Richmond Borough Schools Chat 7

[muminlondon2]

Lots and lots of discussions on local schools and education issues preceded this thread, including Richmond Borough Schools Chat 6.

Anyone who wants to carry on that discussion, and offer information and opinions (without being moderated by any particular individual or interest group, bearing in mind all the usual mumsnet guidelines about respect and not getting personal, etc.) - feel free.

I think Colin McKinlay will make a fantastic headteacher for my DC. He has extensive experience as a leader and manager of challenging schools and that´s what this school needs. He may be criticised for the fact that he doesn´t have PGCE or that all of his pre-leadership experience was in further education but he won´t be classroom teaching at Turing House anyway. His CV is excellent www.linkedin.com/in/colinmackinlay

He started as Head at Coulsdon High in 2002 and was able to take a not very successful school which went into special measures in 2006 and make sure it was rapidly improving. Also the new Head of Coulsdon High (John Murphy) was headhunted in 2008 for his ability to take over and rapidly improve under-performing schools. These challenging schools need inspring heads! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_Academy_Coulsdon The pupils definitely rated him whilst he was there uk.ratemyteachers.com/colin-mackinlay/84787-t.

Doesn't surprise me about Udney park :(, look what happened to poor old Teddington Studios. When a 2 bed terraced house with a yard not a garden and no off street parking can sell for £700-£750k, it's no wonder that developers get their greedy hands on land!

Edgar he does have a PGCE, he would not have worked so long and so extensively in state schools without one.

Oh my mistake then, I assumed he didn´t as he trained in FE. I had a look and it isn´t clear from his CV when or where he would have achieved that qualification as there doesn´t seem to have been a suitable secondary school or time period. Glad to hear confirmation that he does in fact have a PGCE, thanks Heathclif .

I have yet to hear whether or not Newland House School actually bid for the Udney Park Playing Fields or are still in the running. I suppose if it's a private sale no one is obliged to announce anything at any point until a planning application goes in.

Edgar LinkedIn profiles are an art not a science

LOL, yes

Lottie the Harlequins letter said they were bidding in cahoots with Newlands so I assume that Harlequins failing to secure the site amounts to the same thing. The Harlequins letter was worded in a rathe half hearted way. They were bidding because the policy will now be to bidd for any opportunity to gain training pitches, rather than manifesting any real hope of success. And I can't believe that the news would not be percolating along the mothers Mafia grapevine if Newlands were still in with a chance somehow, private prep schools being a maelstrom of Chinese whispers [Grin]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this thread but I hear that RPA is putting on a bulge class in Sept 15. It doesn't solve the ongoing problem of spaces around here but is apparently designed to catch those parents who assumed they would get in (based on previous years) and were allocated Hampton instead when they live in Barnes!

I suspect that next year parents are on notice that they need to apply for all local schools they will consider rather than assuming they will get into one.

Thanks Heathclif - I didn't realise Newland and Harlequins were in it together. Does sound like a developer has won the bidding then so it will be down to how firm the Council are about planning. I don't hold out much hope given how spineless the Council generally is when faced with developers with expensive lawyers. Perhaps the rumoured minor aristocracy allegedly living in that part of Teddington are better at pulling strings behind the scenes to get what they want from Lord True than they have been about leading a campaign to ensure a good outcome for the local community.

LProsser to be fair to the Council there is a limit to how firm they can be. Obviously all the shanaigans around the approval of the Station development were as much to do with favouring the RFU as the developer. But generally under the London Planning Framework any land that is not MOL or protected in some other way is presumed to be for development as housing unless there is some other overiding need. The Council can turn down a development but the developer simply goes to appeal and the Planning Inspectorate make a decision based on the local and London Planning framework, and the Council is then involved in an expensive process (residents have no such right of appeal if a development is approved). And if the Planning Inspector doesn't approve it doubtless the expensive lawyers will find grounds in a framework that favours development to go to the Secretary of State. It would have obviously helped if the Council had come out and said the need for more school places was overiding but that wasn't politically acceptable when to defend the Clifden decision their line is that there are enough places, and they would upset the influential Teddingtonians by favouring any sort of development at all. Though certainly Nick Whitfield does not seem to have shared the original news on the Imperial EFA negotiations that broke down as a result, out of any lack of support for the school being on the site.

was able to take a not very successful school which went into special measures in 2006

Just to correct you there, Coulsdon High School was given a 'Good' Ofsted in 2001, one year before Colin Mackinkay started, then went into special measures five years later after he'd headed it for four years. I do believe there were problems with falling rolls after he started which may have related to previous changes in admissions policies. However, as MrsSalvo has pointed out, schools can still be rated good despite their intake.

