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.

And another local Ofsted report to note in neighbouring Hounslow is Kingsley Academy which Requires Improvement. It was previously Hounslow Manor School, judged good before becoming an academy as part of AET.

Kingsley Academy received £16 million under the Priority School Building Project but last year it was reported that the new Sikh free school, Nishkam, which opened a mile away, could affect the long-term viability of this school.

And a couple of news item on executive pay in the education sector:

£220,000 for the CEO of AET

£9.5 million for the founder and chairman of the Harrodian.

I wonder how much they pay their teachers?

Nick Whitfield seems to be good value in comparison, on £148,263-per-year - he is responsible for several thousand more children and two whole London boroughs, after all. Not to mention social services and all the statutory obligations such as SEN provision, etc.

MrsSalvo not one of the Barnes parents offered TA was prepared to have their 11 year old make that journey, whatever the educational proposition.

The lack of options for Barnes parents means that they have no choice but to opt for RPA. If I lived in Barnes and had a low-achieving child, I would be in despair at having to send her to RPA, where only 14% of low achieving DC made expected progress in maths . This compares to 33% at Christ's, for example which itself does not sound great, but give a child twice the chance of achieving ( not even exceeding) its potential.
Astonishing that RPA claims it is the choice of many more parents, when proximity is still its only advantage, and advantage that is hardly likely to encourage the HT to get out of her complacency and self-congratulation up her game.

For low attainers, it's much harder to make three levels of progress so it's not that exact a comparison - that's why it's been called a very silly measure. It depends on starting points but it's not clear where the low attainers were within the original L3.

But it gets even odder if you use Pupil Progress VA (best 8) - Prior Attainment though it will be nearer to the Progress 8 measure. RPA is similar to the other sponsored academies for higher attainers but on the 'low' attainers while it is also below average, there's a marked difference between Hampton Academy (above average - third from top) and Orleans Park (bottom of the table).

And then you look at progress results at Clarendon School, and start to wonder if the large cross-over between SEN and 'low attainment' at KS2 means that it is fairly meaningless and even unfair to compare on this measure without a lot more context.

If you are the parent of a low attainer tho' you need your child to have the best chance of making progress. Sure it will be hard for the school to teach the pupils so that they make expected progress, but that is wha they are there for, rather than relying on getting in a cohort that is 'easier to teach' and not addressing the teaching & learning issues.
Does surprise me that people are prepared to make excuses for schools, rather than holding them to account.

I wouldn't make excuses, but as a parent it can be difficult to interpret the data.

Although I'd say that for 2014 Ark Putney's progress data is much better in comparison. I'd look there instead. There isn't a watchtower and barbed wire fence between Richmond and Wandsworth.

Mrs Salvo you do seem to be a lone voice with such a negative perspective on RPA compared to what I am hearing from parents and governors, and indeed has been posted on various threads on here. It does sound as if you have a personal perspective, as indeed you seem to have on Teddington and Waldegrave , where I know teachers with very different perspectives particularly on Waldegrave. However they would never share them in a public space like this because they are loyal to their pupils and all their colleagues who work so hard to make these schools ones that parents have confidence in.

Perhaps it is just effective marketing sites.google.com/a/aetinet.org/richmond-park-academy-website/news/academy-news/rpacommunicationsmanagertellingithowitis

In the end parents need to go and look and decide for themselves whether a school feels like the right environment for their child, and if not, they go back to the old options, Tiffin, moving, going private via the ridiculous tutoring rackets factories or searching further afield for schools where they can find spaces, something they do far more than in most other boroughs, often though it puts strain on finances and family life.

Heathclif Ark Putney is only 3 km from RPA - it really is a local school, too.

Don't exaggerate the numbers going out of borough from Richmond - it's very average on that score (Table 1) and has never been as bad as Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith, Merton, Wandsworth, etc. where many more go out of borough. There was a 5% increase in StRR's first year of opening of the number remaining in the borough - Catholics used to be the largest group leaving, but that may have changed.

