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.

Ah well, there you go then. Lol

People in Whitton have been fed a lot of misinformation on Facebook

Do you mean Whitton Against Turing House? Do you think every single person in Whitton believes everything they read on Facebook.

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

This, if the school is popular, I can agree with you on.

But why Whitton kids could get in if the admissions point is in Teddington but Hampton/Fulwell will lose out if the admissions point was the school site I do not understand.

I think fewer can afford private because all their money is going into their houses. Very few can afford both

I was thinking longer-term, the bigger picture if you like.

Not all, but generally speaking there are going to be more people living in expensive houses/areas that can afford/choose private education than in other areas.

WhittonMum All you could want to know of past history and school place forecasts is on these threads.

Somewhere there is a link to the tweet by the Teddington residents highlighting that Nick Whitfield the LBRUT Head of Education had confided to a meeting of Heads that a deal was all but sealed on buying Udney Park for Turing House. Chinese whispers got out and it then appeared as a rumour in the RTT putting Imperial in a very difficult position politically because their whole divestment strategy was controversial and they had hoped to do the deal covertly, the usual confidentiality demanded by the EFA was important to both parties. They withdrew from the deal as a result and later when they had fought all the necessary battles they had tried to avoid it no longer made sense to do anything but to put the fields out for open tender to get the maximum return, and it was communicated to Turing parents that the EFA had indeed put in an unsuccessful bid. The Teddington residents shot themselves in the foot since no doubt the developer with deep pockets will be persuing every legal angle to put the maximum density of luxury flats they can achieve on the site, a community school which would have shared facilities with the community (and indeed will with the community it ends up in unlike St RR who have dodged that bullet) would surely have been a better option.

The increase in forecast demand for school places in the borough doesn't just rest on the trade offs between the affordability of private / the availability of good state school places. Underlying it is a London wide increase in the birth rate, already being seen in the expanding primary schools. The availability of places in schools that have become good increase demand further but the original forecasts that saw demand for secondary school places increase 17% between 2013 and 2018 had no provision for parents being attracted back to the state sector by improving schools. The figure is even greater in Hounslow. Two new schools were needed on top of hopefully improved and full academies. And there is no reason that an increase in the London birth rate would slow down. So your conspiracy theory doesn't work.

What they will do when a full house of outstanding academies starts to attract more from the private sector remains to be seen. A black hole is already appearing on the Surrey side as a result of greater demand for the state schools there which were forecast to have adequate spare capacity. St RR (which of course has no distance based over subscription requirement at all and excludes most of the local community entirely, not so much as a netball club) has already attracted a significant proportion of their pupils from the private sector. Plenty of parents who live in £1m + houses in Teddington, East Twickenham, Richmond Hill and East Sheen are taking advantage of being in catchment for Teddington, Orleans etc which they presumably deem good enough state school places ( possibly because of the mortgages on the £1m houses), the waiting lists for the private schools always move significantly when parents secure state school offers and drop their private insurance. The Secondary Education pages manifest the increasing desperation and competition for private school places. It must alienate the Mumsnetters of the rest of the country when every January /February the pages fill up with threads on the local private schools. The private sector also cannot just absorb increased demand, it takes time to create schools that meet the needs of local parents, especially those who are paying for it.

WhittonMum1 I think I've seen correspondence about Udney Park Road being an option, so I wouldn't stick my neck out and say it was all a deception, but the council statements - and Facebook campaigns/petitions - still suggest Heathfield was assessed as the most feasible and enabled their proposal to be approved as having a permanent site option at the fag end of the last parliament. Clearly it would have been the cheapest and largest state owned site with fewer grounds for planning restrictions (despite the fact that it's still got challenges ). So I would still bet that the proposal was approved in the basis that Heathfield was the most likely site.

Why, in your opinion, do you think that there are only a few students from Teddington in the 2015 intake?
In my opinion:

1. The admissions point is much further into the Teddington catchment area than the original one. (It now slightly prioritises Hampton pupils over Whitton pupils, should the cut-off be e.g. 3.5 km, and the overall priority for siblings irrespective of admissions would exacerbate that difference.) What we need to remember is that something like up to 20% of places get reoffered to those on the waiting list so the maps we see are not the final picture. Teddington pupils go to Teddington.
2. Some North Teddington pupils go to Waldegrave. With St James's and SMSP primaries in the area, a proportion of pupils will be going to faith schools (especially StRR, but Christ's is also an option for those using the train). Those who can afford to private have handy local options of LEH, Hampton Boys, Kingston Grammar especially if they want selective education.
3. Grey Court is increasingly attracting Teddington pupils too.
4. Turing House marketed itself heavily to Hampton Hill and Hampton Juniors, and while it also had links to Stanley through governors, a high proportion of those pupils have a good chance of Waldegrave.