No Ofsted report from 2006 is available but a report from Croydon Council identified that the school was in the bottom 100 secondary schools nationally for its VA score - 'the amount of progress children should make compared with the progress they did make'. The league tables gave this as 965.3 and it was the lowest in Croydon on this score, if not quite for GCSE results.

The comparison is Richmond which was poor that year for most schools too, though Whitton School had a VA score of 987.2 and Hampton Community College 980.5.

Muminlondon2
Are you saying that Colin McKinlay started as Head at Coulsdon High when it was rated as Good by Ofsted and put it into Special Measures?

mum - you have brought up the "bad" Ofsted before (Sept '13 - chat 4). You went on to comment that the judgement was "after a difficult period when budget cuts meant he had been forced to cut staff. But to his credit he stayed on and took the school out of special measures and results went back up again."

We all know it takes years to turn a school around - 10yrs in Grey Court's case. It seems unfair to bring up this Ofsted report again and plant seeds of doubt in prospective parent's minds when the report itself states "The vision and commitment of the headteacher and senior management team has been crucial in setting the agenda for improvement."

EdgarCo - take a look at the wiki page for Coulsdon, it explains the history.

Outstanding leadership is what RET is all about. Both BK and Bristol got Outstanding for Leadership in their Ofsted reports. It will be interesting to see what their recently inspected schools get for this measure. Does anyone know how long it takes for Ofsted to publish their reports after inspection?

Who would be a headteacher? Even when you have the commitment, tenacity and skills to do a great job you get picked apart for it. No wonder there are so few people willing to put their necks on the line, as this recent article points out.

The article linked by bluestar was in Monday's Education; I had been wondering whether to link to it myself; here's an extract:

. . But even with a feelgood video shared widely on social media, and an advert placed in time for the Christmas holidays, Whymark says Cranmer still struggled to recruit. Despite offering a higher salary, there were fewer applicants than expected. “People are very hesitant about moving,” says Whymark. “Being ahead is like being a football manager at the moment. One bad season and you’re out.” For Whymark, it’s a problem she will no longer be facing. Her next job is a three-year contract as head of an international junior school in China . .

EdgarCo and bluestars yes to both. He was there for 80% of a period in a school that transitioned from 'good' to 'inadequate' and needing special measures. But as I stated previously and recently, I don't lay all of blame at his door any more than I would give him all the credit for a 'good' Ofsted because a typical secondary school has 70+ teachers and it is team work.

This school was in a 'leafy' area and had feeder links to middle-class primaries and at one point partial selection by ability. But the Schools Adjudicator changed the rules in the couple of years before he started which may have caused the slide in popularity among certain groups of parents. Falling rolls then led to budget cuts - unfortunately of the type that Orleans Park and Waldegrave may soon be facing.

The experience must have been stressful and shocking for him so he did show resilience and self-belief for improving the school's result a year later - with help. I personally know someone in that position who was forced to leave - taking on consultancy work - and it can affect confidence and health. It probably shaped his view of what elements make a school successful - including a stable intake and reputation. I think that's relevant in the context of the sort of admissions policies RET had employed for its schools as well as the way it has built up relationships.

The Wikipedia page is interesting but bear in mind that it has been updated by a user who also has an interest in RET schools, Richmond and StRR. So it is as selective on the facts as I am. However, it's valuable information and useful to read. Parents should be both open-minded and informed about these things.

mum Parents should be both open-minded and informed about these things.

I would be more impressed if you turned your forensic information seeking skills on some of the other Heads. I have heard less than complementary feedback on the leadership skills in the far more recent past of at least two others who lead schools that Turing parents might find themselves in receipt of offers for. However I don't think it is fair or right to destabilise their current leadership by repeating subjective gossip, though it is out there.

There is more than enough objective evidence of the Turing Head's exceptional leadership skills in comparison, from the OFSTED praise in the 2007 report and recruitment into the London Challenge team onwards, as well as the current positive subjective judgements of parents. 2006 was a very different country, a rapidly changing OFSTED process and local Councils being pulled along into the academies programme with the carrot of extra funding, the eventual outcome for the school. We know the academies programme has been underwritten with all sorts of destabilising tactics on schools.

Leadership is important, it can make the difference between a demotivated squabbling team, however skilled and talented, and one that pulls together. It is especially important in schools where OFSTEDS, results etc aside what you want is a team focused on giving your child an inspiring and happy education, with respect for their individual needs. That sort of leadership is rather thin on the ground locally, both in state and private schools, and it is that vision of the Turing parents, now being realised by the Head, that impressed me from the start.

