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.

MuminLondon2 HA looks like it is already harder hit than TA without the new admissions point

MuminLondon2 Looks like HA is already harder hit than TA without the new admissions point

Or expansion of numbers.

WhittonMum if you look at the data from the London Schools Atlas Hampton ward is one of the biggest catchments areas for Hampton Academy, as you may expect, and over 50% of Hampton Juniors went there prior to this school year. But Hampton Juniors secondary transfer figures for this year show the TH effect, with only 33% going to HA with 21% going to Turing House. A similar pattern emerges at Hampton Hill Juniors where 41% transferred to HA previously, but only 20% for 2015 entry, and 21% to TH. So it has already significantly disrupted patterns of transfer, though this is before the review of governance at HA.

And yet you were right that there is more projected demand for new school places from Heathfield than from Fulwell or Hampton, or Teddington itself. So no logic for the admissions point really, and no case for expansion. See Pan London Demand data (Figures 8 and 14) below, with its estimates of independent school population.

Heathfield 23%+ (5% in independent schools)
West Twickenham +15% (7% in independent schools)
Whitton 0% (6% in independent schools)

Fulwell and Hampton Hill +0% (20% in independent schools)
Hampton +0% (26% in independent schools)

Teddington +0% (24% in independent schools)
Hampton Wick +13% (19% in independent schools)

The TH business model assumes that families will switch from the local independents to Turing House (e.g. from the highly selective LEH and Hampton Boys, or perhaps the smaller and less selective schools like Radnor House or out of borough like Hallifords). The transfer figures on the junior school websites don't reflect this yet, just demonstrating a straight switch between preferences for state schools.

On reflection, the journey looks pretty horrendous from Hampton (e.g. Hampton Juniors) to Hospital Bridge Road - two buses at least, even with a more frequent 481. Much easier by direct train or bus to Teddington at present.

Maybe that's why TH management was so slow to reveal the permanent site option knowing where the demand was located - Hampton Academy would actually be an increasingly attractive alternative under new management, as a smaller school, with brand new facilities, potential for improvement and only a ten-minute bus ride away. Or indeed, 20-minute walk rather than 60-minute walk.

On a different point, there was a story in the Guardian on 14 December about council children's services at risk of takeover by 'high performing local authorities, charities and experts', described as 'academy-style freedoms' for children's services, especially social work. Richmond and Kingston is cited as among the 'high performing local authorities'.

This could be why Nicky Morgan paid a visit to Waldegrave and David Cameron visited Achieving for Children in Twickenham days later. The real news is that the chief executive of Achieving for Children (e.g. Nick Whitfield, formerly director of children's services at Richmond Council) is to set up trust that will run Sunderland council's childrens services like it did in Kingston. What the economics of the situation are, I don't really understand.

Gosh you want to beware of ulcers muminlondon with all that bile in your belly. It's such a load of rubbish though because we all knew the site before we had to make a decision about accepting the place. Some people I know didn't hang on to find out and moved or went private and others did go to HA. To me the fact that so many hamptonites are at TH shows how much demand there is in this area as lots of people were keen to go even eith all the uncertainty. People in Whitton have other options, so it doesn't surprise me that there was less demand from there.

I expect that forecast data you linked to already includes the TH and RUTS places muminlondon so I'm not surprised It looks healthy in Fulwell. I don't suppose it's clever enough to know about the site in Heathfield yet so won't be factoring in the extra 20% of Turing places. And weren't there some free schools approved in Hounslow recently? They might not be factored in either.

I wasn't name calling or using offensive language, jellytoto, just looking at data, but thanks for your concern about my health.

One thing that is certain is that that the figures do not anticipate expansion of Turing House by 33%. The data comes from the 2014-15 census and projections made annually by local authorities which I believe happened earlier in the year. The accompanying report states specifically that new schools due to open or in the pipeline are not included in the projections, and TH was not open till September 2015. But that report is dated November 2015. I'd say RuT school was definitely not counted and probably not Turing House either. I stand corrected if anyone knows for sure. Chris is usually good on that sort of analysis.

Have you seen the recent newsletter from Waldegrave? It highlights the budget woes and mentions a letter hand delivered to Nicky Morgan that I’m sure would be an interesting read! Savings they are making are detailed...

Some of the savings that will impact directly on students, parents and staff:
•Year 9 option choices, maximise class sizes and reduce number of classes and therefore teaching time.
•Students/parents to buy their own textbooks, families in financial hardship will be supported by the school.
•Reducing the library budget.
•Selling Waldegrave staff expertise to other schools including the Headteacher.
•Reduce the hours taught per subject in the sixth form, other schools are doing this.

Little impact on students, parents and staff:
•Increase Sixth Form student numbers.
•Increase facilities income from lettings.
•Reduce suppliers’ contract prices.

