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!

On a different note - does anyone how the waiting list places have gone so far this year with Waldegrave & Orleans Park. Heard that Waldegrave offered around 12 waiting list places but not sure about OP

DD, I know that with OP's decision to (temporarily, ref Tue 24-Mar-15 09:15:39) offer 16 extra places, the offers are now reaching at least as far as Walpole Rd, just west of Twickenham Green.

Today’s print RTT has three stories: ‘Cable’s crowd-pleasing on free school’ (p 8), (Russell) School site to be demolished (16) and (Richmond Park Academy) School’s new chapter (20).

And two letters: Left without any school place from Chris Key (p 24) and Losing faith in school admissions from Helen Clark of RISC (p 26).

It's because of all the scarcity of suitable sites and the supposed working together by EfA and LB Richmond that I find it so odd that the Clarendon School site, which is already a secondary school and already owned by LB Richmond so comparatively minor planning issues, isn't being considered for continuation as a school site. How are LB Richmond getting away with it? This isn't the same situation as Bromley or Brighton because we are talking about LB Hounslow being forced to hand over land which it owns outside its borough for no payment for a school which hardly any of its own children could attend if the admissions point for 80% of pupils remained in Somerset Gardens, Teddington. I'm not familiar with the exact wording of EfA's power but to force a local authority to hand over an asset for no financial benefit and in circumstances where the handover will contribute nothing to the local authority fulfilling its duties as a local authority sounds like illegal appropriation of an asset to me. Maybe some deal is being done of which we will never hear the full details.

"because we are talking about LB Hounslow being forced to hand over land which it owns outside its borough for no payment "

As I said up-thread, I don't know why you're assuming that.

BayJay I was referring to muminlondon's suggestion that the EfA could force LB Hounslow to hand over its Whitton land on a 125 year lease at a peppercorn rent. I doubt this very much in the circumstances but am not familiar with the legislation. So, assuming the EfA have to pay a good price for the Whitton land, why wouldn't they tell LB Richmond they've got to surrender the Clarendon site for continued educational use instead of selling it for housing. The costs and delays of going through a prolonged planning process to build on MOA which also means getting permission from the GLA will be considerable. Even if Clarendon not suitable for TH, and I don't know whether you've already dismissed it, LB Richmond have put in their local plan that they want to use a business park in Hampton Hill for school expansion when they already have an educational site just down the road adjacent to one of the feeder infant schools. Doesn't make sense to me but I suspect there are deals being done that we will never know about.

LProsser three problems I see with Clarendon site as a new school:

(a) it's to fund in part land purchase of College site to provide new Clarendon and new secondary - scupper that and you are jeopardising the future of those who will depend on REEC as well as SEN pupils
(b) new school right next to Hampton academy with 80/20 split produces same problems and destabilising factor as Whitton site
(c) Achieving for Children is facing massive funding gap of £7.5 million because of funding formula changes.

Depressing news about difficulties in recruiting senior teachers in the Guardian/Observer today - a survey from the headteachers's union. This included senior teachers, but concerns also expressed about how well prepared NQTs are:

'Almost six out of 10 (58%) were concerned about NQTs’ lack of subject knowledge, and 56% complained about a poor understanding of pedagogy and children’s development. Just 19% of respondents felt that NQTs were better prepared for work in the classroom.'

Recent figures for teacher training suggest that 28% of trainees are now based in schools but fewer teachers overall are being trained. In fact, there has been a drop of about one-third of trainees in secondary teaching under the last government, with School Direct training filling only 61% of allocated places compared to 90% of university places.

Most subjects are under-recruited - the worst is Design and Technology at only 44%. Some subjects have over-recruited - e.g. Art, History and PE, reflecting the emphasis placed by Michael Gove on graduates with a 2:1 or better of which there are more in these subjects than the shortage subjects Science, Maths and Design & Technology.

And yet not a single question in Question Time last Thursday directed to party leaders was about education.

