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!

BayJay you didn't clarify whether Colin Mackinkay is or has been employed by RET or Education London while at Becket Keys. You may prefer not to answer which is fine, but wondering if he is currently employed in the state or private sector.

bluestars on the 'Surrey* side the link policy either prioritised Kingston pupils in greater numbers or wasn't relevant at all. Teddington and Orleans actually have fewer in-borough pupils as a result of it going. I'm curious to know if there is a real sense of grievance about the link policy at Stanley. I know SMSP complained quite vigorously about it but as a faith school with 100% priority on faith admissions, frankly I had little sympathy. Stanley has 120 pupils per year now but half traditionally to Waldegrave so there will always be some split. And yet others have complained of lack of choice which doesn't really fit with the argument of communities sticking together.

I mean Kings School Hove Becket Keys, although he has also advised Bristol Free School and Becket Keys - presumably as an Education London employee at the time on a RET consultancy contract?

Muminlondon, it might be best if you direct questions about RET's employees to RET. This is definitely not the right place to try and audit them.

Teddington and Orleans actually have fewer in-borough pupils as a result of it going. I meant to say they have fewer pupils from out of borough as a result of the link policy going. They may have a few from the Surrey side of the river who wouldn't have got in before but not that many.

Muminlondon, there have only been 1 year's figures. It will take time for the effect of the policy change to take root, and will be difficult to isolate its effects from other changes.

However, the dropping of the linked school policy is certainly attracting movers-in to the borough. I went to one open evening where one of the Y7 speakers described how his family had moved from another London borough and bought a house near the school so he could get a place, unfortunately leadng to some audible gasps of frustration from some sections of the audience. The speaker had clearly, and perfectly reasonably, been chosen as an example of how the school helped tp settle in those children who joined without a cohort of friends - presumably something that was much less common under the linked school policy.

And on that note perhaps its worth adding that I noticed your analysis of the Future Development map avoided any mention of the many new flats and houses that are springing up within the catchment areas of already-oversubscribed secondaries.

I was using last year's census figures and looking ahead to 2017 when there will be more capacity at REEC, that's all. I didn't take account of housing developments that haven't been built yet and your map gives no information about dates of construction anyway. There may well be more children born in the area because more families are squeezing into two-bedroom cottages and converting the loft. They may have bought before starting a family and hoped to move out earlier, but got stuck after 2008. Though the housing market started moving again, childcare costs are now restricting the amount people can get under the new mortgage rules so many can't afford to move on up. Thanks to permitted development, there are lots of overpriced three-bed houses in Twickenham and Teddington where once they were cheap two-beds. There may be another housing crash due to economic uncertainty over a hung parliament and threat of EU instability. The economic situation and the rental market makes things less predictable still. Lots of things could indeed happen long term, lots of reasons for people moving in and out, and there may be still be a need for another secondary school on the 'Middlesex' side of the borough long term.

That that still doesn't justify a rush to build in Whitton now, using an admissions policy that has been universally criticised by local politicians of all parties in a location that is the focus of a strong local opposition.

The idea that there was an audible gasp because people in London choose to move area is quite an eye opener. It's obviously a very different culture in 'Middlesex' compared to the 'Surrey' side of the borough, or anywhere else in London where mobility is a fact of life. To be gasped at and given dirty looks because you're not a 'local' in London, as opposed to some tiny village in the sticks, was probably quite upsetting for the parents on the stage, especially if it was after a divorce or stressful job move, or even just a stressful and expensive house move.

I'm curious to know if there is a real sense of grievance about the link policy at Stanley.
Maybe there are other Stanley parents following this thread who feel differently but in my experience the loss of the link system went down badly at Stanley. It just adds to uncertainty and the lack of community cohesion. I know that moving catchments always result in some people not getting the school the want while their immediate neighbours do, but the loss of the link has made it worse as assumptions are made about schooling years in advance of the move from Y6 to Y7. I am seeing children with older siblings (who got in on the link system) going to Teddington while their eldest-child-classmates (who live in the same road) have no chance. Obviously this will reduce as time ticks on. I also know a couple of families who have sent their older girls to Teddington instead of Waldegrave in order to ensure the sibling link for their younger boys. This decision would not have been made if the link system was in place.
I know the link system wasn’t working and was badly flawed and I’m not advocating for it to be reinstated. BUT it’s important to note how changes in admission policy need careful planning and A LOT of notice as life-changing decisions are based on it. I don’t think there was enough publicity or notice from the council, or debate and understanding from parents, when the link was dropped.