I’m impressed with how upfront Waldegrave is being about the difficulties of running a school in the current climate. The more awareness there is the better. It doesn’t look like they can afford to turn down the incentive to help out HA/TA. SchoolsWeek reports these payments are between £50,000 and £100,000.

Yes, the Admissions Forum minutes for September do state explicitly that the creation of free schools 'has an impact on school place planning and funding'. The funding reductions for Waldegrave, Teddington, Orleans Park and Grey Court, and many other schools in the country affected by changes to the funding formula, would be a consequence of the free school policy. Resources are finite but new schools receive extra start-up funding, including schools created to ensure diversity rather than meet demand like RET's Greek Orthodox St Andrew the Apostle School, which received the equivalent of £18,507 for each of its 73 pupils in its first year.

I note that the council has updated its School Place Planning Strategy 2015-2024. Paragraphs 23-25 summarise that there is now no need for additional places to be created on the Middlesex side.

'25. The opening of Turing House in 2015 and the proposed opening of the Richmond upon Thames College free school in 2017 mean that there will be sufficient places in the western half of the borough for the period covered by this strategy.'

Previously it suggested that 'If a site cannot found for Turing House, it is possible that demand for places from Richmond Borough residents would almost match supply.'

I think they should get some local parents on that admissions forum muminlondon because from our perspective in Hampton Hill a free school has been a solution to problems caused by bad academy sponsors and faith schools. Those high private figures you showed a few posts ago just back up what I've always suspected about Conservative gerrymandering in this part of the borough.

4 out of 15 members attended that Sept meeting, it was not quorate and proceeded as an informal discussion. I wonder if more were there whether the statement about TH impacting school place planning would have gone unchallenged. The LA was planning for a free school supplying at least 100 places, this has been factored into their figures since at least 2013 I think. Disingenuous to suggest that TH has impacted planning, especially as the LA asked Orleans, Waldegrave and RPA to take extra students.

One another point, I see the Stag Brewery site has been sold for development so the LA/EFA loses another school site.

Of course it will affect school place planning if they anticipated 100 places but 150 were created - even more so with those numbers doubled to 200. It's obvious that some 30-50 students who would otherwise have gone to HA have started at TH, and would have been offered both places at the same time. At the last minute HA would have ended up a class down, each pupil representing £5k or so of funding, but with the same costs to pay. Meanwhile TH is protected by start-up grants. That's the most directly disruptive effect on planning and funding, never mind the national implications of budgets being diverted and the chaotic last minute openings.

The LA asked Orleans Park and Waldegrave to take extra students last year, on a temporary basis until the new Richmond College school opened, and they agreed but still that decision was made before TH's funding agreement was signed. RPA didn't agree until much later, with the result that the LA had to allocate TA places in Kew/Barnes. The LA has no power to force them to comply.

Admissions policies and numbers are decided by academies themselves not LAs. The Admissions Forum has little statutory power either - it's information sharing as far as I understand. A member of TH's steering group (who I suspect initiated the mumsnet threads) was co-opted onto the Education Committee as early as September 2010, well before the Catholic school site was known and right until the committee was abolished before AfC was founded. Another previous Admissions Forum member (representing a different primary school at the time) is now the TH chair of governors. Turing House supporters have therefore been well represented at council and admissions forum meetings. From your knowledge of how meetings work and whether they are quorate, etc. you probably know these people bluestars. In fact, that's why I asked if you were another governor.

As one of the many families that have benefitted from this wonderful school I think the people who had the forsight to set it up should be applauded and you don't do yourself any credit muminlondon by continuously trying to tear it to pieces. From what I can gather the school was in progress long before any extra places were magicked out of thin air and before the RUTS school was conceived so only someone with a very negative mindset would suggest it is to blame. But maybe you think they should have thrown all their carefully laid plans out the window just because a couple of other schools decided to increase their class sizes at the last minute?
The fact that so many families were prepared to take a chance on a new school in a temporary block rather than an established school with new buildings and lots of facilities, should be a wake up call to the LA or whoever is responsible for those Swedish academies. It wouldn't surprise me if that was exactly why HA and TA are now getting interventions. If it wasn't for TH they might have been left for longer.

Mum - I mentioned that it was no quorate because I followed your link to the minutes and the very first line states "As the meeting was not quorate, it proceeded on the basis of an informal discussion and the attendees agreed that a summary of any recommendations made at the meeting be circulated to all forum members for ratification." Then, because I'm nosey, I looked at the attendance to see who actually went.

My post was supposed to point out that the LA was expecting 100 places to be provided by a free school and that's exactly what they got. Of course funding follows pupils and this has an impact but it was not unexpected and therefore must have been taken into account in the planning.

Are you sure the other expansions were temporary? Looking at this years admissions broacher Waldegrave seems to be taking 16 extra again as does Orleans. RPA is back to normal.

