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.

Well at least their school trips won't have to revolve around Sweden and letting Swedish children practise their English on them.

Richmond Magistrates' Court to close, it is confirmed. If you remember, this was at one point considered as a site for Deer Park School - minutes of Kew Society meeting, 31 March 2015, item 13c. Did Michael Gove knew then what the previous Justice Secretary didn't?

Deer Park school wouldn't have far to move if they went there and it is a lot nearer the Deer Park. Another building with no outside space but that doesn't seem to bother them. I suppose it will also be expensive being right in the middle of Richmond.

The Magistrates Court site is a bigger site, close to the car park, quieter and far less polluted. London House is small, has no parking and is at one of the most polluted places in the whole of the borough with constant heavy traffic.
Not to mention it's nowhere near the Deer Park!

I think that would be a really good site for the school if they can sort out some form of playground, perhaps by rebuilding. There is currently no primary school in central Richmond and the site itself is not significantly smaller than Darell's which is two form entry so no reason why it could not house a one form entry school.

Much as I'm suspicious of this free school trust (in that it's sponsored by a company funded by Swiss business investors, little track record yet already a sizeable chain), I agree it's a perfect site for Deer Park School and would also address the problem for East Twickenham - only 15 minutes walk for them. Near Old Deer Park and swimming pool, next to its temporary site - which is a less controversial admissions point than London House - and the best transport links. If it's state owned land it's got to be cheaper than private property owned by a supermarket.

And Richmond Green makes a swankier playground than Manor Circus roundabout.

DfE appoints experts to buy ‘best value’ free school sites: . . the full details of their role have not been revealed . . Schools Week asked the DfE for further details about the group, such as whether the members will be paid, how they were selected, if it was a full-time job, and if they were independent of government, but no answers were forthcoming . .

The four members of the group are Elaine Hewitt, chief executive of NHS Property Services; Michael Strong, former executive chairman of CBRE Europe, Middle East and Africa; Philip Bell-Brown, group property director at Dixons Carphone; and Ric Lewis, a governor at King Solomon Academy in London and chief executive of Tristan Capital Partners, a group that describes itself on its website as “an independent London-based real estate investment management boutique” . .

It does make sense that sites are purchased now, when land is cheaper, for future school sites.

Even if the sites are not perfect they can still be sold for a profit in the future. That profit would then, I assume, be used to purchase the more suitable sites when they become available.

If the locations of these sites were made publically available then free school applications could subsequently be made with a particular site in mind.

It seems like a good idea to me. Land for services such as schools could be bought alongside land for new large-scale housing developments.

Hello ladies and gents - apologies for interrupting, we would very much appreciate your feedback here if you have a minute!

First Periods

This guardian article is worth a read. It is quite anti-free schools.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/free-market-schools-education-councils

He says: "Our education system is becoming an inefficient, socially segregated mess – all because central government stripped councils of their powers".

And: "Anyone who thinks such “nationalisation” of the school system will yield a sensitive and responsive public service is foolish. It will be state-subsidised segregation, sectarianism and “white flight”. It will be state-subsidised inefficiency."

It needs people with common sense too to find suitable sites for schools. Certainly those from the Education Funding Agency who purchased London House on the A316 at Manor Circus as a suitable site for a large primary school - the proposed Deer Park School - have absolutely no idea and are condemning our young people to be educated at these locations. Also, remember that it is us the tax payers who are paying for these foolish decisions.

WhittonMum1 yes, seems obvious really that the site for new schools should be known and guaranteed before the proposal itself is approved. Because the site location affects admissions points, which define pupils. If we'd known that Heathfield was the likely location for Turing House in advance, a fair admissions policy could have been explained and consulted on before anyone even applied. Now expectations are for the school to serve North Teddington, yet support originally came from Twickenham and elsewhere in Middlesex, and applications encouraged on the basis of a rumour of a site in Teddington. A shoddy way of planning. London House was not the location initial support for the school expected either, and not an appropriate admissions point in relation to other schools or need.

muminlondon2 exactly. You've raised a few interesting points there.

The original Turing House funding agreement and admissions consultation was not fair as the permanent site was not known when opinions were sought. The consultation had a relatively small number of respondents. When asked about moving the admissions point there were 82 yeses and 80 nos & don't knows. Roughly a 50/50 split yet they later conclude that the majority supported the move. I would say that their conclusion on that is somewhat biased.

Do you know if there is any evidence that the EFA even submitted a bid for Udney Park Road or was that all just conjecture?

applications were encouraged on the basis of a rumour of a site in Teddington Why, in your opinion, do you think that there are only a few students from Teddington in the 2015 intake?

We certainly weren't encouraged to apply on the basis of a rumoured site in Teddington. Some people might have applied for that reason but if they went along to the meetings they'd have known there were two sites and that they didn't know whether the udney park bid would be succesful. Its not fair to blame Turing House for the uncertainty but if the DfE are changing how things are done in future I agree that's a good thing.

Whittonmum it doesn't surprise me that there aren't many students from central Teddington as they can go to Teddington School. The black hole starts in Fulwell and Hampton Hill and for boys also in West Twickenham and Strawberry Hill. There are also kids from Hampton and Whitton at Turing though. That's why it makes sense to me to have the admissions point in the míddle.