The idea that there was an audible gasp because people in London choose to move area is quite an eye opener. Not really when you are familiar with the amount of emotion that gets invested in finding an acceptable school place for your child when you live in a black hole of provision in this borough (or indeed outside it since we parents are all the same under the sun regardless of Greenwich judgements and LBRUT education strategy). And actually in my experience feelings run higher in Surrey, in Sheen anyway because historically the experience was more fraught. So it is understandable that you might feel frustrated when another parent has leapfrogged you to a place at a good school by eg moving to a nearer address or going to church, especially if you have lived somewhere for many years where historically the children in your community all went to the same school, though of course you would hope people kept those feelings to themselves.

When I went to the appeal hearing for a place at the local primary school I was shocked to find myself shaking and in tears though at the time my day job involved me in multi million pound negotiations that I took in my stride. And there were people there on crutches and in neck braces that were not normally evident in Waitrose or Safeway......

As the blogger posted a few pages back evoked it creates strong emotions at nursery school gates.

In the end as you know as I couldn't beat them I joined them and moved....

That is what lies behind your figures. Build or make schools outstanding and they will come. At the moment there are big developments planned right next to the St Mary's and Teddington School admissions points. It doesn't matter that they may be 3, 2 or 1 bedroom flats, you can bet the catchments will shrink as a result.

Which is presumably why even Matthew Paul is acknowledging Turing is needed as well as wanted.

And I have to say that you do not seem immune to subjectivity mum. Up until recently you seemed to me broadly supportive of Turing, and indeed to even judge that St RR with it's discriminatory admissions policies for local children was a "good thing" since it provided a local school for Catholic children and has stopped Catholic parents going private (which indeed it has, in quite large numbers to my knowledge ) but since the Whitton site rumour went viral your posts have changed in tone....

I don't think anyone thinks a Whitton site for Turing is ideal but in the massive fudge that is both school place forecasting and planning if it really does materialise as a definite site it won't be a new precedent, nor are there no compromises available to accommodate the interests of all parties, via the Planning process and negotiation on admissions points, as there were not with St RR.

But until and if those processes are initiated we can debate all we like, but it will be based on hot air.

bluestars thanks for coming back to comment on that. I can see how it might have affected you personally and your school. What I saw was the opposite: schools without a link seeing pupils drifting off around Y4, some to go to private schools, some to move areas, others to get into a linked school and have the very certainty you describe, only to find out that because they hadn't moved house at the same time they were still too far from the cut-off point on distance.

The previous link policy consultation had considered the option of some sort of lead time to introduce the changes. However, there was no point in that because (a) it was the last opportunity for the council to determine secondary school admissions policy before academy conversions and not appropriate to impose future conditions on schools outside LA control, and (b) there would an even more pronounced movement between primary schools during that transition time, which can be destabilising for the primaries involved and their budgets.

The previous consultation was chaired by Andrew Cole of the Catholic Diocese. I always suspected they wanted to maintain Catholic demand for their own school since they had for so long been excluded (excepting Sacred Heart) from local comprehensives when several just-as-exclusive CofE primaries had access - so it wasn't in his interest to make those changes then. On the other hand, in the last consultation RISC supported the dropping of the link policy, and there's obviously a lot of overlap between RISC and TH support. It would be unfair to level a conspiracist accusation at the Catholic Diocese and not at others who may also have an interest in using the effect of keeping or dropping the link policy to drive up demand for a school.

heathclif there are lots of floating voters today who may determine this election. I don't judge people for changing their mind, or waiting until the last minute so they can take in as much information as possible. The details of so much of local decision-making and campaign organising are hidden from us and revealed only partially. I supported RISC initially because I saw unfairness. I also see unfairness in free schools but reserved judgement on Turing House, especially while the location was thought to be more local. I think that is consistent. If you don't think I am consistent I don't really care.

On the other hand, in the last consultation RISC supported the dropping of the link policy, and there's obviously a lot of overlap between RISC and TH support. It would be unfair to level a conspiracist accusation at the Catholic Diocese and not at others who may also have an interest in using the effect of keeping or dropping the link policy to drive up demand for a school.

Though it is a bit of a stretch to compare the power and influence of the Catholic diocese, and RISC!

