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.

Yet despite the way they have marketed themselves as a Teddington/Fulwell school, there were as many applications from Hounslow (10%) as from Teddington (10%), and more from Heathfield/Whitton (11%) than from Fulwell and HH (10%). And demand from West Twickenham in the middle, who would have had good access from the original admissions point. Lots of noses pressed against the glass but not much interest from Teddington after all.

Whittonmum I think you are being naive if you think there is actual political will behind the MPs and Councillor's posturing. Since this, unlike St RR, isn't their project, then they can afford to appease local residents, and make Turing into the scapegoats.

However the Planning Committee have already made it clear in nodding through the St RR plans that they will not let travel issues get in the way of approving plans to deliver school places. That travel plan is a joke, based on a show of hands in the classroom. Libdem and Conservative Councillors acknowledged the traffic situation is going to be a nightmare,especially given this is a primary and secondary school and a school for those with special needs, on much more limited residential roads than the Whitton site. However quite rightly they highlighted the need for those school places (even if they are exclusive of the local community), especially the value for money that it will give in providing the places for children with special needs. I fully expect those needs will trump those of local residents every time, including in the Twickenham Green Primary Planning process coming up. They missed a chance to give the travel plan teeth and reassure residents near future school sites but the precedent is set.

At the end of the day Paul Hodgins has acknowledged Turing is a visionary school and they can't ignore that it is popular with parents. They have clearly sponsored the Whitton site behind the scenes as politically expedient. What are the alternatives if they don't progress the Whitton site? The Fullwell site, as previously discussed? the RTS site since in theory Turing gets first preference on that since it was approved first? the Greggs or even Kneller Hall sites that are going to have the issues that were faced with UP, a seller keen to maximise returns on a site attractive to developers though this time with the near certainty of getting planning for many more residential units).

As an aside I keep wondering just how much difference the new leadership at HA and TA can make given that there has been huge investment in the resources, buildings, teaching materials, IT etc. aimed at implementing the LST teaching methods. OFSTED were clearly luke warm about those, whilst stopping short of saying it couldn't work there were a lot of concerns around all the tweaking that was needed to make it work. A lot of parents were definitely lukewarm about it, part of the source of the Turing proposition. Obviously there were major issues with the leadership and teacher recruitment at both schools that they can address but what are they going to do with the IT based learning materials, fake grassy knolls etc. ?

WhittonMum - I'm sure you have read enough of these threads to know that Fulwell folk have absolutely no access to Teddington or Orleans, and only half have access to Waldegrave! And I think your comment about moving back to 100% from the admissions is unfair - what has TH published that makes you think that's on the cards?
I suggest you spend some time reading the old threads and getting a feel for some the drivers for TH.

What are the alternatives if they don't progress the Whitton site?

Hello heathclif, or FrustratedofTW1 if you are indeed a different person.

The alternatives are:

1. Turing House to back down on the admissions policy. This may at least kickstart the process of getting the land released by Hounslow and some local Whitton residents may also withdraw their objections during the planning application to Richmond.

1. As LProsser says, it's very likely that the school will have to be based on two or three sites if it wants to stay around North Teddington. It would deprive Teddington of much needed primary places if one of them is Livingstone House, when it could have compromised in order to get consents for Heathfield. But perhaps the good community of Collis will accept even more pupils.

1. Get smaller like Kings School in Hove (which is reduced to 100 pupils per year). And then have more flexibility with sites not yet considered, and/or some variation of (2).

Hounslow may have approved a decision to remove MOL restriction on land for Nishkam School West London, but even a Tory donor has criticised the EFA for buying the land before that consent is agreed. That consent depends on special conditions, e.g. the need for places, but Turing House is not going to satisfy Hounslow's need for places with that admissions policy.

And the Campaign to Protect Rural England has also challenged that approval process.

Maybe WhittonMum1 can think of other alternatives, but people in Whitton haven't been given an incentive to care what happens to Turing House.

mum - you criticise the school for lake of promotion around Heathfield but you fail to acknowledge that the site was officially unknown this time last year. There were rumours but the school wasn't able to confirm or deny anything until very late. If the school's activities were centred around anything then it was the admissions point which has remained relatively constant (as opposed to the rumoured sites).