Marketing is fine if it is purely a frivolous commodity that doesn't affect people's life chances. It is dangerous if it is used to persuade people that a school is as good as a nearby one, when it isn't.
And being loyal to a school is rather less than honourable if it is to protect vested interests and jobs, and misrepresents the facts.
There are many aspects of Richmond Schools which are positive, but pretending that some schools don't have an awful long way to go does a disservice to those whose education depends on them.

mum I agree, the biggest skew in figures compared to other boroughs, is not people going out of borough, not that many opportunities exist to get into good state schools out of borough for most, but the proportion of people moving or private. And there is no reason to suppose that out of borough schools in Hammersmith, Hounslow, Kingston are not under the same pressure from increasing numbers applying, except where there is a new school. All very well assuming Barnes parents will have a chance of ARC Putney but we don't know that. It is certainly not the case that waiting list places are materialising at this stage. And I assume you can empathise with a 10 year old who has been to the local school and thought they were going there with their classmates and then finds they are all looking forward to it but they have no idea where they are going. Or indeed the pupil tutored for years who waits to hear if they have "succeeded" or "failed"

MrsSalvo Marketing is about communication, everyone does it, from the local hospitals to local government. It is partly the misleading spin from LBRUT that spawned these pages, trying to communicate a misleading message not backed up by reality will misfire. People will undermine your message which is probably why, allegedly, politicians read these pages. Some local schools are not as good as others by all sorts of measures, but ultimately it is about parents going there and knowing instinctively whether it is what is right for their children and being convinced to invest their trust in them. On that measure the result is very apparent. Parents in Sheen never had any other choice, unless the could access Christs or indeed ARC so 46% increase in applications in one year last year shows that something changed. I have no personal investment in the school but I am certainly happy to hear Sheen parents feel RPA is the option I would have liked.

I think ARK Putney, and Elliott school its predecessor, has been as undersubscribed for years as RPA/Shene. 2015 applicants were all offered a place. Maybe it's because of the frenzy around entrance tears around other Wandsworth schools and the fact that it's close to Roehampton and diverse social mix. But even those who are sceptical about sponsored academies and chains admit that ARK is one of the most effective while half of AET schools are inadequate or require improvement. Ofsted made the point that its geographical spread is too wide and capacity for support is limited, and as a 'good' school RPA is unlikely to be a priority for improvement. So it is up to the headteacher there.

As for the other points you have made about the disappointment of not getting into a local school - yes you are right, but the spin and strategy for waiting before putting on an extra class was decided by the school not the council.

'Entrance tears' = 'entrance test' but perhaps autocorrect got it right!

ARK Putney isn't the only Wandsworth school that may have places - see 2015 and also previous years' applications stats. The more fiendishly complicated the admissions policy, the more popular the school (but not necessarily better).

Ashcroft is one of a number of schools that has a banded intake (as does Hammersmith Academy) but its 2014 initial cut-off for Ability Band B is double the distance of Ability Band C.

What is revealing is how that changes between March and end of July. Band A cut-off suddenly moves from 2241m to 3539m, whereas Band E stays exactly the same at 1867m. Chestnut Grove changes even more dramatically: here, the cut-off distance more than trebled between March and July 2014 for Band A - from 1954m to 6148m - although Band C only moved from 2161m to 2411m. Very cruel for friends growing up on the same street who would like to go on to the same school. But it also shows how the highest attainers - more to be applying successfully to the private sector - get the best chances.

What would the difference between March and July cut-off look like for RPA, I wonder?

For MrsSalvo - the 'Additional Measures' and 'Attainment' measure seems very clear: average grade per GCSE per pupil per ability level (from low to high prior attainment).

Richmond Park Academy E- D+ B-
ARK Putney Academy D- C B
Teddington E+ C- A-

It may still not be a fair comparison as the proportion of 'middle' attainers at the various sub-levels 4c to 4a varies according to the school. But Ark Putney has no more of an advantaged intake than RPA, and much less than Teddington, so the comparison is interesting.

