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.

Hounslow parents too.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) has included Turing House as one of six free schools for which the EFA is considering building on green belt/open land, which the CPRE (as well as local campaign groups) argues is a dangerous precedent. The Nishkam school in Osterley is another. Neither site is in the Local Plan for Hounslow as being redesignated for educational purposes, and in neither case are pupils drawn mainly from the local area, which campaigners say weakens the case for proving a need for a school in that area. The Turing House response to its admissions consultation did not change that.

The two documents the CRPE has published with examples and arguments are below.

A done deal December 2015
The Strongest Protection? March 2016

Just had a look at the vacancies on the TA website and they only show two, so maybe not an exodus yet.
Although maybe not up to date as there is still a link to LST for more info...
Updating the website ought to be a priority, it would not be a big task simply to tidy it up, and would have a big impact on people' perception. Surely a parent or volunteer could step in.

Interesting reading muminLondon2.

As we have noted previously having a new mayor changes things a bit.

Sadiq Khan's manifesto says that he will:

'-Oppose building on the Green Belt, which is even more important today than it was when it was created.

-Strengthen protections for open spaces within the London Plan, including playing fields, Metropolitan Open Land, and our Sites of Importance for Local Nature Conservation and nature reserves.'

It just remains to be seen if the new mayor acts on his pre-election pledges.

MrsSalvo the new trust doesn't take over until September - although technically now we have the 'special measures event' which means it's not just the LST that can break the contract now. I don't think it changes the timetable however, so LST would still be paying the bills until then.

If the trust doesn't take over until September how come they were getting all that credit for the Hampton inspection? It looks like they were hanging back from TA.

Maybe it was just that the HA head was more ready to embrace change though.

It wasn't the trust getting credit for HA, it was the local authority school improvement consultants. But you're right, the head's direction must have helped. There was more continuity there with the current head working under the last one.

RTT Online has: Put Hampton school sale money back into education, urges Richmond council opposition leader:

Clarendon School, in Hampton, for pupils with moderate learning difficulties and ‘complex needs’, including autism, will be moved to Richmond College in September 2017 and the site sold off.

While Richmond council has said no decision has been made on the use of the Clarendon House site, Liberal Democrat leader Gareth Roberts said the site should be at least partially used for school provision, and some of the funds raised from the sale should be ring-fenced for education.

. . Richmond council deputy leader Geoffrey Samuel said revenue generated will be a priority because it will be used to fund Clarendon’s move to Richmond College . . he hoped the site would be used for educational purposes, he could make no guarantees. He confirmed his support for Carlisle School to build a nursery, which is also supported by Hampton residents, but said no discussion had yet taken place . .

Does anyone know how the recent Heathfield Infants Ofsted went?

It's published now. Heathfield Infants gets a Good

The Papers for the Cabinet Meeting last Thirsday cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=163&MId=3711 have details of a couple of interesting developments. Nick Whitfield who seems to have been spread ever thinner in his roles is stepping back from his role as Director of Children's Services for Richmond and Kingston and in a flexible retirement deal focusing on Achieving for Children, with a new Director to be appointed internally.

The papers also have the minutes of the presentation by the Heads at Waldegrave and Teddington on the plans for the MAT, clearly the focus for discussion was worries about whether they were being spread too thinly and their current schools at risk but also interesting that they are applying to government for another £2.7m to make the buildings fit for traditional teaching methods, hopefully that won't be put at risk by a potential post Brexit austerity. And yes there will be new logos! They are also highlighting the benefits of the MAT for career development opportunities and recruitment of higher calibre teachers....

"Cabinet heard representations from Mrs Phillipa Nunn, headteacher at Waldegrave School and Mr John Wilkinson, headteacher at Teddington School, in which they highlighted their excitement to be involved in this community project. They spoke about the need to improve standards at Hampton and Twickenham Academies and improvement in their leadership and governance. They had been working with the schools on a formal basis since Easter and had been providing real challenge to the schools. The aim was to have all the schools reach the good and outstanding OFSTED scores.