As to intake and reputation. I think that's relevant in the context of the sort of admissions policies RET had employed for its schools as well as the way it has built up relationships. If that is a veiled repetition of the implication that Turing was fixing its intake by setting the admissions point, I really do not want to repeat the fact that the admissions point was agreed with the Council as the centre of emerging need. And there has always been ample evidence that the vision for the school was inclusive, the allegation that it was focused on a "naice middle class" intake says more about the chips on people's shoulders than it does about the Turing team. One thing I am sure that the Turing Head learnt from the London challenge along with the rest of us is that having a mixed intake does not stop a school being outstanding. Now they know the site is not going to be Teddington they can focus on the community they will be a part of and they have already undertaken to change the admissions policy, it will no doubt have to be a compromise between the community in Whitton and the community that bought the school into being, and the interests of TA and HA. Let's see how that process evolves before passing judgement.

Interestingly we may have another illustration that fixing intakes does not preclude schools being outstanding. There is of course ample evidence that the faith based admissions criteria used by St RR leads to social and ethnic exclusion but interestingly possibly as a result of the inclusive intake in it's first year on measures of social and ethic inclusion it is not matching the level of exclusivity of it's feeder Catholic Primaries. That first year was all bar the 60 or so who made it a choice either late applications or allocated from the pool that would normally have been allocated between the undersubscribed academies. Whatever the reason that more mixed intake has not stopped it becoming outstanding.

Hi Heathcliff totally agree with what you say about planning but it's even worse in a way. The Council is often unwilling to stick to its own local plan policies even where it can justify the decisions very clearly as in line with local priorities and national ones. We saw this with Teddington Studios - the Council either has some ulterior motive or is too frightened of costs even where it's position is justifiable. Plenty of words in its Local Plan that would justify not allowing building on open space but I expect there will be a fudge on Udney Park - some mega expensive housing and some not very useful green space which mainly enhances the value of the mega expensive housing in return for not having to build any social housing. I find the idea that the original negotiations broke down just because some posh people were cross and there were a few comments on twitter a bit hard to believe personally - I'm sure it was all about price!

Lottie at that point Imperial were in a difficult position politically with their strategy for divesting sports grounds. Some of the other grounds affected were used by some quite wealthy and powerful sports clubs, or at least sports clubs that trained the offspring of the wealthy and powerful. UP wasn't the only ground where they faced powerful interests. Realising a sale of UP for a school was something they could handle more easily politically, but they still needed to manage the timing. It going public would have unleashed all sorts of pressure, including of course locally. I suppose once they had ridden the storm ££££s became important, and of course all the publicity would have attracted speculative bids.

Heathclif, RET has five schools, and three of them have faith admissions against which there have been vigorous local campaigns. I disagree in particular that any new schools can be set up using faith criteria or ethos. Bristol Free School opened in an area of surplus taking pupils from a much more advantaged pupil population than the area in which it is located, with a negative impact on other schools as identified in its impact assessment. TH aside, four out of five RET schools definitely operate a form of social selection.

For information, the London Challenge ran from 2003-2008 (ending the year Colin Mackinlay left Coulsdon High School). By 2006 LAs like Hackney were already showing improvement in both GCSE results and high VA scores. RET's parent company, Education London, was one of the first private consultancies to be awarded a contract from 2007 and the City Challenge continued the initiative between 2008 and 2011.

A <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200821%20200MIG2547.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">London Challenge document from around 2003 grouped schools into families across LAs with the aim of benchmarking schools against each other. Coulsdon High School is shown in Family 11 (FSM - 18.7%, gender balance fairly even, 71% white British, etc.). Richmond schools Waldegrave and Teddington were in Family 4, Grey Court and Orleans Park in Family 8, etc.

Unfortunately: 'Across all City Challenge areas, most schools (and particularly primary schools) made limited or no use of FoS data ... A number of issues ... seriously impacted on the reach and effectiveness of the programme [including] headteachers’ lack of understanding of the rationale for the way schools are grouped into Families, and a complicated funding process with delays in processing bids.'

So schools like Coulsdon High School, Whitton School and Hampton CC were not granted targeted outside support until it was too late, and were forced to academise. Sue Demont deserves as much praise as Colin Mackinlay for improving Hampton Community College in its 2008 Ofsted inspection, though it was too late to stop it being turned into an academy. Similarly, the previous interim head of Whitton School 'worked tirelessly' to bring about improvements.

the admissions point was agreed with the Council as the centre of emerging need

heathclif I'll restate that the admissions point for 2017 admissions to TH has moved 1 mile away, and that 50% of even Turing House supporters (those who responded to its admissions consultation) disagreed with that. Those most affected would have been West Twickenham parents. Some of them have posted on the Whitton Against Turing House Facebook page to signal their disagreement with the Whitton site, even though they have applied to the school.

I agree that it is not fair or right to destabilise current leadership of schools in Richmond by repeating subjective gossip, which is why I think it is important to state facts correctly and even be forensic about evidence.

We do still also have our own subjective points of view, as do parents. I respect your opinions and reasons to cheer-lead for Turing House, even where I disagree with you.