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.

Lord True is throwing his toys out of the pram, RTT article here about the Schools Adjudicator judgement on the TH admissions policy. How did we miss that one? It's here on the TH website. How can he possibly go on about cherry picking after the StRR debacle? Outrageous! I've read the full judgement and I think it's well considered and sound. I can't see what the council have to gain by stirring it all up again.

There was something mentioned about that judgement a couple of weeks ago at a parent meeting. It's good news for Hampton Hill, and Lord True is looking out of touch with Twickenham residents as usual.

I think Lord True has a point. If schools can cherry-pick their admission point they can cherry-pick their intake, which runs directly contrary to the entire ethos underlying the school admission rules and guidance.

I agree that schools should not be able to cherry pick their intake but Turing were never doing that, they were using the method agreed with the Council that would ensure the school's admissions process would meet the area of greatest need for school places. The reality of course is that it has a lot of pupils travelling there from Whitton anyway.

I hope Lord True will now be calling on St Richard Reynolds, the school whose website acknowledges he was crucial to their establishment both politically and in terms of all the money that flowed from the charity he is a patron of, to have inclusive admissions and serve the local community it is sited in? Rather than allow Cathoolic parents to cherry pick a school that is becoming as socially exclusive as it's feeder primaries.

Somehow though I think that this has nothing to do with principal and everything to do with cynically securing a Twickenham and Fullwell catchment for RUTS, the only strategy they had up until recently to improve Twickenham Academy...... When will they learn that creating demand by having outstanding schools fills up classes, not denying parents choice.

If you read the full judgement Icimoi it's clear that schools aren't allowed to cherry pick but that having looked at the evidence the adjudicator decided that Turing simply isn't cherry picking. The accusation was thrown out.

So, unlikely the council will be willing to go out on a limb to grant planning permission for any site on MOL, then. No news yet on the judicial review challenging the Hounslow free school on MOL - but the procedure for councils granting planning permission has also been referred to the National Audit Office so even more caution likely. Though maybe a split site in Teddington will come up after all, if commercial property values plummet as predicted?

On the other hand, no decisions are likely to be made until there's a new prime minister, who may also appoint a new Education Minister. Nicky Morgan has just antagonised the Conservative-dominated education committee by trying to force through the appointment of an Ofsted chief they don't see as qualified for the job of inspecting schools, so I'd predict she won't last long.

The report is here, I couldn't open the previous link. www.gov.uk/government/publications/turing-house-school

The adjudicator makes a particular point that the council did not feel the need to bring a challenge itself. And why would it with Waldegrave having an arguably far more "cherry picking" second admissions point in Richmond as well as discriminating against 50% of pupils and St Richard Reynolds having only conceded 10 places for local children in the primary school and apparently trying to go back on the priority proposed for the 10 out of 150 in the senior school. Cynical hypocracy.......

Sorry mum don't get that leap to not granting planning permission, what with the avalanche of planning decisions dictated by meeting the need for school places...... if their decisions were not political.....

According to my DH the planning decision can't be whipped. Is that right? Also any councillors who've already spoken out about it won't be allowed to vote. Maybe that's why a lot of them are keeping quiet for now.
Some of the points in the objection sounded familiar from this thread I thought. The stuff about consulting faith leaders and categories of people responding all seem a bit petty. If I was Lord True I'd steer clear of associating myself with it.

Yes Councillors on the Planning Committee are supposed to declare if they have an interest and cannot vote, although whether that stretches to having expressed a view on admissions, not strictly a planning issue, apart from the transport implications. I don't think any declared an interest on the St RR planning process but several had expressed a view on it's exclusivity. Actually if you look at the controversial planning decisions like the station whether a whip was allowed or not voting was on party lines. If the riverside butcher's Roman palace gets to planning it is assumed that Lord True will get it voted through by the Conservatives. It's a brave soul that stands up to him......