In response to questions from Cabinet, Mrs Nunn and Mr Wilkinson noted that there had been some tensions expressed in all the schools and concerns that the achievements at Waldegrave in particular would be diluted. Parents and Governors were supportive of the fact that the identities of the separate schools would be maintained and that it was a community project. In terms of timescales, the headteachers were looking closely at Year 10 but the challenge should not be underestimated as cultural changes were needed in Hampton and Twickenham Academies. The schools would also be re-branded with all current logos removed. In Hampton work was also being undertaken with the community to re-name the school.

Cabinet also heard that investment was being made in extra capacity at the schools and in changes to systems and practices. A capital bid of £2.7m had also been made to Government for the Academies as curriculum changes might mean that the current building with smaller classrooms would not work well. In future a range of pathways and a curriculum suitable for all learners would be offered with a range of courses across the MAT. It was noted that this was likely to attract staff of calibre as the MAT offered wider career opportunities and would ensure the development of teachers and leaders in the schools.

Interesting stuff, thanks Frustrated.

Schools Week has picked up on the demise of The Learning Schools Trust

There was also a piece in the RTT about Franklin House Primary moving into Turing's current premises in 2018 but I can't find it online. 2019 is more realistic.

Good news about Heathfield. Does that mean we don't have any primaries that Require Improvement in the borough?
It does seem unrealistic to get a primary into TH in 2018 even if everything went to plan and it moved on time because they'll have to do adaptations. I guess they could have a temporary site though.

I think Nelson is the only primary school in the borough that has had a Requires Improvement grading in recent years.

RTT Online now has New free school could take over Turing House Teddington site:

A new free school could take over the temporary Turing House site in Teddington once the school makes its move to a proposed Hospital Bridge Road site in Whitton. The Stamp Education Trust (SET), which runs Thomson School in Mortlake, will be sending an application to the Department for Education in Autumn for Franklin House School, which they hope will be ready to open in September 2018.

Teddington councillor Stephen Knight said he did not believe a new permanent home for Turing House would be ready in time for another school to take over the site. He said:

Their new site hasn’t even gone through planning yet and it is looking increasingly unlikely they will meet their deadline for the move. The planning programme is going to be long and cumbersome as it is on Metropolitan land and unless they move into portakabins initially I don’t see how the site would possibly be ready for the move. Construction [on the site in Whitton] will take at least 18 months, if not two years . . As a primary school it has got very limited outside space and it is right on a very busy junction and also the air pollution on the site could be above the legal maximum. It is far from a perfect site, though I fully appreciate there are no perfect sites available.

. . A public meeting about the proposed school will take place at the Teddington Methodist Church opposite Turing House on July 2 from 2pm.

There is an interesting piece in the Guardian today looking at a number of areas where free schools are being proposed on green spaces. It seems worse to me that it is being considered wholesale as a solution

I agree Sheila Fisher that it does seem that a policy of following the line of least resistance which favours MOL land should be questioned. As we saw with Old Deer Park School there often are better but more difficult alternatives. However the schools have to be built and finding space for the large secondary schools that we need when developers have so much economic, political and legal power to beg the best brownfield sites, is a difficult challenge. Some pragmatism has to come in. I just wonder if the political will at local and national level is there? Hopefully now at a London level, especially if we end up as a city state . The Planning process too needs to use the teeth it has, if new schools have to be sited where they will cause significant damage to their neighbours amenity there need to be conditions put in place on the schools to minimise the damage so that if the schools are not inclined to be community minded that there are very real sanctions on traffic levels etc. that force them to be, and indeed reassure the neighbours of future schools.

However the Planning process is about weighing up the balance of need versus neighbour amenity and I do think the Whitton campaigners were guilty of nimbyism in their earlier campaign. They were lucky that a General Election campaign meant they got the political attention they did. All the activism in Twickenham has always focused a lot of resources on researching and developing proposals for viable better alternatives, as we saw in the Deer Park campaign and now again in the riverside campaign. It wasn't helpful to shout "Not in my back yard" and not siting it on Udney Park was all about favouring the toffs in Teddington without bothering to acquaint themselves with the realities of the situation.

From the Guardian artticle:

. . Another case is in Osterley . . where the EFA paid £12m . . to buy a playing field site also on MOL . . [without] planning approval . . the EFA bought it [to put] a 1,300-pupil school run by the Sikh-ethos Nishkam group there . . a judicial review challenge is due to start on 5 July . . the National Audit Office is investigating the case . . looking into whether the EFA complied with guidelines in buying the site, its rationale for paying £11.8m, and “the potential financial risk associated with purchasing land before planning permission was obtained”.