I'm getting drawn into being one of the only TH supporting voices again and I said I wouldn't do that as it tends to sway the discussion away form other local education issues (which actually interest me more)! So bowing out again for a bit.

I've always suspected about Conservative gerrymandering
Democratically elected by the local people.
Nothing to stop 'local parents' standing as council candidates and getting themselves voted for if they convince the voters - that is the process to fairly establish who makes the decisions.
Otherwise how on earth could you choose which 'local parents' to invite.

RET doesn't do itself any credit for refusing to change its admissions policy or proposing expansion before it has planning permission and when there is no shortage of places.

The Conservatives did criticise the choice of Kunskappskolan as sponsor and the consultation process when it was selected by the LibDems to run Hampton Academy. The LibDems probably just blame the Labour government of the time for attaching academy sponsorship conditions to rebuilding funds. All of that could change soon - fair enough as parents you had no control over that when you applied last year.

I obviously see the world differently to you muminlondon but I can't see any evidence that the school has refused to change its admissions policy, unless perhaps you mean they have refused to change it in direct response to a couple of noisy cyberbullies and vote-chasing politicians but are consulting on it to give everyone else a say too.

The evidence is that the admissions policy is proposed again with no change. Otherwise they might have proposed a different policy and consulted on that. It's true that many Whitton residents oppose the building of a new school on metropolitan open land where traffic would cause problems, not just the admissions policy.

The 'vote-chasing' politicians were, as MrsSalvo pointed out, democratically elected - it is disrespectful to denigrate them for putting forward the concerns of their constituents. Strategic Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Schools, Paul Hodgins said specifically:

'The local Conservative councillors have made the views of residents known, including about the proposed admissions policy which they believe would be unfair if the school was proposed in Whitton. Tania Mathias, the Conservative Parliamentary candidate, has also clearly stated that she opposes a school with an 80:20 admissions policy being established in Whitton.'

MuminLondon2 Those statistics show that the Hampton Hill and Hampton Juniors now have the choice of TH and HA and therefore the intake of HA is changing. Do you know where the current intake for HA do come from?

Where did you get the Pan London Demand data and how is it calculated?

I thought that HA and TA were undersubscribed but it appears from the LBRUT secondary admissions brochure that both TA and HA are not in fact undersubscribed as 180 places were offered at TA for Sept 2015 and 186 places offered at HA. There were many more applications than places, but no waiting list. How can this be explained? It does seem that there is significant demand still.

I agree the admissions policy is proposed again with no change. I don´t believe that TH are under any obligation to change their admissions policy even if there were to be a number of people responding to the consultation that object to it. I also don´t believe that they are under any obligation to consult on increasing the PAN, so I imagine that it will be increased to 200. Perhaps if I am mistaken someone here will correct me on this point.

From my point of view, there are a lot of students attending primaries all within a mile of the Whitton TH site.

These are their admissions per year:
Heathfield 120
Bishop Perrin 30
Nelson 90
St. Edmunds 60

That´s 300 primary children per year (not including Chase Bridge which is further than a mile away.)

There is, as we have discussed also nearby The Heathland School, which accepts 270 per year and TA which accepts 180 per year.

The Heathland School is 0.9 miles away from the TH Whitton site and the catchment area extended to 1.1 miles in 2015. Therefore there are some, but not all, Heathfield and Whitton residents whose children would be able to attend the Hounslow Borough school. Might be some of those dots on the TH 2015 map. Most of the kids of the Heathfield residents that live on the Fulwell and Twickenham side of TH (and who would be most affected by traffic congestion and pollution by the 80% commuting) would not have The Heathland School as a possibility.

In terms of pollution and traffic congestion, this is a problem that would affect anybody who lives near or uses any road that connects Hampton, Hampton Hill, Teddington and Fulwell with the A316. That would be Twickenham residents and many others and not just those from Whitton and Heathfield. In fact, anyone who is concerned about air pollution and the environment should have an opinion on this.

Best case scenario with current 80/20 split is a good travel plan which includes a significant number of school coaches connecting the main hotspots/admissions point. In addition to this, there would need to be a significantly more frequent public bus service connecting these areas and the school site and a significant number of students/parents willing to use these services to get to school. The costs would need to be such that would not deter students with reduced means applying to the school. As has been mentioned, the TfL services are free for the students. However, TfL would have to consider the costs involved of running those additional services. Planning permission would depend upon all of that I suppose.

300 primary school children per year attending Richmond Borough primaries within a mile of the permanent Whitton site for TH, but only

Muminlondon those statements don't represent the views of all of their constituents, just a selection of them. As well as the folk who don't want the school on their doorstep at all, missing are the views of families whose kids are at Twick Academy, those people wondering why the site can't be on the unused patch of Fulwell Golf Course behind David Lloyd, as well as all the people who have moved out of the area because they can't get a good secondary place, and those that have stayed but whose communities have been broken up.