Jellytoto Does it surprise you that there were also only a few students from Fulwell in the 2015 intake?

There are loads from Fulwell on the map, and Hampton Hill where we are. Fulwell girls can get Waldegrave but not so many from Hampton Hill.
As I've said before I know quite a few who jumped ship to go private or move house because of all the uncertainty so it would have been more otherwise. Some of them were very keen on Turing but lost their nerve.
I heard everyone who applied from Whitton got a place in 2015 even though it was 100% from the admissions point and a reduced intake of just 100 so I'd say the policy worked well. They've done the right thing in reviewing it again for next year but the school isn't even due to move to Whitton until 2018 for goodness sake.

It doesn't look like they've applied the oversubscription criteria at all. It's hard to say whether the policy worked well or not.

I must say most of the people I've talked to in Whitton/Heathfield were very surprised that there weren't more from Fulwell/Teddington. Especially as we keep hearing these words/phrases such as 'black holes' and 'desperate need' and 'huge demand'.

Everyone can understand that there is a need for a choice of good quality school places. It is also understandable that there will be areas where the only available school place will be a failing academy.

However, those 'black holes' are not just present in Fulwell/Teddington. There are areas of Whitton/Heathfield where the same is true. Except the need is twofold as it's not just the boys that don't have a choice.

And perhaps the need in Whitton/Heathfield is even greater as there are fewer who could afford to 'jump ship' to go private or 'move house' (presumably to purchase a property in a suitable catchment area).

People in Whitton have been fed a lot of misinformation on Facebook so its not a surprise they're feeling bruised but its rubbish that people in Whitton don't go private as loads do, and there are plenty of people over this side of the a316 who can't afford to. Where are we going to go when your local academy improves and we can't get in? We want Turing (or at least its admissions point) here because we're a long way from other schools not just because two of the ones we're expected to travel to aren't good.
That doesn't mean Whitton kids won't get in though. 80% from the admissions point could still serve Whitton as well as the guaranteed 20% so they Mateos even get two bites of the cherry, especially if the numbers go up to 200, but even at 150 too. And it will serve Hampton. If it was 100% from the site then Hsmpton kids wouldn't stand a chance and Fulwell kids could easily lose out to families from Hounslow.

I said 'fewer' and not that they didn't go private at all. That is not rubbish, there is data to support that statement.

If Twickenham Academy improves it will not matter which side of the A316 you live on as the oversubscription criteria is based on distance and does not give priority to those living on the Whitton side.

Why do you say your local academy when it is also the local academy for those living on the other side of the A316.

because we're a long way from other schools

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You want to bypass your local academy and want to prioritise the admissions over students living nearer to the school because you live further away from other schools.

Turing's policy is distance based too so there's no reason why the admissions point catchment can't spread over the A316, (or to Hampton). Even if it was 100% from the admissions point Whitton kids could still get in. The 20% catchment just gives them more of a guarantee because its an extra bite of the cherry.
I don't think a lot of people commenting on Facebook understand how distance policies work.
Turing's full this year with a waiting list so yes they must have applied their policy, but the distances stretched into Whitton (and Hampton where there were clearly more applicants than Whitton).

I have a theory. Call it rubbish if you like, I don't particularly care.

The demographics of the area are changing. It's becoming more gentrified and house prices have rocketed. There has also been a recession so demand for state education has increased as fewer could afford to go private.

However, the economy is improving. Newcomers to the area are those that afford 500k+ for a family home. They need a sizeable deposit and salary.

Families who can afford to invest a million pounds to buy a semi-detached home in suburbia can also afford to invest in their children's education.

So whilst short-term demand for state secondary education has increased due to the recession, long-term demand may decrease as these new families arrive.

Perhaps LBRUT realise this and are planning to put the school in Heathfield to meet this long-term demand. I'm talking decades not just the next few years.

Perhaps LBRUT got together with Turing House and agreed a 50:50 split a year ago when they knew about the permanent site. The Council may have offered this site on the condition that the admissions policy is changed. Maybe then they propose a consultation to make it look like a democratic process and not to upset certain characters.

If millions are spent building a school, then no-one wants that money invested foolishly by building it in a location that suits short-term needs only. How long does a school building last? 50, 100, 200 years - more?

What happens if, in two years time, new councillors are elected, get-together and decide to sell the golf-course land in Fulwell. Who will buy it? This new government task-force? Doubt it as the school won't be needed then.

I definitely think like muminLondon2 that proposals for free schools should be put forward only once a site has been secured. It is nothing but chaos otherwise.

I think fewer can afford private because all their money is going into their houses. Very few can afford both. Also the private schools have put prices up knowing they will still fill with people coming to work in london on expat deals.
I do think your conspiracy theory is rubbish

I don't think a lot of people commenting on Facebook understand how distance policies work

It is understood that when a school is popular it is oversubscribed and that students living closest to the school gain admission. It is not difficult to understand. What is difficult is why this policy is not applied fairly to every state non-selective, non-faith school.

Even if it was 100% from the admission point Whitton kids could still get in

This is not true for good schools around here that apply their oversubscription distance-based criteria. If students live 2 miles away, they do not get in. Even those living 1 mile away from some schools aren't guaranteed a place.