Turing House has its own email list.
Of course it does, what school doesn't? It's made up of everyone who registers an interest on the website - anyone can join it.

It visited Hampton Hill, Hampton Juniors and St Marys but no mention of Heathfield whatsoever.
You fail to mention Stanley in your analysis of TH's publicity. You couldn't move at Stanley for TH posters at one point and I'm pretty sure the school was used for parent meetings as well. Stanley's catchment is large and goes well into West Twickenham and over the 316. So all of those families would have had good access to the "marketing" material. It also didn't visit Collis.

The schools that helped TH out by hosting events are the ones which are seeing the problem of lack of places first hand. They see families moving in Y5/6, they see students being tutored intensively to pass entrance exams and they speak to anxious parents day in, day out. Is it any wonder that those schools happen to be in the area most affected by lack of secondary school choice?

It has its own brochure which it proudly announced was in Teddington and Twickenham libraries.
It also has one of the most comprehensive websites I've seen and it used to have a full FB page as well. I really don't buy the argument that information was withheld from certain areas.

Its Twitter feed promotes activities around Teddington and its temporary site but not its permanent site.
Criticising it's current activities as being too Teddington based is a low blow. What's the choir to do in a lunchtime? Pop down to Elleray Hall or attempt a mini-bus ride over to Whitton and back? Looking through the feed all other activities have been school based or trips to London, Leicester and borough wide sporting events. They raise money for Shooting Stars because that's the charity the kids voted for (and what school doesn't around here).

Its admissions policy favours Teddington pupils.
It's admissions point is the further point from all standard maintained schools and is designed to provide a solution to the "black-hole" area identified. It's not designed to favour "Teddington" pupils. And round and round and round we go again!

it could have compromised in order to get consents for Heathfield.
I see no evidence that it's the admission policy that is holding up the sale.

perhaps the good community of Collis will accept even more pupils.
Collis has plenty of space to move to 4-forms of entry, it's a much larger site than Stanley. It's long been rumoured that expansion is on the cards. Obviously the council would prefer a new school as it's better for their budget.

Well, the chair of the local board of governors at Turing House is the long-term chair of governors at Stanley, so that's not surprising.

Today’s RTT Online has Turing House School to keep 80:20 split between Teddington and Whitton children despite "overwhelming" no from consultation:

. . The consultation report said the school will compromise over its policy and will press ahead with the 80:20 split for 2017 but will revisit the issue for the 2018 admissions . . It is understood the Education Funding Agency and Hounslow Council are still negotiating over the Hospital Bridge Road site. Both parties have been contacted for comment. The school’s published admissions number (PAN) will remain at 150, after 198 of the respondents disagreed with the proposed increase to 200. The school and Richmond Council, which is opposed to the 80:20 split, have been contacted for comment.

Its admissions point is the further point from all standard maintained schools and is designed to provide a solution to the "black-hole" area identified. It's not designed to favour "Teddington" pupils.

Its admission point prioritises according to distance. It's therefore designed to favour those in North Teddington and Strawberry Hill over those in Witton, Heathfield or Hounslow.

Interesting to see whether admissions preferences have changed now that Turing House is part of the pan-London admissions process - that's its big USP. If you remember, after St Richard Reynolds opened, there was a jump by 5% in the number of first preferences met. St Richard Reynolds represented about 10% of all places offered in the borough.

Not such a marked difference this year. Haven't seen the figures for applications but that could mean Turing House was a second choice after Waldegrave or Teddington for most pupils near its admissions point.

London Councils Data 2016 - 67.16% first, 86.28% one of top 3
London Councils Data 2015 - 66.99% first, 85.7% one of top 3

Kingston seems to have soared, however - 75.95% first preference, compared to 71.80% last year. Either Kingston Academy is now attracting pupils (in which case Grey Court should in theory be meeting more preferences in Richmond), more have qualified for Tiffin, or there's a glut of surplus places. Last year there were four undersubscribed schools and a warning about their viability.

it was the admissions point which has remained relatively constant (as opposed to the rumoured sites)

Not true - the admissions point has moved 1 mile away since last year.

