Richmond Borough Schools Chat 8

[muminlondon2]

This thread follows on from Richmond Borough Schools Chat 7.

News and opinions on all the changes to schools in Richmond borough.

About the head going I also read comments on the whitton village site that the gcse english students found out they'd been doing the wrong syllabus and had all their predicted grades downgraded. Horrific.

On a more superficial note, what will they do about the LST logos embossed on the rendering of the buildings? Why did the DfE allow that to be part of the design?

Perhaps it should be left up there as a memorial? Lest we forget, and make such a stupid mistake as to betray two communities and their resisting teachers and hand over their schools to some private sector purveyors of Swedish educational dogma again.

I have never understood the snobbery about Whitton, the only advantage Twickenham has is fast trains. For families there are great facilities and we often crossed the great divide of the A316 especially for the playgrounds and Crane Park nature reserve (which played a big role in the creation of a Scientist in my family. I often took children there who were used to the relentless west London round of after school activities and it never failed to delight and inspire them, and for free apart from some cheap nets and a white washing up bowl for pond dipping).

Nothing wrong with Whitton at all as a place to live but it lacks the tree lined roads of large detached houses set in mature gardens occupied by prosperous upper middle class families that you find in Richmond Hill, East Sheen, Barnes, Strawberry Hill, Teddington, Hampton Wick, etc.

So if that is what you were brought up in Whitton is distinctly infra dig.

In case anyone is wondering, I live (and have lived happily for 40 years) in a gimcrack 1960 conversion flat in East Twickenham.

And whilst credit should go to the LEA for finally addressing the situation, credit should also go to the Turing parents who seeing the LEA were busy with their Catholic School project and were going to do nothing about the emerging need for community school places realised their vision of providing another community school on the model of Waldegrave and Teddington to meet that need and provided 150 sets of parents with another choice last year. I am sure that when in time with the right leadership and educational model Hampton and Twickenham Academy are also delivering what parents want then they too will be hugely oversubscribed.

Chris But most middle class families in Richmond and Twickenham live cheek by jowl in rows of Edwardian terraces, albeit in shades of Fowler and Ball. The twenties semis with gardens in Whitton are spacious in comparison.

Farrow and Ball

were going to do nothing about the emerging need for community school placed

Apart from the 150 pupils per year school that was planned at the same time on the Richmond College site, of course - it would have been difficult to announce this any earlier as it all depended on the approval of sixth forms and agreement of RuTC. While it's a very complicated project, at least the land has now been transferred to the council and the site is being planned. But Turing House has been a handy stopgap in the two or three years between places running short and the new community school opening . Any news about Turing's permanent home?

Yes, the local parents like BayJay worked hard on Turing House. The trust is run and controlled by a private company, however, so presumably there was a limit to what they could influence. It's to the credit of the local chair of governors at Turing House that she is prepared to put in time as an independent trustee of the 'white knight' taking over Twickenham Academy. It's quite a responsibility.

I suppose if the sixth form is not viable at Twickenham Academy unless pupils can access Hampton Academy, Richmond College or apprenticeships, there could be room for Twickenham Academy to expand temporarily or permanently if it had to.

mum The Council had forecast in 2010 that school places would run out by 2015. The announcement that the Clifden site had been purchased and earmarked for a Catholic VA school (VA, rather than an academy / free school so it could have exclusive admission and the latter would have had to offer 50% inclusive admissions) on the grounds that no new community places were suddenly regarded as not needed before 2017 was made in July 2011 sparking the subsequent controversy particularly amongst parents concerned they would be without school places after 2015. The announcement of the new community school for 2017 was not until March 2012. Turing came into being to fill a need that for 10 months the Council were apparently ignoring, and even when a new school was announced it would have been too late for those then Year 3/4 parents.

Sorry about the double negative "suddenly no new community places were regarded as needed before 2017"

mum If you have time to spare you read all about it in the topic BayJay started New Secondary schools for Richmond! (1000 Posts) on Wed 23-Feb-2011:

Richmond Council recently published a White Paper outlining plans for Secondary education in the borough. They want new 6th forms in every school, and would need to decrease current Yr7 intakes to accommodate that. To offset those decreases they are talking about creating two new secondary schools. One of those new schools would be a Roman Catholic school. . .