MuminLondon - I agree, I think what is interesting is the comparison, rather than the absolute figures. And for the comparison to be used to raise questions to be asked- not to be seen to be giving any answers.
So I would use this type of data to ask question of the schools.
For example, I know another school in Streatham which has a similar intake profile to RPA - was hugely disadvantaged, but then as catchments became smaller now has a much less disadvantaged intake in Y7 and in the 2015 incoming cohort. They have actively address the low-attainer issue and have substantial, demonstrable, effective measures in place to ensure those low attainers make at least expected progress.
I would ask the question and not be impressed if it was brushed off and excused as a prior cohort issue. Would expect to be told what concrete actions have been taken where the data has shown anomalies.

Not sure if you've all seen this article. Interesting in the context of free schools.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/sweden-schools-crisis-political-failure-education?CMP=fb_gu

School census statistics published. Interesting to note:

1.8% of Richmond's Reception age pupils attending schools in other LAs - lowest in London. But 9% of places are taken by pupils from other LAs - higher than average.

17.3% of Y7 resident pupils are attending secondary schools in other LAs. This is down from 27% in Y11 and 23.5% in Y9.

Y7 is particularly full this year – there are over 300 more pupils in Y7 compared to Y11, half of whom are at St Richard Reynolds.

Sixth forms: there are 560 Y12 pupils in 8 schools, so an average of 70 which is small. Waldegrave and Orleans Park both have over 100 pupils, but RPA and Twickenham Academy have 33 or less.

Richmond has the one of the lowest proportions of 'minority ethnic' pupils in London. It has the lowest proportion of primary children on FSM (8.4%, London average 22.6%) and the hugest number of private school places after Kensington and Chelsea (1 in 3, as opposed to 1 in 9 in London and 1 in 14 in England).

Bellevue Place Education Trust's free primary school in Barnet has referred the choice of site to a full meeting of council, citing 'public feeling' and opposition to giving up playing fields for the school.

Cllr Moore said: ...“They could and should have brought it through the process earlier, to properly allow for these views to be expressed. Our members clearly, after hearing the debate, felt they were concerned there had not been a wider debate. ... “They cannot be surprised when they know the amount of public feeling about the site.”^

Meanwhile, expansion plans for the site of BPET's school near Maidenhead, Braywick Court, have been recommended for refusal by the village council.

And free school site news in Hounslow: a primary free school in Brentford set up by David Cameron's former head of policy, Floreat Brentford, has been granted permission to install prefab buildings on a temporary site on Metropolitan Open Land. Opponents included Friends of the Earth and Hounslow Green Party. However, this is only for two years.

Still no planning application from Bellevue Place Education Trust for Deer Park School planned for London House on the A316. There is plenty of local opposition to this very unsuitable site too. Money seems to be a higher priority than the health and safety of young children.

In the RTT today there's a piece about Deer Park School's temporary site at RACC in the Richmond and Twickenham Times, although the report points out that this was agreed in March and so is more of a PR piece than news (but an opportunity to print a picture of the headteacher).

‘Free school to open at college’

There's also a letter pointing out alternative sites for Deer Park School, although it seems to be blaming the council for this rather than the EFA. Also on that page is a letter about the traffic problems around St Richard Reynolds.

‘There are school site alternatives’ and ‘Busy roads’

The photograph in the RTT of the proposed permanent site for Deer Park School is TOTALLY misleading. Why have they not shown all the cars, buses and lorries which go past continuously all day.(Flights overhead too). Too embarrassing to show what an appalling site has been chosen to educate 420 primary school children with all its health and safety implications?

No follow up to the withdrawn Planning Application for Twickenham Green Primary either, that had a lot of objections on the grounds of the traffic and parking issues and that it was an unsuitable site for a school. Building has already started.

The Planning application for St Richard Reynolds has 57 objections so far almost all from local residents on the grounds of the impact on already congested narrow residential roads. There are over 70 letters of support but hardly any are local, and from parents living as far afield as Chiswick and East Sheen.

It is a senior school, junior school and Strathmore crammed on to the site so parking is minimal and there is no precedent in terms of local schools such as Waldegrave in similar sites. I have every sympathy with the need to cram schools into our crowded suburbs but the Council are really going to have to ensure that schools come up with innovative and effective travel plans to minimise the impact on local residents. As it stands the one submitted with the application manifests the usual disinterest in actually understanding the problem and coming up with any concrete actions to overcome them.