What do you think?

Hello FrustratedofTW1, thanks for all of that.

However, you say that somewhere lost on a Mumsnet thread there is a link to a Tweet by the Teddington residents makes the Udney Park bid sound even more like a rumour than muminlondon2 first suggested. But if this is the case, then I do agree that those Teddington residents did shoot themselves in the foot.

Why would Imperial want to do a covert deal with the EFA but then later put it out for maximum tender? How do you know that their divestment strategy was controversial? Surely they would want the best deal no matter what. The money is surely being invested back into the University. They would be doing themselves a great disservice if they didn´t get the best deal for the land. If Udney Park would have been sold in an under-the-market-value covert deal, now that would have been controversial for Imperial.

You also say that they withdrew from the deal as a result. If you know this happened then when exactly did this happen? The Whitton site was only officially confirmed in August and as far as we all knew there were always two possible options until then.

To be honest muminlondon2 when you say ´I think I've seen correspondence´ it doesn´t help FrustratedofTW1 as you are usually so incredibly good with links, data and sources of information to validate your arguments.

muminlondon2 I think those four reasons for the surprising proportions that you have highlighted have pretty much covered it all. It is difficult to assess how popular a school is without the data for first choice applicants and the waiting list. You would expect that the schools/areas where Turing House was marketing itself would receive a large proportion of interest/applications/demand.

muminlondon2 can you make any sense of this data?

WhittonMum1 yes, apologies for lack of rigour as I was typing on mobile on a train. The Udney Park Road site rumour was clearly planted in the RTT by the trust, RET, in February 2015. The funding agreement was signed in March 2015 but the impact assessment you link to - part of the required documentation for approval - clearly shows that Heathfield is the permanent site. This proves it beyond doubt. However, applications were encouraged before the funding agreement was signed - a grave flaw in the free schools process - yet the announcement of the site was withheld until 21 August by which time it was very late for parents to back out of arrangements for their children and for any meaningful engagement in a consultation over admissions.

I take it back - this was a deception.

Also the assessment of its impact on Catholic schools and Grey Court is ludicrous. Also disingenuous not to mention that the Tiffin schools are grammar schools.

I see that the impact assessment was uploaded by the government on 18 November 2015. I'm not sure how I missed this - I've searched for it in the past. Laura McInerney of Schoolsweek tweeted it at the time.

The 'rumours' were reported as this:

1 September 2014 - applications open for schools. Funding agreement not yet signed.
10 September 2014 - Turing House School rumours rife after Imperial College buys new sports ground
7 October 2014 - Autumn update: 'The Government, and the Local Authority, are now in confidential discussions over a number of potential permanent sites; one of these has the benefit of the Local Authority owning the freehold but has some very difficult planning constraints. However other possible sites are also being examined in detail before a decision is taken about which site to pursue. Local Authority planning officers, with the support of the Government’s Education Funding Agency anticipate making recommendations in late November to council cabinet members who will make a decision at that point.'
1 December 2014 - Consultation on Turing House opens, with change of admissions point closer to Teddington, and reduced number coming from pemanent site.
16 January 2015 - application deadline for Turing House.
27 January 2015 - consultation on admissions points/proportions closes.
3 March (?) 2015 - secondary school offers made by Turing House and through common application form to Richmond council
12 March 2015 - Funding agreement confirmed - this will have been approved subject to the impact assessment based on the permanent site location
23 March 2015 - Can anyone crack the code on Turing House School
13 April - Turing House School temporary site officially named after lease agreement secured - and permanent site location revealed
21 August 2015 - 'Russell Education Trust (RET) is pleased to announce the permanent location for Turing House School'
21 August 2015 - Turing House School to be permanently located in Whitton

Thanks for the timeline muminlondon2. I've just re-read the 23rd March RTT 'Cracking the Code' article and the comments.

One person posts a link to the school's website suggesting that Udney is very much a possibility.

"2:18pm Mon 23 Mar 15
BS_Twickenham says...
As it says on the Turing House site page, two potential permanent sites are under discussion, both of which would work well: www.turinghousescho.org.uk/site.php"

Whilst another says the Udney Park negotiations had already fallen through in 2014.

"9:12pm Sat 4 Apr 15
LizzyJ says...
Well I heard the EFA's negotiations over Udney Park Road last year did have the council's support but it all fell through because the press leaked the story b4 Imperial were ready for it to be public...."