The first post of this conversation, which now comprises c. 7500 posts.

Chris I read them, at the time. As you say, the new community school was planned in the White Paper from the very start, although site wasn't revealed until later. It's become apparent we need another school, in Barnes. Very few of the Y7 cohorts were actually reduced by the way - they were undersubscribed schools anyway.

At the same time several private providers - i.e. IES, GEMS - were eyeing up Richmond as an opportunity to showcase their wares in the form of a new secondary, just as Kunskapsskolan had done by getting in on the New Labour academies act (it originally planned 30 schools). Michael Gove had already declared it a desirable borough for a free school. Seems all chicken and egg now, but by October 2010 'BayJay' had already gained a place on the Education Scrutiny Committee and at least one other connected with proposing Turing House was represented too. What they did achieve - via the discussions on this thread - was to shape the proposal that eventually surfaced, in the form of the RET offering, to suit local preferences - otherwise we might have had the Maharishis, or an IES profit-making disaster like the Breckland school. At one stage it looked like BayJay was sounding out a Catholic academy too - RET runs other faith schools so could have been interested, and I think I read somewhere that the RET founder was a governor at a Catholic school. So good for them if we were spared any of those options in the end.

mum several bits of history you are attempting to rewrite here.

• the Council explicitly dropped the plans for a second (community) school originally proposed as needed in the white paper alongside a Catholic VA school once they realised it might be a barrier to giving the Clifden site to the Catholic Church for a school. The whole crux for their case in the judicial review was that they had never really said a new community school was needed so there was no "want or need" for a free school for "ordinary children" and therefore they could establish a VA school to meet the "wants" of one privileged part of the community.

• bayjay was only ever suggesting what Michael Gove and Vince Cable also suggested, that the proposed Catholic School should be community minded in view of the concerns of the local community about school places and the privilege of a site at the centre of the community they were being given and open as an academy with 50% of the places inclusive. That was given the extreme stance of the Catholic Education Service hopeless enough. Nobody ever thought any organisation other than the Catholic Education Service would have any chance whatsoever of running it.

• the Turing parents identified a sponsor who would deliver their vision for an inclusive community school on the model of the existing outstanding community schools, and that is what has been delivered. There is no suggestion, let alone manifestation, that RET have ever diverged from that vision.

Some more links to the actual history for you. In October 2011 the Council were saying "it is unlikely that the increased demand in the primary sector will lead to additional secondary school places being required until beyond 2016 at the earliest, if at all." .
cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/documents/s27546/OS%20171011%20Education%20priorities.pdf

So there was no sign of any new non-faith school being created at that point.

Yet the eventual RTS application was justified in addition.to Turing House, not instead of it www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442450/W6MS63_-_Richmond_upon_Thames_College_Free_School.pdf): "Year 7 capacity within the nine existing schools and Turing House will be exceeded by 2016"

It was 2012 before RET were involved in the proposed Turing School. They were selected by the Turing parents after they had developed their vision for the school in the course of the events of 2011.

That history of the involvement of RET is here www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/questions4.php

several bits of history you are attempting to rewrite here
I never claimed to have those powers.

You're entitled to give your interpretation too, as a mumsnetter (although you address that with the passion of a political campaigner). While all these recent school developments haven't affected your children directly (not at secondary level), because they went to private schools and are now grown up, I follow developments because my teenager is still in the local state system and will be directly affected by new MAT arrangements.

I'm just not interested in resurrecting the RISC debate from the past, although where I revisit arguments, it's with the hindsight of knowing stuff now - and more about the actors in that debate - that I didn't before. BayJay argued for a Catholic academy in her original post. If it really wasn't something she was seriously proposing (at a time when only one site appeared to be available), it turned out to be a non-starter (straw man argument?) as dioceses wouldn't have backed it. This was one of the many interesting points made at an October 2011 Education Committee debate where Jeremy Rodell of RISC also spoke.

