Turing House in the headlines today - and not in a good way.

[MrsSalvoMontalbano]

boy with learning difficulties turned away

% FSM-2014

TA 40.1%
HA 30.0%
OP 19.9%
SRR 18.4%
Teddington 15.6%
Waldegrave 13.5%

% pupils supported with school action plus or a statement of SEN-2014

TA 12.5%
HA 8.2%
OP 11.0%
SRR 11.2%
Teddington 8.0%
Waldegrave 6.2%

Data from Ofsted

Greycourt, one of the outstanding local comprehensives on which Turing is modelled serves the area of greatest depravation in the borough.

%FSM-2014
26.2

%Pupils supported by school action plus or with a statement of SEN
7.9

RedGalaxy as we have discussed on this thread there has been long and detailed discussion and debate on the issue of the need for school places on the main thread. The statistics you quote which reflect past catchments are familiar to us all. What none of us dispute is that catchments are shrinking in the face of the increasing numbers of pupils emerging from Primaries and indeed the building of new developments like the ones in Central Twickenham and Teddington. The Council are therefore anticipating that Fullwell and West Twickenham will be an area not served by any school. They have chosen not to post statistics on this round, last year they only managed to make offers to everyone by increasing the overoffering, but the information emerging from those applying in the area around the Green is that without Turing the only school being offered is Kingston Academy. It is all on the other thread if you want to bring yourself up to speed.

We have also discussed the issues around Twickenham Academies enduring undersubscription in the face of the increasing demand.

Mum hindsight is a great thing. As I recall it was hoped that details of a site would emerge during the Consultation, presumably that would have been UP if it had not been scuppered, and the admissions criteria might well have changed as a result. When the new site does get announced there can be another consultation

muminlondon2 Mon 01-Dec-14 23:19:46
And yet no news of the site... The new admissions point sounds logical if Turing House is needed most for pupils in that area. It's still hard to judge the 80/20% split (20% around site) until we know where that site is. Since it's less than the 50% proposed from the Clifden originally, perhaps it's closer to an existing school than that location would have been. Will the consultation responses be published?

it was hoped that details of a site would emerge during the Consultation, presumably that would have been UP if it had not been scuppered, and the admissions criteria might well have changed as a result

UPR was scuppered in February 2014, well before the consultation in December, but then the rumours started again in September 2014. So when I wrote that post I was clearly thinking of it being too close to Teddington School for all 100% to come from Udney Park Road. And when parents applied in October, that hope would also have been in their minds.

What was a complete surprise was the Whitton site, first mentioned in February. There were indeed hints in October and December on the Turing House website about a potential LA owned site but not the location. So they knew the location of that site when they changed both the proportion of pupils from the admissions point, from 50% to 80%, and the admissions point itself, but no one else did so couldn't comment. And as this change will take effect from 2016, there is now no opportunity to object to, and therefore change the admissions policy until next summer in time for 2017. If there is no news on UPR within the next 6 weeks - enough time for completion of a sale after an auction - it is likely that TH got the go-ahead on the basis of the Whitton site.

The consultation responses are here. While respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the school opening, and 86% clear about and approving of the current admissions point, only 51% were in favour of moving the admissions point to Somerset Gardens, and many were unsure because the site was unknown.

The exact response of the local authority was not given, only paraphrased. This was that 'it expressed a concern regarding the use of an admissions point, expressing a preference for a policy similar to that of other local secondary schools.'. The council therefore did not endorse or propose the admissions point as policy, but merely gave advice by indicating areas of need. The consultation acknowledges this: 'The original location was, in part, determined by the view of the Local Authority that Fulwell and North Teddington are likely locations of future school place shortages.'

There are other LA owned sites that were in the mix, I keep referring to the site adjacent to Fullwell golf course which on the face of it is far more suitable apart from Councillor Samuels worrying about his promises to dog walkers. However we can't know and the people who do know can't tell and can't defend themselves, and nothing is certain, so I think the conspiracy theories are not appropriate in the circumstances. When the site becomes certain then we can have the debates.