From the Admissions Forum documents: "Due to the current surplus of Year 7 places within Kingston borough, which is forecast to last until at least July 2018, the Department for Education has decided that, the proposed three-form secondary element of Kingston Community School should be cancelled. "

So there is an glut of places.

You fail to mention Stanley

Very strange that with the involvement of a Stanley governor in the school, its proximity to old and new admissions points in comparison to Whitton and the marketing you mention, that Fulwell and Hampton Hill still makes up only 10% of the applications to the school despite having 120 pupils - as many as Hounslow. But then again, TH is competing with Waldegrave and Teddington where many of them eventually go.

It also has one of the most comprehensive websites I've seen

I think it's a dog's dinner in terms of structure and information overload on the FAQs, and quite boring in its layout. Its brochure is more attractively designed, which you'd expect if they paid someone to do it. In any case, parents don't select on the basis of a website - especially for a new school, it depends on its presentation and efforts to actually meet and engage with parents. No evidence that it has done that specifically in Whitton.

There are similar arguments for the efforts of Oxbridge colleges in terms of outreach activities to encourage state school pupils to apply.

Criticising it's current activities as being too Teddington based

I was thinking of the symbolic connection established to Teddington, the NPL and Alan Turing in particular. All intention, I have no doubt - though it started off as 'New School for Twickenham!'

Poor old Hounslow really could have done with some extra non-denominational places from Turing House. That must be why so many from Hounslow applied, who may have assumed they had a good chance within it being closer than Twickenham Academy.

It might have swayed the legal justification they have to make to release MOL land.

2016: 63.96% first pref, 84.52% one of top three
2015: 66.78% first pref, 87.35% one of top three

mum

I wish I shared your faith in LBRUT and Hounslow Councils /the EFA respecting the amenity / interests of local residents when it come to siting a school. As I say they have never done that in relation to the schools in Twickenham despite exclusive admissions criteria /substantial local opposition / judicial reviews/the views of the local MP. It is implicitly clear that the Council have pushed the Heathfield site over the other options (bar possibly UP though I suspect Lord True would have been at best ambivalent on that even if Nick Whitfield was bullish ). I would be very surprised if it was local opinion and worries about a few more or less objections to the Planning application that is stalling negotiations, if indeed they are stalling and not just going through due process and the pre planning process working to a three year deadline. I am sure all their rhetoric is political and disingenuous and it just suits them to claim they are supporting local residents in pressuring Turing to change the admissions point now rather than later, and shift the attention away from themselves and the fact it is them pushing a site miles away from the original preferred site because they nabbed it for Lord True's personal legacy project. Turing have always said that the admissions criteria would be reviewed in relation to the site but it seems reasonable to me to retain the admission criteria that is consistent with the original aims of the school until such time as that becomes a firm reality. In any case the oversubscriptiin criteria only matter if the school is oversubscribed, I have seen plenty of Turing uniforms around Whitton.

And the option of a split site only works if there are other sites in the area, if there were surely they would already be earmarked for schools of some sort. I somehow doubt the EFA stand a chance of procuring more Livingstone Houses now that developers have a free rein to make them into flats. As Lottie says there are no hints of any sites in Teddington, nor in Twickenham, but certainly plenty of office buildings turning into residential development.n

Stanley's catchment is far wider than Fulwell and Hampton Hill. I know of at least 12 pupils at TH that came from Stanley. It's very hard to judge these things in the first year as it's quite a punt for parents to send their child to a brand new school. I know of Stanley parents who were very tempted by TH but just didn't want to take a chance on a new school. At lease this years applicants had a school to actually visit and get a feel for.

Wow you really have a vendetta running against TH mumnlondon! #bonkers

I remember those prospectuses in HH library. It was when my daughter had just started Y5 so must have been 2013. Can't say I've seen any since. I think they were hoping to get some NPL land at that time. Shame they didn't but parents are still bloody grateful for what they did get, The kids are having a fantastic experience.
The council's press release says there were 89 more applicants this year than last year so Turing must have increased the number of first choice offers if the percentages have stayed the same. Surely?

