved would have walked away from it in frustration (including me). Yes, another free school proposer would have stepped into the void, but for the sake of avoiding a few months of uncertainty is that really what you would have wanted?

It's also worth pointing out that back in December when the consultation started we had no idea how long certain processes would take, which is why that announcement said more information might become available during the course of the consultation (which didn't happen in the end).

I agree with you that it's a terrible system. However it's not fair to throw blame rocks at the school or use hindsight to criticise actions that were performed in good faith given information that was available ar the time.

another free school proposer would have stepped into the void

No, we're two weeks before a general election and new government and the free school process will change - it has to. If the leak was political, the rush by Lord Nash to sign funding agreements was political. We're unlikely to have a Conservative majority government, but if we do, even right-wing think tanks are recommending a separate process to target need. The role for local authorities in setting up new schools and otherwise providing places will change, so if it's about need, the LA will get more powers back to find a solution that goes through proper consultation. As for quality, within the next two years there is a lot of scope for HA/TA to improve or change sponsor, regroup and if necessary, expand. Hampton Academy is Fulwell and Hampton Hill ward's local school. If LBRuT is proposing a new trust for RPA when its funding agreement comes up for renewal, then the same applies to the other academies.

hugely emotive to talk about people being "kept in the dark" and "secret talks"

ZoeTedders has made the point that it is hard to debate these issues on this thread because of your support for this school. You might counter my criticism here, but you must not dismiss the concerns of Whitton residents - more than 1,300 have signed their petition. If politicians are responding to that, then I'm glad they're taking it seriously, even after the consultation timetable.

"you must not dismiss the concerns of Whitton residents"

I don't - not at all - their reaction is completely understandable. However some of that reaction is heat-generated rather than light-generated.

"so if it's about need, the LA will get more powers back to find a solution"

The need versus want debate is complex, as you know, and here in Richmond the argument can be made both ways, because the numbers are marginal and parental behaviour is very sensitive to school performance. If you think that TH should have thrown its towel in on the basis of this year's secondary application figures, then fine, but even if it had, next year's figures might easily give you cause to regret that call.

"If you think that TH should have thrown its towel ..."

And, if that is your opinion right now, then it's something that even you flip-flop on isn't it? Because it's not clear-cut.

"it is hard to debate these issues on this thread .."

Really? We've been debating these issues for 4 years muminlondon, so it can't be that hard can it.

Dear All,

I have received complaints regarding some of the posts on this thread.

It is very common that issues such as this can get heated so I would just like to remind you of the rules of Mumsnet Talk:

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No troll-hunting
No spamming

We welcome open debate and discussion from all - whether that be praise, criticism or anywhere in between.

If you would like to contact us directly regarding any issues please email [email protected]

Local Editor - Richmond

Thanks LERichmond. And for you too, for putting up with us all!

Hi all,

We just want to reiterate what our lovely Local Editor for Richmond has said.

We're all for freedom of speech, and we're happy for concerned parents to discuss issues like this on Mumsnet. But it's not comfortable reading for anyone if things get personal, so we'd always ask that any such matters are dealt with off the boards.

If you have any concerns, please do raise them with us at MNHQ (either by hitting the Report button, or mailing us directly at [email protected]) or indeed with your Local Editor, email as above.

Many thanks.

very candid piece of writing by one woman whose son is one of the 114 children in the borough who haven't been offered a primary school place - www.thisisourtownrichmond.co.uk/no-room-at-the-school-3/04271252#more-7200

Heathclif denies any social differences between areas. No Mum I most certainly do not but I do deny that the A 316 is a social divide or that the admissions point will ensure the school magically fills up with more bright middle class children than it would if it were in Whitton, or that schools with a greater social mix are necessarily any less successful. I think bringing these sorts of arguments to the debate is patronising to Whitton residents, and misleading.

Heathfield is undersubscribed and offers are made in black holes of provision as far away as Twickenham Green. As we have discussed before Stanley, now with 8% FSM has become less socially diverse as it's catchment has shrunk, only a couple of years ago the figure was 10%. Some of the children who previously would have been offered places at Stanley may well now be offered places at Heathfield. Much like the other Whitton schools, Chase Bridge (6%), Bishop Perrin (5%), St Edmunds (6%) and Nelson (11%). All but Nelson have lower FSM than Stanley, and Nelson's is comparative.