I have heard a rumour that Harlequins are bidding for the UP site in cahoots with Newland House. I am guessing you would agree that far more appropriate that they team up with an inclusive state school.

Promises I should add to dog walkers, including me though he has never asked us whether we want to hold him to it......

The council have been forced to admit that the site might eventually be Whitton so it's no longer speculation. The error of judgement made by the school was to roll in a change of admissions policy to a funding agreement consultation when the site was unknown. Neither Whitton residents nor prospective parents were able to comment on that so they are doing so via the petition, and forcefully too.

If it is too near to REEC they could have changed it next year and still be in coordination with it opening. If they did it in response to a very large number of TH offer recipients potentially turning down Twickenham Academy, they could have predicted that in 2013 when bidding for the Clifden site.

The dog walker site you mention would still take Fulwell pupils very close to (if not past) Hampton Academy and potentially undermine that school instead.

As you say, the Teddington site is the most local to the admissions point they proposed. A school is certainly better than housing.

A school is certainly better than housing.
Not to everyone! There are many people who do not have children of school age who need homes, including the elderly who may wish to live near their younger families. there are many competing needs, no one's trumps another's.

I was thinking in terms of the covenant - mixed recreational and educational use. The MP has spoken out against housing so I can't see that being easier to get through planning.

There's something odd about the council response to the TUring consultation muminlondon if they knew the school might end up in Whitton. They must know a 100pc distance policy would handicap TA and make it likely borough residents would lose out to Hounslow families and it makes no sense for them to encourage that. To me it looks like an in-principle, hand-washing, covering-backs sort of response. The least they could have done was offer up suggestions for a sensible alternative (random allocation? linked schools?) especially if it was them who steered the school towards that site in the first place.

To me pushing the school out of Fulwell amounts to a sort of gerrymandering because it pushes those who don't want or can't afford private school out. The new HA head looks promising but it has a way to go before it gets parental confidence back. If it had that it would be full to overspill by now with all the families who have moved away over the years.

Yes, I'm sure they always like to cover their backs - but it was a fair principle and it's still the case that the school determined the admissions policy, not the council. But there are two things I've noticed. Firstly, the consultation report didn't reproduce the full council response. The GEMS primary and Deer Park reports did include reproductions of emails, and council consultations have in the past collated comments from stakeholders. And secondly, the more recent response on Whitton, and reference to those consultation comments, came from the Conservatives not the council press office. So perhaps even 'the council' is covering its back by not making a statement because nothing is official anyway - the planning committee could still decide not to allow a school on MOL. Paul Hodgins is rebutting the accusation of conspiracies or even 'steering the school to that site' as you suggested, and the RTT and Stephen Knight implied, and which I always found hard to believe, for the reasons you also give. It's not the council's responsibility to find the school a site, but it is in their interests not to have the proposal fall through completely, especially before REEC opens, and it's the Conservatives' policy to welcome free schools. Paul Hodgins does suggest there are other negotiations, a point BayJay made. How achievable those negotiations are depends on the EFA, which is outside the council's control.

The issue with Hampton Academy is that its intake is already more skewed more towards the south and west of the school where there is out of borough need/demand. So to place a school just to the west of it is going to undermine it further. That would also be true of the Sempervirens site - Heathlands already makes it harder for Twickenham Academy to compete to the north of the ward.

Sorry yes I meant suggested not steered. I'm just going by what was in the December newsletter when there only seemed to be one site on the table, perhaps because it wasn't clear whether the friends of UPR application for asset of community value status was going to go through or not and what Imperial would do afterwards. To me the 80/20 policy makes sense either if Turing thought they still had a chance for UPR or even if they thought Sempervirens might be announced during the consultation, giving them time to react to inevitable comments and change the proportions. It works much less well if imperial drag their heels on the sale and someone leaks Sempervirens in the meantime, which is what seems to have happened.

And I place little to no credibility on what comes out of the mouths of politicians at election time. It became an issue so it was in all their interests to wind it all up and play the people's champion. Even Vince, who I generally feel uses his common sense seems to lose it when it comes to schools near election time. It's all about them.