RISC was backed by the BHA which largely paid for its judicial review, but has other alliances. If the Catholic Church won that case it was because Conservative policy had given them a loophole. But Conservative policy supports free schools, without which Turing House would not exist either. The Conservatives have a policy of weakening LAs while RISC has sought to undermine confidence in this council, and has a policy of not opposing free schools, so even such differing agendas can overlap. At least three free school proposers have posted on this thread. RISC has been an influential platform locally even if its main campaign didn't succeed.

And the Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax too Muminlondon.

On that note, I think it's time for me to formally bow out of this conversation after 4 long years of interesting debate (which, for the record, started long before TH was conceived, and as a pragmatic reaction to local policy changes, not as a driver of them). We're fast approaching the end of another thread, and as the formalities of an open school are very different to those of a school proposal I now need to swap hats. No doubt I'll still keep an eye on what others are posting, but like the SRR governors before me I now need to step back from the debate.

If I'm allowed to digress for a moment away from the TH saga, which this thread now seems to be solely about - will be interesting to see the AS results coming out of the new Richmond 6th forms, and how they compare.
I wonder if there will be a churn of DC moving around the borough to other schools 6th forms in the next round of 6th form applications, and what this might mean.

Sorry to see you go BayJay :(
Thank you for facilitating such an informative and fascinating debate. I have learnt so much about the local educational landscape from following these threads – I guess I’ll just have to do my own research now :) . A forum such as this (which is read by many more than post) is a seriously valuable thing, I hope it continues. Well done, much appreciated.

Farewell and thank you Bayjay, you will be missed.

It might have been a pragmatic response to policy changes but I agree with Councillor Hodgins for once that your vision will I am sure result in a school that will be a fantastic addition to the schools that serve our community.

MrsSalvo At the private schools you get quite a churn at 16, especially from the girls' schools to the mixed ones. It doesn't just rest on getting to sixth forms with better academic results. Some pupils want a change, and the number may increase with the changes to A level exams, since one reason for not moving was having to adjust when important exams were just months after you joined. Some move because of different subject offerings and the curriculum offered. And some want an environment more akin to university. In Upper Fifth there are always a large proportion of the year who talk about moving, it varies from year to year how many actually do, some years it seems as if once enough decide to leave it gives the others the push. However schools like LEH can lose up to a third and Kingston Grammar and Latymer take on about a third. The ones joining the sixth forms come from a wide range of schools state and private.

I would expect that when the sixth forms have bedded in and developed distinctive reputations there will be quite a bit of movement. And whilst the outstanding comps have been pretty conformist about what they offer some of the other schools like Twickenham Academy have a more idiosyncratic offering which I suppose will result in movement in and out.

On a day when the Sun has backed both the Conservatives and the SNP in Scotland in the election, I see only politics at work ...

I think you're in a difficult position now BayJay in terms of your interest, but it's been a series of fascinating debates, for which I thank you.

Never posted but often read this thread and needed to say goodbye and many thanks to Bayjay for starting it and for a fascinating and informative 4 year contribution. If respect for others' opinions (no matter how ill-informed and occasionally malicious), huge subject knowledge, sound argument and polite tenacity are any use in education, then Turing House is off to a flying start with your involvement. Good Luck.

Good luck BayJay and many thanks - have learned a huge amount from you. I really hope TH gets a good permanent site somewhere soon - preferably near NPL to honour Alan Turing. Do pop back and say hallo now and then.

bluestars interested in what you say about the link policy. My dd is in Year 9 at Teddington which was the last year of the link I think. In her year there are not that many from Stanley and quite a few of those have older siblings. By 2012 many Stanley children were already unable to get in on distance despite the link system due to Teddington being so popular with children from St John's, Collis and SMSP all of which were linked and whose children lived nearer. A very high % from all 3 schools (7 forms of 30) transferred to Teddington in my daughter's year accounting for a large chunk of the places. There were also a handful from a previous linked school in Kingston. But in general I don't think there are large numbers applying to Teddington from the private sector or from the Catholic sector. My friend has a dd in year 4 at Collis and says one parent there has started scaring all the parents of eldest ones telling them that Teddington's GCSE results are not good enough - a number of them are moving house to get their daughters into Waldegrave! So you can never tell in advance exactly how it will work out.

Best wishes BayJay, and thank you for an awesome contribution.

All the best to BayJay2 from the team at Mumsnet Richmond .

Wow, thanks from us too BayJay. The kids included. I'm sure many generations of Richmond children, from whichever side of the A316 the school ends up serving, will benefit from Turing House, long after the polítics have been forgoten.