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!

Heathclif according to Google maps it's 4 minutes' walk from Darell school yet at least 30 minutes' walk from the original location at Ryde House. I am appalled that a new school should be allowed to open there.

Another thing that affects existing schools, and will affect both schools all the more if this is allowed to go ahead, is that in a mixed catchment with higher mobility, more pupils move out at KS2. The number of pupils going to private schools after 7+ or 10+ is also a problem and 'Deer Park' Primary may suffer even more for this. This is no different for the schools in affluent areas - some refill those places quicker than others and they are experienced enough to manage it, but it still means the SATs results can fluctuate. They are not a reliable guide to how good the school is. This mobility is one reason why the minutes of the last Admissions Forum say that money for expansions is harder to obtain in Richmond - only the KS1 classes are full, not the KS2.

That is insane. It is about two minutes walk from Darell, certainly a lot less than a mile. You could get there in one bus from East Twick but why would you want to?

As for Darell's unpopularity, it's partly to do with the mixed catchment, but also partly to do with society having altered significantly but Darell having remained much the same. I see this as a positive personally as I really dislike the test and result centred culture that seems to have invaded primary schools.

Gosh can't believe I was daft enough to think that they renamed the school "Deer Park Primary" because it was going to be near the Old Deer Park. I used to work just round the corner from this building and it's very near Darrell and on a horribly busy polluted main road. It's like they want kids to get asthma these sites they are coming up with. My new idea for a school site is York House. I am writing to Lord True to point out that once the Council has made a lot more staff redundant and won't need to have any meetings as everything will be contracted out and run from Wandsworth they will only need the Civic Centre. York House has lots of nice gardens and tennis courts. Hold out for it Bay Jay!

Does a school trust sponsored by two for-profit companies pay VAT e.g. on building work? It sounds strange if StRR has to pay VAT but 'Deer Park' Primary would not especially as its 2013 accounts suggest it obtained the freehold for its Balham school and not just the leasehold.

There is mention of an 'investment policy' - is this where the Swiss banker and Petrosaudi directors of Bellevue come in?

While they are not directors of this trust (BPET), the Place Group owner/managing director is the trust chair and received over £100k for that Balham school. The education select committee have raised questions about the value for money in procurement and potential conflict of interest of supposedly 'at cost' arrangements.

Don't forget that whoever is sponsoring it, the trust is still non-profit. And the site assets are only transferred to the trust while the funding agreement is in place - if the trust pulls out of the arrangement the site assets return to the Government.

At the end of the day it's a state-funded academy (as opposed to a VA school like SRR), so the VAT arrangements will reflect that. Scrutiny of sponsorship arrangements is sensible, but it's a separate issue - it shouldn't change the status of the academy trust.

The print RTT has MP wants answers after school site plan dropped (p 3):

. . Dr Cable claimed “the council was expected to come up with some money to make it happen” and said he was seeking an explanation. The council said it could not comment on funding issues in relation to the EFA (Education Funding Agency) . .

I wonder if there are potential grey areas for tax avoidance (i.e. VAT) - say if the trust procures IT that the private Bellevue group schools benefit from but it goes through the trust and they save on VAT?

On 'at cost' arrangements there was a select committee report

...here that said 'The rules governing conflicts of interest – in particular the ‘at cost’ requirement – may be
insufficiently robust.’ That echoes criticisms by the public accounts committee, Academies Commission and Audit Office of the EFA with regard to financial oversight. It can't be a regulator while it is falling over itself to find sites where they are NOT needed. There is a conflict of interest at its very heart.

That's quite interesting. I thought the whole point was that the Dept of Ed was entirely responsible for paying for the site?

That would be a question for the EFA (under the watchful eye of the audit commission), and possibly in future Ofsted), to scrutinise muminlondon. No doubt academy finances will remain under intense scrutiny for a long time to come.

The education select committee says it's for the government to legislate on splitting up the EFA. So not really for the EFA to decide but parliament.

Of which Vince Cable is part. He's in a strange position really - taking an ethical position against Saudi regime outside of government yet as minister being part of a department that exports to it using state services. Would he really have approved of these trusts?

'In essence, an application to [insert name] School is a risk-free choice for [insert date]' - that's the line BPET are using for 'Deer Park' School as well as for Hackney, Barnet, Islington and other schools/trusts set up by the Place Group.

In view of the rushed timeframe, suitability of the sites and the trust/sponsors' capacity to manage so many new schools at the same time, it is certainly not a risk-free choice for the parents applying. Nor is it for the other schools and community they are moving next door to (or practically on top of).

It is frustrating not knowing the location for Turing House but the admissions point is at least clear and their language is is much more considered and sensitive.