I always believed the council was justified in arguing that if a new community school opened too early, it would impact surrounding comprehensives - that has proved true so far with Turing House, as documented in the LST annual report stating the impact on Hampton Academy this year, being about 30 pupils down. It affects budgets, teaching staff, morale, and in consequence also the schools that are involved in the new MAT, one of which is also involved in the RTS school. But long term things may look very different as HA has new management, and its permanent site has never been in question.

mum I have no wish to dredge up history either but when you imply that the LEA always planned another school to meet the community's looming need for school places when they didn't because they were diverted by the Catholic school project, or that the Turing parents were ever focused on other than creating an inclusive school to meet the needs of the community for more school places, or that a compromise proposed by Gove and Vince Cable as well as by bayjay and RISC was anything other than just that, an attempt to pursuade the Catholic Church to compromise given the community's needs (which to a very small extent they did in conceding some inclusive places in a primary school that was neither needed or wanted) then I think with all the parents and residents coming to this issue without the benefit of knowing the background it is important that they do not get the impression that Turing was ever anything other than a response to the situation that arose by a set of principled and community minded parents, and the subsequent mess over sites something they are not culpable for.

Arguably the expansion in class sizes in the outstanding community schools offering additional places in excess of 30 was equally a factor in the shortfall of pupils at HA, by all accounts parents accepting those offers then created room at Turing for other parents who might either have gone private or to the academies.

Not sure why you feel the need to try to dredge up personal details, the mumsnet rules are clear that is unacceptable.

You posted those details under a previous name, and refer back to all the same arguments you made under that name. I didn't reveal the gender or schools you'd previously given. However, please report the post and get it removed if you're uncomfortable with anyone knowing even the details I did refer to. I'd argue that our own experience and stake in local state schools gives context to a discussion about local state school developments, but of course that does not include details that might identify us.

So here's more news on the judicial review over the Nishkam school on MOL at Osterley in Hounslow - it's fixed for 5 July. This is just about process, but it may have a bearing on Hounslow's transfer of MOL land in Heathfield to the EFA for Turing House.

And now we have a new mayor who I understand gives planning approval on these issues.

Speaking as a Turing parent muminlondon's constant sniping seems very removed from reality. But I also think Frustrated's championing seems unnecesary too and just encourages muminlondon to be more vindictive.

Well, I for one certainly appreciate the links back to the historical discussions. It's important to remember the drivers for the decisions at the time, I find it all fascinating in a nerdy kind of way... :)
It would be a great shame if the discussion closes down due to disagreements.

Yes, I can't really follow all the ins and outs of your disagreement here and I started following the discussion some years ago although can't remember exactly when. One thing I do remember well was that there were predicted to be more children needing places in state secondaries than appear to have materialised by now. Turing House was not originally conceived to be a school for children in Hampton who wanted to avoid HA or even to overlap much with TA catchment but to plug a hole in the Fulwell area for children who had no place at all especially boys who traditionally went to Teddington but could no longer get in. I think the LST stewardship of TA and HA has been more disastrous than envisaged in 2011-12 so more children have chosen to go elsewhere.

We need to clear about the types of school we are talking about.

Community schools are controlled by the local council and not influenced by business or religious groups.

It is also worth considering what an 'inclusive school' and an 'inclusive education' really means.

jellytoto point taken

LProsser Actually those increased number of children have materialised. The number of applicants according to the admissions forum minutes this year was 1809 (last year 1742) cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=638&MId=3872&Ver=4 and the number predicted in the original Council forecasts - page 9 here cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=638&MId=3872&Ver=4 was for take up of 1785 in 2016.

The difference is that the Council were predicting that capacity would be 1780 including a Free School offering 100 places rising in 2016 to 1930 as a result of a new community school whereas there are actually 1842 places as a result of 62 additional places in the community schools. They were also predicting that the spare capacity would be at RPA with only 115 of the 180 places taken up in 2016 whereas the capacity is at the academies.

So overall the trend has been realised it is just that the unpopularity of certain schools materialised in a different part of the borough.

What is concerning now is that parental confidence in TA will have taken a huge knock and will take a long time to recover, and likely to see an exodus of pupils if they can find a space elsewhere, as well as falling applications. The incoming team are unproven - Assal Ruse the Actring Head has only been DepHd for a short time, Philippa Nunn is clearly keeping a distance, using the excuse that she does not have mixed experience, thus protecting the Waldegrave Brand. The Teddington head who also has masses to do at this own school will be overstretched. And there will be an exodus of staff, after the scathing comments by Ofsted, I imagine they can't wait to get out. So looks like it will be a while in the wilderness.

And this can only feed the sense of injustice of Whitton parents re Turing House.