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.

auntie you would think that the DofE would know that a site on a major road out of London with access and space issues is not suitable, St Stephens with it's historically site next to the A316 has just installed a pollution monitor www.facebook.com/saveourfootbridgeand schools are now beginning to close when pollution levels get too high schoolsimprovement.net/two-schools-become-the-first-in-britain-to-be-shut-because-of-air-pollution/ but clearly the criteria set to enable the Free School programme to roll out in a way consistent with being able to spin it's success in meeting the need for school places do not take account of the needs of pupils and parents, let alone local residents. . In that context I am afraid 1000 local people are irrelevant. There are plenty of similar examples where schools have opened in the face of local opposition, including a few where the Local Authority have dug their heels in in opposition. At least they can relie on LBRUT to be compliant. Not that it would make much difference if LBRUT were the decision makers, there were 3000 expressing their opposition to giving the Clifden site to the Catholic Church, mainly local, mainly the affected parents of school age children, but the council went all out to help the church mobilise it's congregations including giving them paper copies of the consultation to hand out in church to those too old unable to access the Internet so that they could get a similar number in favour.

mum I would be more impressed if Elliott asked if the Council were going to work with Turing to arrive at an admissions criteria that balanced the interests of parents in Whitton and Fullwell, and Twickenham Academy, that we could all get behind. The wording is unnecessarily divisive. The rhetoric on the Whitton against Turing petition has reverted to antagonism and hysteria again www.change.org/p/teddington-s-turing-house-secondary-school-may-be-built-in-whitton/u/11166141 and the councillor is just pandering to it, not helpful to anyone.

You mean 'There is no point protesting because that is going to happen'? Apparently that's a favourite phrase of education ministers.

mum absolutely not, just expressing frustration about the way in which the people affected have to take time out of busy lives to do all the hard work of understanding what is happening and the ways in which they can protest most effectively, as well as all the work involved in protesting, because of projects and policies driven by politics or even the ideas of one man, rather than the interests of those affected. Indeed in all the activism I have taken part in both on planning and educational issues those protesting were treated with barely concealed annoyance by those who are supposed to represent us and act in our interests. As a result the odds are stacked against you.

I actually think it is particularly inappropriate that politics and the whims of politicians come into decisions at local level where it should be an accommodation of the interests of the residents. The Gloriana debacle was a particularly extreme example but of course in that case the protest was effective, although it is debatable whether it was the protest or just the sheer difficulty in financial and engineering terms.

Unfortunately those in power (i.e Government and Council) have their contacts and money to support them.They all stick together to defend their
very bad decision

However, it is time that they took notice of what local people really think about this decision. I am sure NONE of them would ever consider sending their own children to a school on such a dangerous and polluted site. Attend the Council meeting tomorrow if you support local parents and residents against this site

RTT Online has Petition triggers full council debate over Deer Park School site:

. . The debate will be heard at the Council meeting at York House, Twickenham, on Tuesday July 7 at 7.15.

However, it is time that they took notice of what local people really think about this decision. I am sure NONE of them would ever consider sending their own children to a school on such a dangerous and polluted site.

Sadly, I think people are taking it up. I just heard that Darell is undersubscribed this September for Reception (after a few years of being completely full).

I don't think their class is full yet though - not sure whether to link to it, but I saw an email (on WhatDoTheyKnow) in response to an FOI request a month ago, which suggested at that point Deer Park might only be half full. 11 offers to families in TW1 had been accepted, 6 from TW9/10 and offers of four places had been made to people without a Richmond address. Some of those may also have offers. They seemed to think they would open anyway.

There will be a webcast of tomorrow’s Council debate on Deer Park School. The sound system used is good so that it is easier to hear what is said sitting watching at home than sitting in the Chamber’s public gallery.

Yes, I know they aren't full. But I bet Darell would be fuller without 21 offers made from Deer Park (I suspect it would be full with just the TW9/10 children, don't know exact numbers).

At the council meeting last night, the case was firmly put by the petitioners
that London House is a totally unacceptable site for a new primary school for 420 children. Also the question was raised by a local councillor that children in East Twickenham are still without places and are therefore being forced to travel outside their local for their schooling in September. The council seem absolutely determined they will push this project through and for years children will be forced to attend a school in an extremely inappropriate location. Does no one care about our future generations ?

Dear All,

Editor for Richmond here popping in to say hello waves and ask you for your opinions re: reward based learning:

local.mumsnet.com/Talk/local_richmond_upon_thames/2420799-Getting-children-to-learn-proactively-via-sensitively-managed-rewards

Thank you

Hampton Academy has just been inspected by Ofsted. It's a mixed report.

