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.

I got the idea because it says on the consultation page that they were inviting particular individuals/groups to respond, and they specifically named the Church of England (CE) and Roman Catholic (RC) Diocesan Directors of Education.

It says they sent the consultation details to:

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

If nobody knew the permanent site then these 'relevant' and 'local' groups I assume are local to the Fulwell/Teddington area given that nobody had any idea that it would be in Whitton. The consultation was not sent out to groups in Whitton/Heathfield/Hounslow/Hanworth was it?

They have to follow some sort of statutory process so the rules might say they need to include faith leaders. It includes all schools so whitton schools would have been included and should have cascaded it to parents and Hounslow LA would have got it as it says neigjbouring authorities.

I'd be very surprised indeed if the rules for a non-faith school required them to consult with faith leaders.

should have cascaded it to parents

Well maybe it was cascaded to parents from some schools and not others. We had no word of it via school here in Whitton for either consultation.

Whittonmum - I read that as consulting a diverse mix of interested parties involved in the local education scene rather than targeting church schools for pupil recruitment.

The idea for the school came about during the fiasco that resulted in St RR being allowed to open as a fully selective school - by-passing the admissions laws of the Education Act that academies and free schools have to abide by; benefiting from a site that the council spent millions on; the council denying that there was schools place crisis was looming in order to get approval via the VA route. Now that was real deception. And you wonder why I don't trust a word that comes from the council on any of this!

a diverse mix

Non-Christians might not see that list as being truly diverse.

That does sound like a terrible mess bluestars, I can understand your frustration and I'm glad to hear that TH will be a non-selective and inclusive school as a result.

Fair point Whittonmum but you see what I mean :)

whittonmum the history and context of all this really is on these threads. I am not going to go back and quote chapter and verse as it is history and I have a life but if you want to know about the issue of the involvement of faith groups in the decision making process on schools this gives you a flavour. www.richmondinclusiveschools.org.uk/files/view/press-releases/press-releases-2011-2012/Press_Release_-Richmond_Inclusive_Schools_Campaign-_25_May_2012_final.pdf Incidentally there was a Turing representative on that scrutiny committee and they abstained from the vote on the Clifden site because at that point it was their preferred site and they acknowledged they had a prejudicial interest, unlike the representative of the Catholic church (and now Chairman of St RR's governing body).

The Councils political stance on issues related to Turing is in stark contrast to their continuing total support of St RR which set up a school that is totally exclusive of it's local community. It really is political.

which is totally exclusive of it's local community

I had no idea that Twickenham locals were completely excluded from St RR. That is truly awful. Surely they would admit local children from St James's, St Edmund's, Sacred Heart, St Elizabeth's?

I can truly empathise with that and those behind the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign obviously put in a lot of effort into campaigning. At least Turing are offering 20% of places to the local community I suppose.

abstained from the vote on the Clifden site because at that point it was their preferred site

Would Turing have operated a distance-based admissions policy without an admissions point if the permanent site were in Central Twickenham?

Obviously local baptised Catholic children and in due course those who took up the 10 places in the primary classes that are allocated on distance and wish to proceed into the senior school are included but given less than 10% of the population are Catholics (and probably less who could meet the over subscription criteria, which of course don't and can't measure actual faith ) then yes from the point of view of Central Twickenham parents a chance for 20% of the places in their local school to be allocated on distance doesn't seem so bad in the face of the looming black hole that gave rise to Turing in the first place.

For a sobering lesson in how the Planning process doesn't protect local residents then Whitton residents might like to view the way in which the recent St RR planning application progressed and the webcam of the Planning Committee meeting where they were leaning over so far to accommodate St RR as to be horizontal. The Planning Committee basically took the word of a local resident who just happens to be a St RR parent and governor that the school was not causing traffic problems over those of the 80+ residents who had highlighted the problems in their objections, and his assurance that the class reps would ask parents to be considerate . The Riverside Councillor Susan Chappell commented that the behaviour of parents on local roads were bound to cause significant problems for residents but it was all nodded through, as residents expected it to be, anyway. At least in Turing you will have a school that aims to be considerate of its local community, indeed in one of its first newsletters asked parents to be considerate and where possible travel to school by public transport. Something the representative of St RR admitted had yet to happen. You can also be sure that the Conservative Councillors won't under Lord True's orders to put the school first.