Sadly unsurprising. A friend locally did training via School Direct last year at a chaotic school working with a local university and it was a complete shambles. There were no sessions at all on how to teach the secondary subject (this is normally a big part of any course, as even if you are expert in your subject you need to learn specific techniques of how teach it.) School Direct trainees are not all salaried - most now have to pay uni fees and at 9k a pop, not a lot of incentive for a poorly run course.
Teacher training needs to be reformed, but going back to the old stranglehold of unis is not the way to do it, but to get rigorous training programmes set up in outstanding schools only - any school that is less than outstanding should not be allowed anywhere near trainees. My friend decided to go back to her previous career and not pursue teaching - several others on her course either dropped out on the course, or soon after due to the (lack of) professionalism of tutors and 'mentors' and quality of training. There are some good institutions who prepare teachers, but many more that scrub around finding any schools they can for placements, and schools desperate for extra adults for crowd control that are no way suitable places to train.

The advantages of a university based PGCE for trainees they have the opportunity of seeing how different schools operate during placements, but they can socialise and compare notes with other students during study weeks (and not feel isolated), as well as do their own research and reflect on their experience with tutors. Contrary to perception, teacher trainers have often taught effectively for years themselves. Completely agree that the quality of teacher training placements or school-based training depend on the school.

And I think those schools have to be of a decent size. I can't see how smaller schools can manage the training or induction of specialist teachers effectively when there isn't a larger department to back them up and provide supervision and resources. This would be true particularly of Design and Technology or Science where they may also be starting out their career without fully equipped facilities.

Please note that I'm not implying criticism of Turing House in particular - it is part of a chain etc. - but it's a concern where there are many new and/or undersubscribed schools, especially where the capacity of LAs to support them has been weakened. It's like the Conservatives have led a twin-pronged, ideological attack on LAs and universities, yet left big holes if not complete chaos, and we might not have a strong enough government after the election of any colour to take responsibility for the consequences and knit the system back together. That's why I'm so alarmed at how low a priority education has been in the manifestos of all parties.

First time posting...we're following Turing House with great interest as not only would it give us more choice in a couple of years when our son is due to go to secondary, the ethos and specialisms sound like they would really suit him (of course we'd need to see if this translates in practise, particularly how the teachers perform). The key area of debate seems to be the permanent site and we are of the opinion that the school should serve the area that it's in. In terms of the site, I know a lot of the investigations are being done behind closed doors, but wondering if the land off Stanley road where there are boarded up huts has been looked at - backing onto Strawberry hill golf club. Although I'm sure not popular to some (which site is!) has the option of negotiating some space there with the golf club, whose land I think is leased to them by the council (perhaps with a remodelling of the course) been looked at? It could help broaden golf in the area with links to the school and secure the future of the golf club. This may have been looked at and dismissed of course...will the site options that have been looked at but discarded ever be disclosed eg after final decision is made? And is there a capital funding budget that is being worked to or directing the search- I can imagine building a school on a site with no existing buildings (rather than converting existing) would be much more expensive...

Welcome to the thread Jodah. The website says (here) that the school has been asked by the EFA not to reveal any of the permanent sites considered. However, in any case, the site you mention is planned to be used for something else (see here).

I think it's wholly inappropriate for Vince Cable and other Parliamentary candidates to intervene on either side of the current debate as to the siting of TH - especially given that it's not impossible that ultimately neither site will be chosen. I also think that, if it's sited in Whitton, it is inevitable that that will become its admission point: it would be absurd to do anything else, particularly since Teddington parents will almost certainly vote with their feet.

bluestars as this is a thread started by BayJay2, it does seems rude to 'bash' the school she is involved so closely with, even though it's a public forum

That seems a rather novel concept on MN. Have a look at AIBU, there's clearly no convention that the person who starts a thread is immune from direct or indirect bashing!

It was never intended for Teddington kids anyway as far as I can see. North Teddington maybe. I think Teddington's loss will be West Twickenham's gain if the school goes to Whitton.

I´ve been following the WhittonAgainstTH petition and comments. The following issues need properly addressing with regard to the Whitton site for Turing House.

