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!

Sorry again for all this detail, but just to add to that GEMS background.

I think the GEMS US school improvement venture (GPS) ended. The GPS website is no longer available despite a Facebook page which links to it. It was financed by three-year federal school improvement grant. Its founders have both left - also President and CEO of GEMS Americas respectively to 2011 and 2013.

7.3 million USD was available to 6 schools in Colorado managed by GPS but this was cut off early after low results. A Connectict project received a grant of more than 2 million USD but this also ended in 2012 as did one in Georgia (with a law suit).

All very worrying muminlondon - this appears to be a deeply opportunistic organisation that never succeeds in anything and is in a constant state of flux. However, as the councillors and officials of LB Richmond with education responsibilities seem to behave as though we live in Ambridge so nothing that happens outside Richmond ever matters no doubt they would be deeply uninterested even if they were reading this. Is there any chance of you making a summary of all your research more widely available?

Collis primary maintained their Outstanding rating, they received a glowing report.

primarysite-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/f07a5c55d4454be7b062a365a3299302/8939/OfstedReport2014.pdf

I see that Wikipedia now includes a lot of these links - perhaps someone has got there first! It's a large corporation and it's wise to stick to the evidence, but equally important to sort facts from spin. Worth following management changes now that CEO Chris Kirk has left as he was also chair of the trust. The new group CEO is based in Dubai.

Contradictory information on the GEMS learning Trust website: was the Chair of the Audit Committee made Chair of the Trust? And who is Juan Romero - CEO in the UK (page 4) or Director of Strategy? Not all of the remaining independent schools (e.g. Sherfield) have updated their websites yet regarding Chris Kirk.

Nice Ofsted report to read.

For info, the council have now published their 2015-2024 School Planning Strategy, and it is up for discussion/approval at next week's cabinet meeting.

Paragraph 25:

'If a site cannot found for Turing House, it is possible that demand for places from Richmond Borough residents would almost match supply. ... Contingency plans will therefore be needed ... Contingency plans may be needed to provide ‘bulge classes’ at two schools, to cover the period until Richmond upon Thames College free school opens in 2017'.

Some editing going on there and a bit of repetition. But which version did they intend and which is correct?

It isn't contradictory because it says "demand for places from Richmond Borough residents would almost match supply". Of course there will also be demand from out-borough residents.

They have been saying for a while now that bulge classes would be needed if TH didn't open in 2015. It was certainly mentioned verbally at the TH post-deferral meeting back in March.

In business you often give different scenarios titles. I think Nick Whitfield could call this one, "When the pigeons come home to roost"........ quite a lot of validation there for the risks highlighted by RISC at the time St RR was given the Clifden site, especially note that they acknowledge that expanding / creating Faith Schools does not meet basic need. Given that Turing House if it does, as I am sure we all hope, go ahead appears to be going to be seen as a real option by parents previously deterred by their existing school options I wonder if LBRUT are going to find themselves cobbling together bulge secondary classes come what may.

"They have been saying for a while now that bulge classes would be needed"

To clarify ... they said that plans for bulge classes were needed. Whether the plans will need to be actioned or not obviously depends on whether TH opens and, if not, how many people accept/reject their offered school place.

What I mean is there is a drafting error. There's either a sentence that needs to be deleted or omission of 'if Turing House is opened' after 'Nevertheless', combined with pointless repetition. The extract says:

'Contingency plans will therefore be needed to provide ‘bulge classes’ at two schools, to cover the period until Richmond upon Thames College free school opens in 2017. Nevertheless, contingency plans may be needed to provide ‘bulge classes’ at two schools, to cover the period until Richmond upon Thames College free school opens in 2017. Waldegrave has agreed to accommodate 16 additional girls in 2015.' (My emphasis)

So I think they should strike out the second sentence. They need to fix it somehow - it sounds like a 'political' edit gone wrong, to cover their backs for justifying StRR in the face of increasing shortage of places.

Without Turing House, contingency plans will be needed, no question. But even with Turing House, contingency plans may still be needed in view of demand from out of borough. You can't allocate HA/TA places to Richmond pupils if Hounslow pupils have already expressed a preference, for want of anything better nearer. And there are about 150-200 from Hounslow! And then there's pent up demand in the private sector being released if any credible alternative like Turing House is available. If there are 60 vacant places at TA and HA now it's because they were offered and turned down.