This is what was debated in the Full Council Meeting:

On Tuesday 15th September Whitton’s Conservative Councillor’s used the full Council meeting to continue to raise concerns raised by residents in light of the announcement that a site in Hospital Bridge Road would be the permanent location of Turing House School.

In the first instance Cllr Paul Hodgins, the Cabinet Member for Schools and Education, responded directly to a member of the public who queried what alternative sites had been considered in addition to the Hospital Bridge Road site. He stated that the Education Funding Authority (the central Government body which controls the process of identifying and purchasing sites for Free Schools) had conducted an extensive two year search for a suitable site that could support and comply with its criteria for a secondary school. He outlined two additional sites covered by the EFA: Udney Road and the National Physical Laboratory. In particular, he focussed on Udney Road, which has been the subject of intense speculation and public interest, and informed the Chamber that the EFA had been unsuccessful in its tender for the Udney Road site which he regretted had now been purchased by developers. Further details would be made available to the Council once a planning application is lodged for the acquired site as it was the EFA’s responsibility to provide and present in detail the reasons why it believes the proposed site “is the most feasible.” He stressed to the members of the public and Councillors present that Richmond Borough is severely restricted by a lack of suitable sites for potential secondary schools and that “We, of course, have to balance use, and take into consideration planning rules.”

Cllr Grant Healy then asked Cllr Hodgins whether he supported a school in Whitton intended primarily for students from Fulwell and Teddington? The Cabinet Member answered, “No, I would not be in favour of it.” He expanded on this by saying it had not been either his view or the Council’s that Turing House School should serve only one area, as demand for a new secondary school was wider than that. He believed that the people of Whitton “deserve the choice and option of Turing House as much as anywhere else.” He said that he had made his opposition to the School’s 80/20 admission policy clear, that this had been set too early – before the School’s permanent site had been settled. He welcomed the promise of the re-consultation made by the school, and that the Council will continue to push for a much fairer balance.

Cllr Healy then asked, “Has the Council the power to block the siting of Turing House School?” Cllr Hodgins replied, “We do not have the power to arbitrarily block it.” However, he pointed out that an application for planning would have to undergo the usual due process, and if the planning application was refused the school would not go ahead. It was his opinion, that had the Council been in control of the process of finding a site for the school it would have faced the same issues as had EFA. However, he hoped that the Council would have handled parts of the process differently; “We would have taken the example of the college site and the new school there. Where I think we have done a very good job of consulting early and being as open as we could.”

Cllr Liz Jaeger asked Cllr Hodgins whether he agreed with her that no matter what the entrance ratio was, that “there was no need for these school places in Whitton.” Cllr Hodgins replied, “No, I couldn’t disagree with that more. And I think that’s insulting to local parents. There is a great increase in the number of primary students coming up across the Borough; and I also think that there is a need in that area for choice, Heathfield and Whitton residents deserve that choice and I’m surprised that the Lib Dems locally are just accepting the narrative, which I’ve never agreed with, that the choice is for parents elsewhere and not in their area.”

Cllr Gareth Elliott asked the Cabinet Member to expand on his response as to the need for a secondary school in Whitton and whether he could outline what benefits it could bring to Whitton’s residents and its potential future students. Cllr Hodgins responded, “Over the last five years we have added six hundred permanent primary places across the Borough. Over half of those, the majority, are on the Twickenham side of the river, ninety of those have been in Whitton and Heathfield, as much as anywhere else. So, there has been a significant growth in the numbers. The reason why Turing House is being introduced at this time, and not later, when that bulge comes up, is because parents are requesting a choice. And the reality is the Lib Dem’s policy of giving away two of our local schools [including Twickenham Academy] to the same provider has not convinced enough parents, and they want a choice. Whitton and Heathfield parents deserve that choice just as anywhere else.”

Finally, responding to a point put forward by the Lib Dem Heathfield Cllr, John Coombs, regarding parking and traffic issues surrounding the siting of Turing House School and a call for a traffic survey, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene, Cllr Stephen Speak said, “This is part of the process anyway and I would expect a transport survey to be conducted, there is no reason why that should not be produced as part of the planning process.”

Jellytoto

There are indeed folk that don´t want the school on their doorstep at all and those people wondering why the site can't be on the unused patch of Fulwell Golf Course behind David Lloyd

The Council and TH are no longer discussing other possible sites but the future of the school in Whitton.

Even the TH consultation says "a permanent site has been secured for Turing House School in Heathfield, approximately 2 miles from our Admissions Point. The school is expected to be located there from 2018."

The site is no longer in any doubt. Unless you have additional insider information to the contrary?

Wish I did whittonmum, but those councillors must know the answer as I gather its council owned land. I'd prefer the school to be in Fulwell, but if it can't be then at least it would be nice to know why. Did the council refuse to sell it or what?