– Transport – there are no frequent bus services connecting Teddington and Whitton and the route is unsafe for cyclists.

– Distance – it is approximately 2 miles from Teddington and would take at least 20-30 minutes during peak times by car to reach the Whitton site

– Access – there is currently no easy vehicular access to the site from the main road, the closest point to the main road is on a blind corner

– Pollution – noise and air pollution generated by additional traffic into an already busy London suburban area

– Protected land – It is Metropolitan Open Land afforded the same level of protection as Green Belt

– Admissions – Turing House is primarily for Teddington students, the proposed admission policy gives priority to looked-after students, students with social/medical needs, students whose parents have been granted Founders status and students with sibilings at the school. 20% of the remaining places will be for students who live close to the school and 80% will live close to an artificial admissions point.

Effect on local secondary schools – parents from Teddington would have to pass Twickenham Academy in order to reach the Whitton site. It is located on the same road as the Whitton site but nearer to Teddington. Twickenham Academy is currently undersubscribed and approximately half of students being admitted from out-of-borough. Twickenham Academy could be destabilised.

Effect on local primary schools – there are currently six primary schools within a mile of the Whitton site, with approximately 2000 children. The area would be gridlocked if another 1000+ were coming into the same area.

Consultation – Teddington parents feel let down as they were consulted on the proposed school and were promised a new local inclusive school for their local community with resources the local community could use.

Hightsma, yes I think many people agree those things would need to be addressed if the decision went that way. If the decision went another way then other issues would need to be addressed instead. Unfortunately there are no easy answers when it comes to finding sites for schools in the borough.

If Twickenham Academy is nearer for the Teddington parents and is undersubscribed then surely they just go there? The only point of TH is if it is in Teddington.

my 2p worth fwiw is that there are sufficient places in LBRUT - just that most of us don't want either hampton or twickenham academy and places go mostly to those who get sent there against their will but with no other option OR out of borough kids.

surely the answer is to find out what is the problem with these schools. perhaps close one and hand it over to Turing House?

what am i missing?

That perspective is very out of date TW123. TA and HA are close to full in Year 7 and are now very popular with a lot of families because they have been improving year on year. There are also a lot more children coming out of local primaries over the next few years due to the many bulge classes that have been added, so the LA have made it clear in their forecasts that TH is needed over and above TA/HA/REEC, if not explicitly in 2015 (but only because other schools have added some extra places to help cater for the Y7 bulge) then certainly beyond that.

TW123 - I think you are right, but only 'kind of'.

The reason it isn't the whole story, is that currently many parents who only have the option of TA or HA choose to go private or to move house. If these schools were performing well, the numbers wanting to transfer to Richmond secondaries would likely be much higher, and then there could be a very real shortage of places.

It's a tricky juggling act, though. You could say it was in the council's interest to have a couple of failing schools just to keep the numbers down in the face of a rising birthrate...

TW123 –
You are missing the sheer number of children that are coming through the primary system and need secondary school places. There were only 42 free places in the whole of the borough last year, this year was the first time there were more applicants than places. Without TH and REEC and extra bulge classes there are 1690 places available in the borough at secondary level. According to council estimates by 2019 there will be 2412 children seeking places (and that doesn’t count out of borough applicants of which there are many). New schools are needed, simple as that.

BayJay2, I disagree. These issues need addressing before the decision of a permanent site is made. What are the issues with the other site?

TW123, I agree. I doubt that any parents have Twickenham Academy or Hampton Academy top of their list of choices. If they had more local parent support, perhaps they would improve further.

Ringogo, I doubt it is in the council's best interest to have a couple of 'failing schools' schools in the borough.

"I disagree. These issues need addressing before the decision of a permanent site is made"

Hightsma, I think there's just a subtle difference in semantics here, not a big difference in opinion. Of course they need to be taken into account as part of the decision making, but they may or may not need to be addressed further depending on what the decision actually is.

ok i take your point on rising numbers

still...