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.

The Heathfield was clearly known by Turing House before March 2015 because of the impact assessment and though leaked, was not confirmed until late August 2015. That's a fact.

That the UPR site was intended to be sold for a commercial price and therefore it was very likely the EFA would be outbid, was clearly known in February 2015 according to Chris's link.

That an LA owned site was discussed with the council in October 2014 is a fact reported by Turing House. That Hounslow was the local authority owner rather than Richmond is ambiguous: 'one of these has the benefit of the Local Authority owning the freehold'.

There is no evidence that the old Twickenham Golf Club was ever up for consideration - this is your conspiracy theory, unless you have proof? That the council is not free to dispose of it is suggested by the Wikipedia entry that says that:
'In 2002 the site was transferred to Stax Leisure Ltd, (later acquired by David Lloyd Leisure), on a 125-year lease and was sub-let to the Gobafoss partnership, part of AXA in 2005.' The evidence for this was here.

Even if this was the site TH had in mind when it consulted on changing the admissions point, after which there was a speedy change of plan for Heathfield - which I find absurd - Turing House still consulted on changing an admission policy when parents could not possibly have known anything. Bad, bad, TH.

But the parents knew about heathfield before August, can't remember when but it was before we had to make a decision, and the rumours in the rtt obviously led to discussion at meetings even before they were confirmes. I obviously know quite a few Turing parents and we all chose it with our eyes open, so your obsessive indignation on our behalf is franela a waste of time.
It's a great school and will be an asset to the borough so of course everyone's going to want access. I'm sure they get a lot of pressure from Hampton parents as well as Whitton parents. That's why the school should be in Fulwell, in the middle of the area and if it can't be then the admissions point is the next best solution.

What was the alternative mum? I guess they could have left it at 100% from the original point near Waldegrave until the site was announced and not consulted at all. But they have always said they want the point furthest away from other schools to minimise impact, so they did the right thing moving the point when the RUTS was announced didn't they? Would it have been right to sit on that change? And maybe they didn't know when the site would be announced. They've been burned so many times maybe they didn't trust the process. Better to make the change and get information out to parents as early as possible I say. Good, good, TH.

From what I can see the free school process is fundamentally flawed. It's a nightmare of a policy that is changed/tweaked by the DfE every year (like most education policy) - constantly moving goalposts. How anyone has the tenacity and determination to stick with it and manage to open a school is beyond me. I'm eternally grateful to the team who set up TH, I agree with Jelly that it's a great school and an asset. I'm not saying that every decision made has been perfect but how is that possible given what they have had to work with? TH is doing the best it can in a disorganised and shambolic mess of a system that we only have a helicopter view of.

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?

It certainly looks like the RET/Turing have submitted data showing demand around the temporary school site and significantly higher demand around the permanent school site in order to have their application based on the Whitton site approved by the DfE.

There might be an assumption that, like most other schools, a school would have a 100% distance-based admissions policy. If not, based on this data you would have expected the admissions proportions to be either equal or be weighted heavily towards the permanent school site. However, it's exactly the opposite.

From what I can see the free school process is fundamentally flawed

Absolutely.

Doesn't the basic need data comes from the council not the school? Maybe the council made it look like the need was higher in heathfield to make a case for it being there not Fulwell because they wanted to keep the fulwell site for something else (housing?). But the numbers for the RUTS school aren't included or the two new secondaries opening in hounslow in 2017 so the picture will have changed since then anyway.

But the parents knew about Heathfield before August

No they didn't. I'm a parent, and I just saw lots of rumours about other sites still being possible. There hadn't even been leaks when the consultation was run. The consultation wasn't just for TH parents - it was for me, for WhittonMum1, for the wider community at neighbouring schools impacted by TH, for teachers, for prospective parents trying to make sense of the shifting landscape. And we were kept firmly in the dark. At the very least they could have waited one more year, until all the parameters could be understood, in order to engage in a meaningful consultation. Now they are rerunning that consultation. Let's hope that they report the responses honestly.

Kingston Community School Impact Assessment Data is here.

It does look like the data comes from the council.

Maybe the council made it look like the need was higher in heathfield to make a case for it being there not Fulwell

LBRUT do not support the proposed Turing admissions policy. If this data comes from the Council, it is very clear as to why they do not support it.

they did the right thing moving the point when the RUTS was announced didn't they?

The plan for a school at Richmond College was known as early as 2013 before TH submitted its application.

A Fulwell site for Turing House? The thing only remotely tangible to suggest that as a possibility is this Tweet.

If they actually wrote to @True_Lord I'd love to see the response .

DH says David Lloyd have to manage that land, including the teens and dog walkers but can't build on it because its MOL so I bet they'd be pleased to get shot of the lease and have a school next door instead.

Muminlondon as there were two sites being considered when TH last consulted and they weren't allowed to discuss either of them I still think your self righteousness is rificulous. They did acknowledge the problem and they're consulting again now. Its not as if they can consult whenever they want. Apparently there's a DfE timetable they have to follow.
I think they've already got the right policy and even if they haven't they've got time to change it before 2018 when they're due to move.

I still think your self righteousness is rificulous
It doesn't matter what you call me. You are equally dismissive of LBRuT and of the 50% of respondents who disagreed with the policy last time, even without knowing the true facts.

They only reran the consultation because of the backlash from local representatives and publicity. Yet they made no effort to revise the policy in this recent consultation and it still applies for the 2016 intake.

Perhaps when evaluating the consultation responses qualitatively as well as quantitatively they will be more flexible than you are about accommodating the range of views of community stakeholders. It would be wise for them to get the LA onside for the planning process.