Not sure about 'vendetta' but there does see to be a sustained campaign on here against free schools - designed to improve parental influence and choice. Under the LA model, Richmond's schools were left to rot and academies are being vilified for not instantly improving dire schools.
Richmond state schools are still massively worse than the independent alternatives, but fewer parents can now afford the indies, and so are filling the places they previously would shunned.
If parents saw the behaviour in some of these schools, they would home-school. But they may not have to if the free schools have room to breathe and grow, and instil the behaviour and work ethic that parents expect.

I do think it's important to stick to arguments and facts rather than attacking posters as individuals jellytoto. And if the evidence is convincing I'm prepared to change my mind. I've been persuaded that the council has made a good argument about Turing House's admissions policy, and had TH responded positively I would feel positively about the school.

I don't accept allegations of a 'vendetta'. Using that language I would say that heathclif [removed by MNHQ to protect privacy of a poster] has a long running 'vendetta' against the council and anyone associated with St Richard Reynolds. Maybe even MrsSalvo has a 'vendetta' against RPA. But that sort of argument doesn't get you anywhere, unless you know whether individuals have a vested interest, for example as a councillor or governor. I have none, and I'll assume none of you have [removed by MNHQ to protext privacy of a poster].

On the facts, Turing House offers wouldn't all have met first preferences. But this year it will certainly have impacted TA/HA, especially if it did offer 25 more places than last year.

2016 - 1746 applications (89 more than last year), 1172 first choice (I make it 62 more first preferences met than last year).

Those extra applications were all on the Surrey side: three extra classes coming out of Lowther, Holy Trinity and Barnes.

However, Grey Court and RPA met some of that demand by offering 50 more places than last year.

I was also a minor part of RISC campaign but see TH as the positive response to that from parents left in a difficult situation and able to see a looming places crisis best filled by a non selective free school with local community involvement. I am not sure which local schools Mrs SM thinks we would be avoiding if we knew more - it would have to be pretty bad to get me home schooling a 15 year old who is good at all the subjects I dropped before O level! I think dislike of policy stronger in other areas of country where no one is coming forward to set up free schools but local authority not allowed to. Some free school chains obviously a worry too.

I too am proud to have been part of the RISC campaign and agree that we should stick to facts and argument, but also defending our opinions, which broadly over the years this thread has done. It is possible to argue our points of view without resorting to personal attacks. Can I remind us all of the talk guidelines www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour
No trollhunting
No spamming

These rules are there for a reason, to protect individuals, especially on a loca thread. The Mumsnet site recently suffered a hacking attack which should underline the need to respect these rules.

Yes, I did sign the initial RISC petition too. But I saw those arguments as separate from a promotion of free schools - the purist BHA argument is that no new religious schools should be set up, including religious free schools too, and I could see the logic of that in terms of concerns about social and ethnic segregation because I have direct experience of that.

On the other hand, in terms of management of schools, I believe the LA maintained model works in terms of oversight and accountability, whereas the free school system has often led to fragmentation, undermining existing schools, and in some cases to financial mismanagement. I did support Turing House initially, mainly before I knew that the council had planned strategically for the rise in pupil numbers AND sixth forms in the form of the school on the Richmond College site.

My concerns about St Richard Reynolds were that (a) LA-allocated capital funding might be paying for many pupils from other boroughs, and as funds are tight this might impact on the capital allocation of our primary schools, and (b) may adversely impact our existing schools in terms of creaming off pupils.

However, the evidence shows that (a) very few out of borough pupils are accepted at StRR - it is instead providing places for pupils who would otherwise themselves have gone out of borough; (b) there was no impact on admission numbers at non-denominational schools; and (c) it has similar FSM proportion to other non-denominational schools (higher than Teddington or Waldegrave). I also believe it has been managed effectively.

Meanwhile Turing House has a much higher impact on surrounding schools in terms of leaving them with surplus places which makes it harder for them to manage running costs. But because it receives capital funding from central government, the argument on LA allocation of resources does not apply, so there is no reason why it should exclude children from other boroughs.