It works much less well if imperial drag their heels on the sale and someone leaks Sempervirens in the meantime

Like I said, it was an error of judgement to change the admissions policy and hope no one notices because it all came out anyway, and now politicians have publicly drawn attention to those changes.

I've heard the boy's at the Peartree centre at Stanley and has a twin at Stanley too so the mum was wanting to keep them together. The council must have looked at other mainstream options with specialist units. Isn't there one at Twickenham Academy and Orleans park? Unless she wanted to keep the brother with his Stanley friends too, which would be hard applying from Barnes.

icimoi there is a process in place to deal with SEN applications like these within the framework of the legal and educational considerations. LBRUT are actually known for being one of the most supportive boroughs, both in terms of having provision and finding the right provision, they do not seek to avoid their responsibilities, unlike some other boroughs. I am usually the first to point up LBRUT shortcomings but on this I know they compare well. Parents of children with SEN needs are familiar with it. The words may look inappropriate out of context but normally the parents concerned are properly briefed and supported in terms of finding the right solution for their child. In this case that didn't happen, or the parent had their own perspective eg from the point of view of wanting to keep twins together. We can't know the full circumstances, the RTT isn't exactly famous for it's robust and objective reporting and in any case it clearly wasn't appropriate to discuss a child's needs publicly. However the fact that the child has a place in Clarendon, which won't of course be the cheapest solution, does suggest that no mainstream school, not even the ones with specialist units and experience, was the right solution.

jellytoto that's a really good point - of course a family would want to keep a child with SEN with siblings as well as friends. According to a prospectus of SEN provision the nearest mainstream schools with a unit for ASD are Waldegrave for girls or Hampton Academy, so it's natural with many of the boys at Stanley looking at Turing House to want to be included there. I don't think Twickenham Academy has a specialism but they may be planning post-16 provision there. Looks a complex area for planning, and the council has to rely on specialist independent school and out of borough provision too.

Twickenham Academy have the Gateway centre which is run by Clarendon so maybe that's where he's going rather than clarendon's hampton site.

I know another SEN child that was offered a place and the mum seemed happy enough. The policy on the website says all of the staff will have SEN training as well as having a SENCO.

There is such a range of SEN - but some schools are taking a bigger than average share of children with the most complex special needs, not always supported by a specialist unit. TH may have turned down the most complex cases using the justification that they aren't up to their full staffing complement and are in unsuitable temporary premises. But if it starts to attract other (non-SEN) pupils from neighbouring schools, and destabilising them, it risks undermining existing SEN provision too. It will have to play its part eventually, if it's not doing so already.

Ici I take your point on LBRUT being at the "least worst" end of the spectrum but I know of children with SEN across the country still waiting for offers. How to make them feel even more different even as their friends are excitedly planning their next step.

However FYI here is the government code of practise on the process every other Council is supposed to follow to be lawful www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf

In particular " "Where the local authority considers a particular mainstream place to be incompatible with the efficient education of others it must demonstrate, in relation to maintained nursery schools, mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions in its area taken as a whole, that there are no reasonable steps that it, or the school or college, could take to prevent that incompatibility."

So the LA would have needed to get similarly worded letters from other mainstream schools, some as I highlighted before like Orleans that have specialist units and experience, before it could lawfully place the child at Clarendon.

As the mother of a child with SEN I am quite sure any mother sending a child to a newly established school would be asking a lot of careful questions. We have plenty of experience on which to base cynicism. Believe me if Turing are true to what they say is their intention on SEN and are going to give all their teachers training so that they truly understand the brain differences and needs and adapt the teaching in the course of every lesson then they will have gone the extra mile over practically every school, state or private, in the borough. You are happy if there is just a SENCO in place who is not of the "well intentioned and cuddly but woolly" school - a term coined by the Disability Assessor in Kingston, and perhaps one or two teachers who really get your child and go the extra mile to develop their confidence and achieve their potential in the course of an education that otherwise leaves them reliant on their own coping strategies. Mostly teachers either have no real insight or, actively misunderstand. I have heard many similar experiences at schools across the borough.