If you look at the map on page 6 here richmond.gov.uk/borough_profile_march_2012v2.pdf you might point up differences in affluence as you go West on both sides of the A316 but not on either side of it until you get south and into affluent Teddington and the catchment of Teddington School, which would of course include Udney Park. The Turing admissions point is not sited in an area of comparable affluence to that of Teddington School and it is misleading to imply it will be.

More to the point the area of by far the greatest comparative deprivation in the borough is next to Greycourt, one of the models for Turing, and I don't see that struggling to be successful or popular. RPA is also right next to an area of deprivation, as well as the most affluent area in the borough, it didn't stop it failing, nor is it stopping it being successful.

I completely sympathise with Whitton parents on the planning issues and the possibility of a school on their doorstep that does not serve the
community but I think this emotive mobilising of inverted snobbery and prejudice is completely out of place, as is unfounded speculation, and indeed seeking to make unfounded criticisms of Turing.

On a much lighter note, delighted for all involved to see that the signs are going up on Turing House today. Congratulations Bay Jay, and everyone else looking forward to the school finally opening!

And quoting SMSP, a school that selects on the clearly socially divisive parental willingness to jump through the hoops of the selection criteria, even in the most affluent area, is also misleading. Turing's selection criteria was focused on giving a fair chance of a place to those parents living in an area that will be likely to become a black hole of provision regardless of the parental socio-economic profile or willingness to baptise their child, sit in a particular place on a Sunday or even juggle. It is now part of mumsnet lore that if a school chose to require parents to learn to juggle rather than attend church then it would instantly improve it's chance of successful outcomes for it's pupils because they would have parents who were willing to make that extra effort to support them in getting the best education. I am quite sure that regardless of house values and parental income there are just as many Whitton parents who would be willing to learn to juggle for the sake of their child's education as Fulwell ones and that is demonstrated at schools like both Chase and Stanley.

Though it does highlight that there are plenty of schools in the borough not serving their local community, and selecting on socially divisive criteria.

St Luke's in Kingston has recently done away with it's faith selection, favouring serving it's local community, something the C of E diocese has suggested for some time www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11564793/Church-of-England-school-expels-prayers-for-places.html. When are schools such as St.Mary’s & St.Peter’s (Teddington), The Queen’s school (Kew), Bishop Perrin (Twickenham), Archdeacon Cambridge (Twickenham), and to a lesser degree St.Mary’s (Twickenham) and Holy Trinity (Richmond), going to follow the advice of their diocese and St.Luke’s example and become equally open their to all children in their local communities, regardless of whether their parents attend church?

I have the utmost sympathy with the woman whose blog is highlighted by DDqueen especially having been in the same situation. As we have discussed, this has been going on for decades, but the increased faith selection in our schools has made it more common for parents to suffer the stress that follows from being excluded from all their preferred local schools.

Thanks SheilaF. I've seen the photos and hoping to drive by later. All very exciting.

Row over plans for Whitton school with 80% places for Teddington kids

Paul Hodgins, Richmond Council's cabinet member for schools, said all possible school sites had their "imperfections" but he believed Turing House would be an "extremely positive addition to whichever community it winds up in".

However, he added that he thought it was a "mistake" for Turing House to decide its admissions policy before the location was confirmed and said the council had made its concerns known during the school's consultation on admissions criteria.

Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Twickenham, said: "The formula of having a site in Whitton for children in Teddington has managed to antagonise both the residents of Whitton and the parents in Teddington."

For info, Cllr Hodgins full statement is here.

mistake" for Turing House to decide its admissions policy before the location was confirmed - completely agree - utterly ridiculous - wherever it opens, places should be decided on distance from it - anything else makes no sense.

MsSalvoMontalbano - I disagree. Turing House correctly identified an area of need, the community in that area supported the school and it would not have succeeded without that parental support. The admissions policy is designed to ensure that communities need is met. There's no need for a school in Whitton. Taking 100% intake from a site on Hospital Bridge Rd would have a real detrimental effect on Twickenham Academy, negatively impacting the education of hundreds of children. That's irresponsible. The 80:20 policy may look divisive on the surface but TH would be accused of being cynical, abandoning it's area of need and deliberately destabilising TA if it did anything else.

Better not to have it in Whitton at all, then. LAs cannot determine the admissions policy of an academy - as they can't for VA schools - so the school would be far too divisive and detrimental to locals if sited there. Whitton residents should also be able to see the impact assessment of this school before such a controversial decision is made.