Very mixed. I think I can see that the new Head is starting to make improvements, but clearly not in time to be effective for this report. Is a shame for them (HA), and I can see why parents who traditionally would have been at HA are going for Turing as an alternative. Interestingly at our Junior school we have a lot of very positive PR going on with the Academy, our students going there, their students coming to us. They are trying to convince us back into thinking it's our main option. I'm not sure how well that will work though, the current lot of Year 6s have a good number heading off to Turing who would otherwise have been likely to go to HA.

I watched some of the Council meeting on the webcast yesterday. I agree that the attitude of the administration to London House and the need to provide primary places in appropriate locations is extraordinary. The debate on the need to provide extra nursery places to fulfil the new requirement for 30 hours per week at the end of the webcast was also unbelievable. You'd think that the Tory Government and its own party's policy was all an irresponsible Lib Dem plot to listen to some of the Richmond Tory councillors!

Here is a working link to the webcast of the council meeting

The page I posted a link to above has been deleted. The debate starts at 19:07 (Mr Public Gallery).

Anyone who thinks London House is an unacceptable site for a large primary school should watch the webcast of Tuesday's Council meeting. The attitude of some of the Conservative councillors is unbelievable. The case put forward in the petition is very strong and they should accept a big mistake has been made over this site. There is no doubt a shortage of primary school places in the borough but this this is the wrong site and parents should vote with their feet and not just accept it

Article in the RTT inviting suggestions for the new school on the site of Richmond College:

Fancy naming Richmond's new school? Get your thinking caps on

The meeting on the petition against Deer Park School was reported in the RTT online and in the print edition.

Suggest you read the article about the council meeting and the proposed site for Deer Park School. 2 comments by Lipstickonapig and alice.e put forward arguments against the site very well. It does make you wonder if some of the Councillors really know where this site is.

Private school education could be poor investment, research shows:

A private school education may be a poor investment, according to research . . that shows rapid growth in independent school fees outstripping the incomes of middle class professionals . . the £236,000 paid by parents of a day pupil would, if invested, return nearly £800,000 over the child’s lifetime – enough to pay for university, put down a substantial deposit on a house and leave £500,000 for retirement . .

It comes from Killiks, the Richmond stockbrokers.

£236,000 assumes private school fees from 4 to 18. The firm also suggests 'clients may "try to reduce the financial burden that private schooling entails" by sending their offspring to a state primary school'. I have a funny feeling many Richmond families do that already.

I'd like to know if they are advising clients to accept a place at Deer Park School on the A316 roundabout with a caged playground on the roof. It might not be a great investment for US families whose children develop long-term asthma problems, if they have to pay medical fees on return to their country.

Presumably day school fees, not Eton or other £34000 a year boarding options, which might be a better investment if you get to meet incredibly posh people whose dads give you extremely well paid jobs in hedge funds or marry you?! There are definitely people in all the local state schools who always intended to go private at secondary level but don't show their hand until year 6. Still pretty especially if you have several children.

Do write to Killik pointing out the future medical costs muminlondon2?! Perhaps they agree with Cllr. Hodgins and Fleming that Richmond already has so many outstanding schools on main roads that spending only 7 hours a day there can't possibly have any ill effects on children or they would already know about them.

There was one bit of that council meeting when Pamela Fleming talked about 'the responsibility of all residents and businesses for their own health' - it was most bizarre. She and Paul Hodgins also ducked the issue of two schools being located within five minutes of each other (though Darell is NOT on the A316), with one a quarter full, and one a quarter empty. Hey, I've got a great idea: the Deer Park children can go to Darell and DP can be postponed year or two until a more suitable site comes up in East Twickenham. Or Deer Park.

But that would be the logical rather than the ideological position, I suppose.

muminlondon2. Cllr Fleming and Cllr Hodgins are obviously not prepared to listen to anyone. Several alternative sites which are far more suitable than London House have been suggested but no one will listen and accept what a disastrous decision has been made. The statement made by Cllr Fleming is laughable...Deer Park School IS a business and THEY should take responsibility for the health/safety of the children. If parents who have been forced to accept Deer Park School withdrew their children and sent them to Darrell that would make the Council and Dept of Education think. Perhaps the council are blocking those parents and saying Deer Park School is the only possibility?? It is a disgrace.

As there is such a high number of offers to families who don't even live in the borough yet, looks like the council is steering enquiries from families living abroad to Deer Park School. So those families may not even be able to apply to Darell yet because they have no address. This double system of application is misleading and could be abused - it's aiding 'educational exports' but not actually about meeting need. Because in that area there is no unmet need. The council really has to be upfront about the location of this school because once those families get here they will be very confused as to why their children are housed in a shed now, and will soon be in a high rise school near an accident black spot with no playground. That's if it gets planning permission.