The Durand Academy Trust sounds like another interesting organisation:
www.thirdsector.co.uk/regulator-open-inquiry-academy-school-dating-agency-once-registered/governance/article/1331631

I assume the article is wrong to state that it owns the premises of a state primary school (probably leased) but the model of starting businesses at the school and claiming that profits flow back into the school (after paying £400k salary to the Head) is presumably one that other new providers will try to replicate. Things like sports facilities and after school clubs as well as dating agencies.

A lot of schools (maintained and academies) let their premises out, to the financial benefit of the school, either directly, or via the local authority (e.g. halls and rooms can be privately rented at some local primaries, and there are local authority sports centres running out of Teddington School, Twickenham Academy, Hampton Academy and others). I'm not sure there's a huge difference between that and the non-profit sports centre at the Durand Academy - although I would question the appointment of the Headteacher as manager of the sports centre, unless both jobs were considered part-time appointments.

A dating agency seems a less appropriate use of the premises, and of the Headteachers time. Schools that let out space clearly need to have an appropriate usage policy - although I suppose it could be argued that a responsibly run dating agency is a useful community resource .

GCSE results in. Impossible to compare state and private on 5A-C or Ebacc due to 'unregulated IGCSE' fiasco. But go to the downloads for subject grades and it's interesting. Well done to RPA for increasing its individual science entries and for beating a certain private equity backed private school on top grades for Eng Lit, History, Drama, PE, etc. Must be the facilities. Or perhaps the teachers and pupils are just working really hard.

The most interesting figures are for the percentage of low, medium and high attainers make expected progress in any specific school. That is more relevant to parent than the grades of DC who may be completely differing in ability to their own.

Pressed enter too soon.
Schools should explain why (if they do) they have a high percentage that do not make expected progress - that should ring alarm bells.

Have taken two schools near each other in Sheen - if you were the prospective parent of a low, medium or high attainer, these are the difference s you might want to ask the school to explain.
This is 'expected' progress, so really should not be fall much below 100%anyway - some of these low numbers are startling and sobering.
If you have a low attainer in for example, has half the chance of making expected progress in Maths and English at RPA than Christs
And if you have a high attainer, seems a lot of those also being short-changed

Christs KS4 pupil progress
Percentage of pupils making expected progress in English
All pupils 87%

Low attainers 67%
Middle attainers 91%
High attainers 87%

Percentage of pupils making expected progress in maths
All pupils 76%

Low attainers 33%
Middle attainers 72%
High attainers 87%

Richmond Park Academy KS4 pupil progress
Percentage of pupils making expected progress in English
All pupils 61%

Low attainers 36%
Middle attainers 63%
High attainers 65%

Percentage of pupils making expected progress in maths
All pupils 53%

Low attainers 14%
Middle attainers 48%
High attainers 74%

The progress measure is only for English and Maths - aforementioned private school had 25% A/A* in English Language and 85% pass overall, better than RPA, but low on a 'selection' comparison with other privates. But agree, it's impossible to compare state and private when you don't have comparable data on prior attainment. No point in comparing comprehensives with any private school which selects.

Was wrong about English Lit - but RPA did beat the private school in question in French and Spanish for A/A*.

Would add that there is something slightly strange about the stats on English for some schools - more exam entries than pupils, and a variety of different certificates. It's the area where schools are trying their hardest to improve their figures. Interestingly, however, that Christ's has mixed ability classes in English so maybe it works where the general level is already quite high.

Most people will be deciding between state comps, so the expected progress of different categories varying dramatically between local schools ought to be more relevant in comparing like with like that the percentage A-C GCSEs anyway.

Christ's did really well in 2014. Both Christ's and Grey Court had good intakes, more closely matching the cohort coming out of Richmond's state primaries.

CS Fri 30-Jan-15 14:33:56: "Dr Cable claimed “the council was expected to come up with some money to make it happen”"

Unless VC is mistaken, then putting two and two together (and maybe making 5, so beware) I'd guess this could be a reference to the Academy Presumption process whereby councils that have a need for a new school are expected to use their basic need funding to purchase premises and then hold a competition for a free school provider.

But if, as in this case, a free school provider comes along independently, and puts in a proposal for an area where there is a basic need, are LA's still expected to stump up the cash? I don't know the answer to that. LA's could perhaps be forgiven for assuming that the EFA would pay the property bill in circumstances where they haven't gone through that process. But, equally, the DfE might be miffed that councils are taking risks with basic need provision by not using the process.

It's all very confusing.

This sounds horribly like a coded reference to the fact that some of RPA pupils don't come from naice homes ...
Regardless of any unpleasant slurring of the population (why should only children who reflect 'Richmond primaries' be entitled to a the very modest aspiration of making expected progress, the data is contextual. Comparing like with like, a child had half the chance of making expected progress at one school than another - this is something you would expect parents and governors to be asking the HTs to explain.