However whilst the Council have expressed some half hearted support for those opposed to Turing's admissions policy they have never given any hint they are against the site which their Planning Officers have been working on already.

I think they're just trying to distract people from the question of why they're not offering up the more local amida site by making a fuss about admissions.

The July 8 print RTT has (p 5) School ruling under attack

I know that the adjudicator found that there was nothing wrong with the admission point chosen, but frankly the decision is very poorly reasoned and, amongst other matters, ignores the Greenwich judgment. Simply to say that with any luck Heathfield and Whitton residents won't be disadvantaged isn't a good enough reason for upholding the 80/20 split, and it refers to the fact that the LA's school place planning strategy focussed on increasing secondary school places for the borough as a whole, not for any particular part of it. I suspect that if anyone wants to take the challenge further they would stand a decent chance of success.

The main thrust of the reasoning is that the admissions arrangements and main admissions point were put in place with a sound rationale, not an intention to cherry pick, based on original reason for establishing the Free School much as the B catchment and remote admissions point for Waldegrave were. The reasoning that parents around the potential site are not actually disadvantaged in any case and that the arrangements will change after 2017 when the site will be known and the school moves are subsidiary to that. The admissions arrangements are focused on need and impact on other schools, they are not cherry picking. Lord True knows this full well.

The admissions arrangements are also not contrary to the Greenwich and subsequent Rotherham judgements. The latter established the right of Local Authorities to establish catchment areas, what they are not allowed to do is favour those who live in borough over those who live outside it but meet the over subscription criteria for a particular catchment area. Neither Turing's or Waldegrave's two defined admissions points do that. Out of borough applicants could be admitted to both schools under the over subscription criteria, and are currently in the case of Turing , and were in living memory in the case of Waldegrave. " 13. In particular the Greenwich and Rotherham Judgements are relevant. The Greenwich Judgement (1989) established that maintained schools may not give priority to children for the sole reason that they live within the LEA's administrative boundaries. The Rotherham Judgement (1997) established that the principle of admission authorities operating catchment areas as part of their oversubscription criteria in allocating school places was lawful providing that in so doing authorities are not in breach of the Greenwich judgement. " Here www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmeduski/58/5804.htm

I am sure that LBRUT were entirely mindful of the Greenwich and Rotherham rulings in agreeing the admissions arrangements for both Waldegrave and Turing given that it has always been a borough particularly affected.

I know Bishop Wand in Sunbury uses borough boundaries to define its catchment area.

Its good to see TH standing up to Lord True's bullying m.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/14617039._We_are_not_cherry_picking_our_students___Turing_House_School_hits_back_at_Council_leader_s_criticism_of_intake_policy/

This is the full, very sensible, letter to Lord True www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/documents/Lord%20True%20Letter%20-%20July%202016.pdf

The new education secretary Justine Greening is, according to Schoolsweek, the first to have gone to a comprehensive school (it was in Rotherham). As MP for Putney and Roehampton she asked several questions about Elliott school (now Ark Putney) which overlaps with RPA in its catchment area.

Good choice I think, as long as she gets rid of Gibb…

News on the Hounslow Nishkam school decision in Schools Week today: "On Tuesday, the high court also dismissed a challenge brought by local residents over the London Borough of Hounslow’s decision to grant permission for a 1,400 free school in Isleworth, London. "

RTT Online has Lidl submits planning application for new supermarket underneath a school in Richmond Road, East Twickenham

No new details yet. The planners will take a couple of months to validate the application before it’s published.

This week’s print RTT has ‘School denies ‘intake cherry-picking’ policy’ (p 4) and ‘School’s site’ (p 16): letters from Mrs A Clancy and Anon.

According to the latest announcement, Nick Gibb stays in position. As does John (Lord) Nash, who decides on free schools. The new leader of the House of Lords is the pro-free school Brexiter Natalie Evans (as an appointed Dame or Lady or whatever the protocol is).