The residents . . allege that Hounslow council . . was guilty of “predetermination” – favouring the application before it went to planning – having secretly worked to plan for the school, including with the EFA, in advance . . Tom Bruce, Hounslow’s cabinet member for education, described the suggestion of “predetermination” as a “very serious and unfounded allegation”, pointing out that planning authorities were separate legally from councils and that the Niskham application had been discussed in a public meeting lasting more than four hours.

One of the main problems over free school sites is that the EFA just goes ahead and buys sites without proper consultation with local parents. The purchase of London House on the A316 is an example... No parents in their right mind would ever want their young children educated at such a dangerous location on a busy 4 lane highway.Recent pollution surveys done by local residents proved that the site is one of the most polluted places in the whole of the borough. What a total waste of tax payers money and the building has now been empty since March last year and fast becoming a local eyesore.

So the 2016 school census figures are out. Interesting snippets:

• Turing House has 73% boys out of 100 pupils.

Y7 % boys in other Middlesex schools:
Hampton Academy 55% boys
Twickenham Academy 59% boys
Teddington 58% boys
Orleans Park 59% boys
St Richard Reynolds 51% boys.

• 3% at Turing House have a first language other than English. Cf. 22% Orleans Park (average for the borough).

Recent primary free schools, reception numbers:

Deer Park School - 13 pupils (cf. Collis 120 pupils).
Twickenham Primary Academy - 47 pupils.

I think the Turing boys % makes some sense when you think of it's catchment as addressing the area around Waldegrave. Obviously things have moved on since the initial plans, but if you consider that the first intake of parents were largely those from around Waldegrave for whom Waldegrave was/is not an option, and that those parents had invested heavily (emotionally/time not cash!) in the setting up of Turing it is what I would personally expect for the first year or two at least.

The girls I know at Turing don't care about the percentage. They never seem in a minority at events - they make their presence felt that's for sure.
And I know Turing boys with younger sisters who will be putting it as top preference. As Sheila said it'll change over time but waldegrave will always have some impact I expect.

I am surprised that the GEMS school is as subscribed as it is, perhaps an indication of the number of Twickenham parents who would have felt they had to move, home school or go private (some keeping their children in nurseries ) because of the shortage of local primary school places. I knew that was going on but not to that extent and I have heard nothing to suggest parents were sending their children there rather than the other local primaries? Although of course it may have been attracting pupils from across East Twickenham because of the then proposed site for Old Deer Park School. From what I hear the Old Deer Park School is now getting a lot of good word of mouth from parents so with the new site it looks as though things will even out. In their ultimate sites both schools are needed and there is no reason to suppose they will now pose any threat to existing schools. A shame they are not rooted in the community but I am sure parents are glad they are there nonetheless.

Hello, can I ask a question about Waldegrave here?
Are there are parents on here who live in Hampton (just to emphasis NOT Hampton Hill) whose daughter was offered a place (in the last couple of years) on distance for Waldegrave on 1) second offers, or 2) at the last minute, or 3) shortly after the commencement of year 7 or 4) during the later part of year 7 or even 8? Just wondering what our chances are? We are edge of Hampton/Hampton Hill. Thanks.

I also think you have to be careful about making judgements based on the first year of any school. St Richard Reynolds in an undersubscribed first year had an inclusive intake that was indeed boy dominated, as well as having higher levels of both BME and FSM than it does now. Interesting that it now has equal proportions given it also has a girls' school in the vicinity serving the Catholic community (but rated good rather than outstanding ) which tends to support the argument it is all about how good the school is, especially if you look at the proportion of St James's parents who chose Waldegrave over Gumley whilst the catchments still overlapped

I am sorry loubielou I cannot provide any feedback on that other than last year there were a lot more places came up after the allocations because they expanded the number of places by 16. Obviously after the first shake up of places any other places that come up will be offered around more because parents tend to opt for certainty the nearer you are to September. With few places involved anyway the chances won't be predictable.

Last week’s print RTT (June 24) has (p 7) Free school for vacated area? re the site now used by Turing House.