This seems to be the RTT story that muminlondon2 alludes to: Imperial College sports ground "good for residential development": (Feb 06 2015) Up-for-sale Teddington Sports Ground has the "potential for a number of alternative uses", according to the estate agent handling its sale. . . advising potential suitors it would be ideal for developments, including housing and schools . .

So LizzyJ was right, all Udney negotiations fell through in 2014.

Applications to Turing House are submitted from parents from October 2014.

Council cabinet members made a decision in late November 2014 and Turing House carry on with their application with a Whitton site in mind as the permanent location. They prepare a detailed impact assessment based on this.

Meanwhile the consultation on admissions is launched in December 2014. However, those consulted are kept in the dark regarding the permanent location.

The results of the consultation and the impact assessment are put forward together with the funding application in March 2015.

Am I piecing this together ok muminlondon2?

muminlondon2 I´m trying to make sense of the first page of the impact assessment. I´m not au fait with all the educational acronyms.

It compares the local area level ´number of shortfall´ around the temporary (TW11 0LB) and permanent (TW2 6EN) sites.

Does ´number of shortfall´ mean how many places are needed?

Also says ´(R/Y7 only surplus allowed, CSD not included)´. I assume R/Y7 means either reception or year 7. CSD?

If I have interpreted it correctly the predicted shortfall for 2017/18 is 131 for TW11 0LB compared to 426 for TW2 6EB. For 2018/19 the shortfall is 319 in TW11 0LB and 682 in TW2 6EB.

muminlondon2 Do you have any idea how this data is calculated? Why would Turing House submit data which shows a significantly higher demand (3 fold/ 2 fold) around the permanent school site? I must have it completely the wrong way round.

Surely the impact assessment must take into consideration the proposed admissions policy but there is no mention of it.

I don't understand the problem muminlondon. All that ties in with what we were told - that there were two sites being progressed. The HBR one was always made out to be the default if the udney bid fell through so of course that is the one the funding agreement was secured on. We were told about the HBR site way before that August announcement. They made it clear the EFA had to approve all their communications about site but they let some information be sent to applicants earlier than it was released to the public.
And I don't agree TH was heavily marketed at HHJS. That's silly. We had the same info as anyone else. They had meetings at HHJS with the head's support because he knew how much TH was wanted by parents. Applicants from other primaries were invited too though.

Whittonmum what you're missing is that upr fell through twice. First in 2014 when it was leaked as the earlier poster said, and again in 2015 when it was on the open market.

WhittonMum1 yes, that's exactly how I would piece together the timeline - the Heathfield site was known to be the most likely permanent site offer even before the deadline for applications had closed or the new admissions policy consulted upon. However, this information was withheld from parents.

The Udney Park Road site was, however, leaked at key points in the decision-making timeline. Another date for you:

14 February 2014 'New school site secured?'

This was the first rumour about Udney Park Road, just before the opening of Turing House fell through, but three months after applications had been invited for places. It was denied by Imperial College, with other corroborating quotes from the EFA and council, but in contrast to the September 2014 story, no quote at all from Russell Education Trust. Sources were protected as 'anonymous'. The leak could not have come off the record from the council as it quoted on the record. At the same time, RET's very obvious omission implies that the anonymous source was close to the school. Again, this was a strategically important time and so, I would suggest, a strategic rumour.

I agree that the shortfall around the Heathfield site appears to be double that of the area around the temporary site. But I don't really understand how this data is calculated for this particular document. Perhaps that would have supported the approval of the permanent site if the DfE made the (erroneous) assumption that an equal proportion of pupils would come from that area?

CSD? 'Children's Services Department'? No such acronyms or data is used in the impact assessment for Gems Twickenham Primary so it looks like the inclusion of this data is somehow voluntary.

Surely the impact assessment must take into consideration the proposed admissions policy but there is no mention of it.

It's completely bizarre and shoddy planning not to take into account the admissions point.

I really don't want to fuel this but I take issue with the point that parents were in some way deceived. "very late for parents to back out of arrangements for their children" - this was not the case. Parents were kept well informed by TH on the uncertainty about the site TH was very candid about the situation in the meetings with parents. I never felt in any way hoodwinked or put in a difficult position with regards to timings. The TH application was in addition to the LA coordinated admissions form so everyone who was offered TH also had an LA offer. I certainly don't feel deceived.

As for UP it looks like it was on the table as a confidential sale in 2014 but then off when it was leaked. Then when it was a public sale in 2015 the EFA tried again and failed to secure it. I'm not going to pretend to know how the whole site process works but I think you overestimate the influence the school has. It is very much between the EFA, DfE and LA (although it looks like a game of pass-the-bomb with none of them wanting to take ownership). It's obviously a complete mess, not helped by the LA refusing to make public their stance on the plot by the golf course. With LA's under such huge financial pressure I'm really surprised that Richmond doesn't want to make a few bob by selling the land to the EFA, they're not going to be able to sell to anyone else.