At the time that the Clifden site was being considered Turing were indeed considering how admissions could be managed in a way that would make the school socially inclusive (not just an area of predominantly £1m houses) , meet the school place need and minimise the impact on other schools. That is all recorded on these threads somewhere as well.

If St RR opened its doors to non Catholics and Waldegrave opened its doors to boys I might change my mind that Turing has the right policy. Its those exclusions that have made things difficult for families in my area and why Turing House was created to help fill the gap. St Edmunds kids travel from Whitton to Twickenham for St RR so of course non Catholic kids have to travel the other way. The new RUTS school will fill with a high number of Whitton kids too so my area won't even get priority for that.

Whittonmum - You're right that it is truly awful when you live next door to a state-funded school but have no hope of getting your child in unless you attend a specific church. It's a completely different type of selection and not really comparable to TH offering 20% distance from the school gate.

I really hope that common sense prevails and TH can move to Fulwell, presumably then all of this debate can die away.

By the way as a long time dog walker over the site next to David Lloyd, who had the promise from Councillor Samuels that there would always be public access to the golf course and scrubland which had become a political hot potato and was given in response to widespread pressure from local residents (and his voters) I have assumed that his wish to keep his promise has a lot to do with that site not being forthcoming for Turing. But that is all back on the threads too, and a thread on the main board which ran around the time that Turings opening had to be postponed for lack of a long term site after the Udney Park negotiations fell through. At that point the Whitton site was not included in all the speculation on possible sites in the hope it would put pressure on the Council to declare the Fullwell site available and enable the school to open after all

I really hope that common sense prevails and TH can move to Fulwell

I agree. But if the Council and TH have submitted data to the DfE which a shows significantly higher need for school places around the Whitton site.

I think it a right mess and they've shot themselves in the foot.

MuminLondon2 CSD - capital spend data

they've shot themselves in the foot.
I don't think so. The EFA doesn't seem to care where the school sites are located as long as they're in the borough, just look at what's happened to the primary school sites. They will take the easiest option and that will depend on the planning advise they get from the LA. That's why it's so annoying that the LA won't comment on the Fulwell site.
But I fear Frustrated is right and the LAs reluctance stems from historic battle scares and old promises. There may still be time to save the day though and offer Fulwell to the EFA - it would be a vote winner in Whitton and Fulwell while adding some funds to the coffers.

"battle scars" even!

A lot of this is due to the EFA who seem to just buy up totally unsuitable sites in a panic without taking local knowledge into consideration. Prime example is London House at Manor Circus which the local people know is a totally unsuitable for a primary school. Local people should be consulted but everything is kept secret from them.

auntieC75 yes, exactly. The article that ChrisSquire2 posted a few pages back gives a bit of hope that this panic won't happen as much in the future at least.

Your writing style looks very familiar FrustratedofTW1. Are you Heathclif?

Thanks for the CSD explanation WhittonMum1. And interesting about the consultation being circulated to the RC and CofE Dioceses. We'll have to see what they say when the responses are published. Church schools do represent something like 300 of the cohort that would get priority over Whitton with the admissions point being nearer to Strawberry Hill, Fulwell and North Teddington. My guess is that the RC pupils would virtually all transfer to Catholic schools, though, which is why I thought the assessment of moderate impact on Catholic schools unrealistic. There could be a lot of CofE pupils though - I assumed that was an option that might have been considered for Turing House anyway, since RET primarily sponsors faith schools.

(MuminLondon unlikely to be the same person with two names on here as I was told not allowed to namechange on the local board when I asked to change to my mainsite MN username which I changed after the famous MN security breach)

Yes, muminlondon2 and Turing said on their webpage that they will be reporting back on the results of the consultation in February so we'll expect to hear something shortly on that.

Yes MrsSalvo, I thought you couldn't change names either. Must be someone else with a similar knowledge of, or interest in, the private schools threads, RISC, the 'dog walkers/Cllr Samuels' story, planning issues for StRR, and habit of using crossings out and smileys.

Even the spelling mistakes are quite similar - 'pursue/persue', etc. Perhaps I've been watching too many Scandinavian noir dramas on TV!