I don't see any evidence that TH wouldn't have run another consultation. Nothing to say that their hand was forced. And I take what the council say with regards to the admissions policy with a very large pinch of salt. Their public announcements are politically driven, they certainly seem to be quite schizophrenic when it comes to TH and all free school sites. What will invalidate the new consultation is if the Fulwell site actually looks like a real possibility.

On another note, there was a small piece in the not-so-local rag about £80million for school places over the next 5yrs. Is that new money? Apparently it's to "contribute towards 3,477 primary places, 900 secondary places and 1,480 sixth form places across the borough." How does that work?

From this latest Council statement it is very clear what their position is. If you, bluestars, wish to 'take it with a very large pinch of salt' then that's up to you. This is not a politically driven announcement, all political parties are in agreement on this.

Council responds to Turing admissions policy

Release Date: 15/01/2016

Reference: P023/16

Richmond Council has written to the Governing Body of the newest secondary school in the borough to respond to its proposed admissions policy for 2017.

The school is currently based at a temporary site in Queens Road, Teddington. It is due, subject to planning permission, to move to a permanent location in Hospital Bridge Road, Heathfield in September 2018. They are currently carrying out a consultation on their proposed admission arrangements for the 2017/2018 school year.

The Council has replied, voicing its firm position that the admissions arrangements must be made far more balanced. Under the current 20:80 criteria, 80% of allocations are prioritised for ’distance’ applicants who live closest to their ‘admissions point’ in Fulwell. This is two miles from the new school location. Under current criteria, only 20% of places will therefore be for those who live closest to the site in Heathfield and Whitton.

In addition, the Council has commented on the school’s proposal to increase the number of places by an additional 50 children in 2018.The Council feels that, at this time, the proposal would lead to an over-supply of places in the western half of the borough. This is because another new secondary free school, The Richmond upon Thames School, which will provide 150 places per year, when it opens in Twickenham in September 2017.

Cllr Paul Hodgins, Richmond Council’s Cabinet Member for Schools, said:

“Since the Government gave permission to Turing House School to open, the Council has been very supportive and tried to assist them to find an appropriate site.

“The introduction of Turing House School should be an overwhelmingly positive addition to the borough. I have always said that if a balanced and fair admissions policy can be agreed, fully respecting the community in which it will be based, I am confident that it will be. Therefore, I urge the Governing Board of Turing House School to review their proposals and implement a policy that is fair to everyone. Ensuring that it is in line with the current and future demands of the Heathfield and Whitton communities and the western half of the borough as a whole.

“With respect to increasing the school numbers at this stage, in 2017 we have another secondary school opening in Twickenham. Together with the existing places available at Turing and other local schools, this will provide plenty of places in this part of the borough. I would worry about all schools managing with a short term oversupply. I think this could be reviewed in future years as the two new schools and improvements at our two sponsored academies take root.”

Mum I don't know where you get that 50% didn't support it last time. I've just looked and it was 138:13 for the principle of an admissions point, 115:24 for a 80% v 20% split and 83:61 for moving the location. This time they're only consulting on the 80% v 20% split. The result might change but that's why they're consulting. They said they were going to consult ages ago when they announced the site location.

Whittonmum the council have changed their view from last time when they said they didn't like the principle of an admissions point to this time when they just say the split should be more balanced.

for a 80% v 20% split and 83:61

You've forgotten the other 19 that didn't say yes because they responded "don't know". Makes it 82:80, 50% said yes.

It says: 9 of those responding “don’t know” made comments. Most of these made reference directly or indirectly to needing to know the permanent site location in order to comment

My mistake, you are right that was 50% yes for moving the location.

It was 115 yeses for the 80/20 split, 24 said no and 23 said they don't know. So 70% of the total said yes.

These were the people who were sent details of the consultation. How many were privy to insider information on the permanent site location?

^the local authority;
all maintained schools in Richmond-upon-Thames;
local parents and others who have registered on our Mailing List;
local community groups;
neighbouring local authorities;
schools in neighbouring areas;
the local Admission Forum;
Church of England (CE) and Roman Catholic (RC) Diocesan Directors of Education;
Borough Councillors and Members of Parliament;
relevant Trusts and Associations^

No it doesn't. First you've misquoted me by chopping out part of the sentence. The figures for supporting the 80% v 20% split are 115:24, not 83:61.
The 83:61 figure is for moving the point and even if you assume the 9 don't-knows that made those comments would switch to "no" the ratio is still 83:70 not 82:80. The other 10 don't knows can't be put in either camp.

Sorry, yes that was mistake. The 10 who didn't comment could go either way it's true.

Nobody knew the site details during the consultation. The rumours that muminlondon linked to came out later. The local authority would have known about their own recommendation I guess but it sounds like they just gave a response in line with other local school policies rather than making a detailed case.

Were they inviting opinion from CE and RC Diocesan directors of education because RET/Turing are particularly interested in recruiting pupils from local church schools I wonder?

Nobody knew the site details during the consultation

Nobody at all?

It says this: "At the time of the consultation it was not possible to disclose the possible locations of the planned temporary or permanent sites because of sensitive commercial negotiations. The introduction to the consultation acknowledged this as follows: “We hope to be able to release more site detail during the period of the consultation, so you may prefer to wait a little while before responding. However, if not then you may use the comment fields to express any reservations. All responses will be considered in the light of the information that was public at the time, and our anticipated permanent site location will be taken into account in any decisions, as will the relative need for places in the area of the site.”"

Whittonmum - we will have to agree to disagree about the councils motives. But where did you get the message that TH are interested in recruiting from local church schools? I know RET have other church schools but TH is non-selective and inclusive, it has always been one of the main drivers for the school.