Also Colne Road residents should note that some of the short to medium term need for a 1FE or 2 FE primary on their road comes from Fulwell and Hampton Hill (going past two or three primaries to get there).

Livingston House seems to have similar issues to Heathgate House - on corner of two main roads with absolutely no drop off by car and little outside space. I'm sure it's already been lined up for conversion to flats so won't be cheap to buy off the developer. The whole paper smacks of chickens and roosts!

I still see the frustration of the council in terms of the lack of joined up government policies and funding. Expansion of Collis depends on priority school building funding which was severely limited as a result of the free school programme. But funding of sites for free schools is not linked to priority of need. So £18 million is spent on a school opening with 17 pupils yet no site is available for Turing House.

Also the funding and responsibilities for nursery places drealistic. As there's no equivalent to Windham Nursery School in Twickenham, and there are at least 120 more applications to Archdeacon/Stanley nursery class than places. Heathgate House could have been a quality nursery school for 2-5 year olds. But nursery place policy seems really muddled.

drealistic = 'don't seem realistic' Posted mid-edit

"But funding of sites for free schools is not linked to priority of need. So £18 million is spent on a school opening with 17 pupils yet no site is available for Turing House."

However the availability or otherwise of a site for TH has never been about the money, just the availability. There aren't many options around here, as the council's report acknowledges.

"But even with Turing House, contingency plans may still be needed in view of demand from out of borough. You can't allocate HA/TA places to Richmond pupils if Hounslow pupils have already expressed a preference"

Much may depend on the outcome of TA's imminent Section 8 report. A positive report, which of course everyone is hoping for, will inevitably drive up the demand.

From the Council Planning Strategy:

. . 7. The Mayor’s London Infrastructure Plan estimates that, as London’s population rises to 11 million and beyond, 600 new schools and colleges will be needed in the Capital by 2050.

London Councils’ ‘Do the Maths 2014’ report (London Councils, July 2014), predicts that between 2012/2013 and 2017/2018 there will be a 23% increase in the state-funded school population within the borough, the fifth highest in London, 16% in the primary phase and 25%+ in the secondary phase.

The ONS predicts that the borough population will increase by 15% by 2024 (189,000 to 218,000); the school age population will increase by 20% (46,000 to 55,000).

1. . . these forecasts suggest that London’s population is growing faster than was previously forecast, and the borough’s new target will therefore be 3,150 homes for the 2015-2025 period (315 p.a.) . . it is probable that the target would primarily be achieved through more disparately distributed small-scale developments, the pupil yield from which will be more difficult to plan for in terms of additional school places . .

I don't think all of the new homes built will be affordable housing though. They might buy the Tatler on the other hand.

Several of the 'major' new housing developments (i.e. not the small scale ones that are said to be difficult to plan for, but the big ones that should be easier) are actually in central Twickenham, in the area described in the report as "the most difficult area for primary place planning". See the following planning applications:

Brewery Wharf : 12/3650/FUL : 82 dwellings
Twickenham Station : 10/3465/FUL : 165 dwellings
Bridge House : 4/0381/P3JPA : 41 dwellings
Queens House : 14/4842/FUL: 14 one-bed and 31 two-bed dwellings
159 Heath Rd : 13/4424/OUT : 24 one and two-bedroom dwellings

Many of the smaller flats won't have families in them, and they will be accounted for in the analysis, but some will inevitably be bought/rented strategically for the school application process, and realistically that needs to be planned for.

From the Education thread

" I'm wondering if others have heard this rumour too, or if parents at the school have been told anything.
I was told that St Richard Reynolds Catholic College have been locked out of the large building they're meant to be expanding into in September, by their landlord Richmond Council, because the Archdiocese of Westminster haven't been paying their bills for the refurbishment.
If so, I hope they pay up soon, because I know a few people who are expecting a place there in September!"

Para 6.1 of this doc indicates that the Diocese would pay the full capital costs of the secondary, but Q31 in this doc is more ambiguous in relation to phase 1 of the work. Perhaps that's a red herring though. Probably shouldn't speculate in case it's a storm in a teacup.

It's the academy status that's the issue and whether they can reclaim VAT, isn't it? Looks like it hasn't been decided yet.

Must have been delayed because the original consultation doc said the final decision would be in Nov 14.