I'm glad to see that the DfE realise the whole free school process is back-to-front. Hopefully future schools won't have to take the nightmarish journey TH has had to.

I can't make head or tail of the numbers in the impact assessment either.

That quote from oct 2014 is interesting because the site owned by the LA must be the fulwell one, begging the question (again) as to why it wasn't recommended by the planning officers.

I heard it was one of the lib dems that fuelled that story from feb 14 muminlondon though from what that earlier poster said there were leaks from other sources too. I'd say the last suspect is the school given it resulted in talks breaking down. Whoever leaked it was either malicious or stupid.

Just to add the 2014 application form to the timeline. This is the original association between the school and Teddington - but the admissions policy is clearly the original point near Waldegrave school, irrespective of site suggestions. It's been redacted but easy to work out the gaps:

Page 32: Admissions policy
A percentage (to be decided but 100% in 2014) of the remaining
places will be allocated to children living closest to the admissions point* for the school, measured by the shortest route by road or maintained footpath, accompanied as necessary, from the middle (the “seed point”) of their home, out of the front entrance, to this point.
our admissions point is at the intersection of two lines joining the four mixed community schools on the Middlesex side of the Thames; the first line from Twickenham Academy to Teddington School, and the second line from Hampton Academy to Orleans Park. The location is very close to Waldegrave School*, on the border between South and West Twickenham, and close to Fulwell and North Teddington.

Page 48: Premises
They are situated in the grounds of the , ().This would provide an inspirational setting for any school, but particularly ours with its Science & Engineering specialism. ... It is also where Alan Turing, for whom our
school is named, .

Alternative Options:
:is the freeholder for these two large golf courses centrally situated within our area of interest. They are both leased to golf clubs, but we think it would be worth investigating .
This large site is owned by .It is used for college sporting fixtures, as well as being hired out commercially. We think it would be worth investigating whether the college might be interested in allowing partial use of the site for a free school.
:This is an industrial site, of a good size, well situated within our area of interest. It is well known that would like to move out of this location, as it is unsuitable for their operation.
However, they currently do not have an alternative site to move to, so it is
unclear when that will take place.
: This site is not within our ideal area, but would be accessible by public transport.
It is a Grade II listed building, in extensive grounds, with sports facilities, and is currently occupied by the .
For a number of years they have been rumoured to be moving out. It is not clear if, or when, this will occur, but we think it is worth noting for investigation.

Whoever leaked it was either malicious or stupid.

I always thought it was Colin Mackinlay, a RET trustee or one of the parents on the steering committee. The leak sounded like someone very much in support of the school. I agree it was stupid, too.

The position of the LibDems seems very different a month later in the RTT report of 13 March 2014 when Stephen Knight said:

'The whole process of starting free schools is clearly seriously flawed. It was always a bizarre fantasy to be offering places for a non-existent school.

'Even if a site had been secured by now, it realistically takes four to five years to plan and build a new secondary school and the idea that you can provide all the facilities in the meantime in Portakabins or converted offices is simply unrealistic.'

because the site owned by the LA must be the fulwell one

There's no logic to that - the site owned by the LA was clearly the Heathfield one. In the application form I think the council is the freeholder of the Fulwell and Strawberry Hill golf clubs but a lease is a lease, and the council had no power to turf the golf clubs out.

Who said what when can be a fruitless line of investigation, parties are bound by confidentiality agreements and legal procedures. Ultimately the DfE has the final say on when announcements are made. I really can't see the school leaking the UP site, I just don't buy it. And I wouldn't assume that the council has one voice, it's quite possible for two sources from the council, one official line and one not, to be quoted. That's how local politics works unfortunately, what is said in public can be very different to what is said behind the scenes.

Why was " the site owned by the LA clearly the Heathfield one" ? The LA does not own the Heathfield site, a neighbouring LA does. I would expect the wording to make that clear. I'm with Jelly on this one and I think the LA owned site is the Fulwell one. The Fulwell site is not the actual golf course but a patch of MOL land beside it. It's not leased to the golf course as far as I know which is why it's such a mystery that the LA is not putting it forward.

The heathfield one isn't owned by the LA its owned by Hounslow, and the fulwell land behind David Lloyd doesn't have a golf course on it, its just scrub.

The most lógicas explanation to me is that the efa were pursuing the fulwell site in october 2014, but that in November the council officers recommended they look at the Heathfield site instead (easier planning maybe) In the meantime the udney Park site officially came onto the market so they went after it too.