My question about RISC is this: is it still active, or was it formed primarily a partnership between Turing House supporters and the BHA in relation to the establishment of StRR on Clifden Road? I've noticed that a couple of church primary schools have amended their criteria and now provide open places where they did not before, but this hasn't been reported in any email bulletin or news round-up on the RISC website. So it does seem to have faded out of view in terms of the Richmond scene, whereas the main promoter of that campaign, Jeremy Rodell, has moved onto the Fair Admissions Campaign and other BHA activities.

The Hounslow Chronicle has reported on the Turing House consultation:

Turing House School ignored consultation results, says Whitton councillor

mum RISC was never an alliance of parents supporting Turing House and the BHA. There may have been some people who supported both but they were separate entities.

Turing House was proposed by a group of parents who understood the problems that had faced parents seeking school places in the borough for a long time, saw that this was only going to get worse with a looming increase in demand for school places and that the Council were not going to do anything about it because Nick Whitfield and Lord True had made the establishment of a Catholic School in the borough on the Clifden site their priority (their words). So they decided to do something about it, and that decision was practically taken on this thread as you well know, and their motivation is also prominent on their website. I have never seen any evidence to contradict that their aim was to create an inclusive coed school on the model of the existing outstanding community schools that would provide the sort of education that parents want. From parental feedback they are doing extremely well in realising their vision. The Free School process was simply a means to an end, when the LA were not stepping into the breach (and remember RTS was not put on the table until some time after Turing House was conceived)

"A new inclusive secondary school for Richmond was envisioned by a small group of parents who care deeply about their local area and its people. Faced with shrinking catchment areas and increased demand for local secondary schools, they saw their community breaking up as families moved away or chose non-local schools. Knowing that many other local people agreed that another excellent secondary school was needed they decided to try and do something about it."

RISC was an organisation set up in opposition to establishing an exclusive school in the borough and it's members were a loose alliance of many people who supported the aim that all new schools in the borough should be inclusive. That included people with all sorts of motivations including some who supported faith schools, indeed some current parents at St RR. The common ground was that it was simply unfair that an exclusive school was being established on the site at a time when all parents, not just Catholic ones, were concerned about the shortage of good school places. Again all of this can be found on the RISC site where the current aims are set out and ad nauseum on these threads. It supports any move for schools to become more inclusive and perhaps the strength of feeling that was manifested over the Catholic School issue did focus minds on the issue and result in more inclusivity eg St Mary's Cof E school in Hampton opened as an inclusive free school in response to the shortage of school places there. RISC does still post from time to time in support of it's aims. www.facebook.com/RichmondInclusiveSchools/?ref=ts&fref=ts

Personally I am not against St RR, it seems to be a very good school which meets the needs of some parents. I just think it should be more community minded, and not just in terms of admissions. It still from time to time manifest the belief that the community was against them because it was a Catholic School which is pretty insulting in the circumstances "The Lord True CBE, Leader of Richmond Council, and Lady True visited the College today to officially open the Corpus Christi block, the magnificent Edwardian building which was extensively refurbished over the summer. Lord True was instrumental in the establishment of the College in the face of determined opposition from those who did not want a Catholic secondary school in this borough." www.strichardreynolds.org.uk/news?start=5

Mum if you remember, in St RR's first undersubscribed year it did indeed have quite a few pupils travelling from other boroughs, but the FSM and BME were if anything higher than the community schools. Now it is oversubscribed there is no reason why it's FSM and BME won't reduce to the levels of the Catholic Primaries. It does have a slightly more relaxed oversubscription criteria than most Catholic Primary / Secondary Schools in West London, they require baptism but not by six months , something that often discriminates against children of parents from overseas, especially former communist countries. So it takes pupils that would not meet the oversubscription criteria for schools like St James's where the FSM and BME are some of the lowest in the country. How long they maintain that is another matter. Anecdotally the Head promotes the school as a "private school without the fees" and it has indeed attracted pupils who would otherwise have gone to the private sector. I suppose you could say that it shows they are not impacting on other secondary's, or alternatively that Catholic parents have been given the privilege of an option of a place in an outstanding school not available to others in the community, and that make a school outstanding and demand will increase........