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.

The schools comparison website is now a lot easier to use and interpret.
[https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/compare-schools?phase=secondary&selectPhase=true here]]
Interesting to compare two schools nearby, same catchment, similar pupil numbers massively different outcomes - eg Christs and RPA.

Working link: here

RTT Online has We're not going anywhere: Worried landscaper says Hounslow sold its land to controversial school without warning
…..
This turns out to be a non-story but does raise this issue: . . Mr Evans also raised concerns about the extent to which the school and KLG could co-exist, citing the frequency with which large lorries arrive to make deliveries. He asked: “How are we going to function together? We’ve got great big lorries delivering plants from all over the world, particularly early in the morning. Huge lorries early in the morning.

A DfE spokesman said it would it would work to ensure the school’s highways strategy will meet safety standards, and that it “remains committed” to allowing KLG and the school to co-exist.
.............
And there is a vigorous exchange of view in the comments.

A National Audit Office report out today (Guardian report here) questions whether free schools are value for money and, worse, whether they are having a negative impact on existing schools in terms of squeezed capital costs and the creation of surplus capacity which makes other schools uneconomic.

For example, nearly 50% of the 113,500 new places opened in mainstream free schools since 2015 would create spare capacity in other nearby schools, 'potentially affecting their future funding', and for each new free school opened in 2015, five existing schools would feel a moderate to high impact on their funding.

Incidentally, it must be much harder to predict pupil population trends with Brexit since we don't know yet what rights EU citizens will have or how many people decide to leave the country anyway. But I noticed Tania Mathias was one of only three Conservative MPs to vote for the Brexit bill amendment guaranteeing their rights.

Can anyone explain to me in simple terms why it is that (and I only take this from the SH Residents Association newsletter so apologies if it is completely wrong) St Marys University are being encouraged to build on metropolitan open land on their grounds? I thought the main reason that the David Lloyd site as a potential for Turing was nixed was because this was against all sorts of policy.

Here is a link to the Strawberry Hill Residents Association site. Obviously I realise it has a particular agenda. It isn't that that concerns me, rather the council apparently backing one and saying the other is impossible.

It's so hypocritical! But I don't believe the David Lloyd site was rejected just because of it's MOL status - it was political - the council didn't want to open up old wounds (fulwell/squires) and they falsely claim that there would be big-money local opposition to a school on the site. This in itself is just as scandalous in my view.

Turing House have released their response to the recent admissions consultation. No surprises - they're keeping the 80:20 split.

Good point in principle. The lease arrangements are simpler for the land owned by St Mary's, on the other hand.

But maybe the main problem with the David Lloyd site, if accessed from the Sainsbury's side, is that it is only minutes' away on foot from Hampton High and would be more disruptive to more schools.

How can the scrap an athletics track that they have just named after Mo Farah to build accommodation blocks? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Could it be to do with public access? The David Lloyd site is some sort of public right of way whereas the St Marys and Hospital Bridge Road sites aren't. Nobody would be able to apply for village green status for one thing, so its less risk.

Here is the NAO report: Capital Funding for Schools - a dry read!

The Guardian has: Revealed: thousands of children at London schools breathe toxic air - Exclusive: 802 schools, nurseries and colleges are in areas where levels of nitrogen dioxide breach EU legal limits:

. . A study identifies 802 educational institutions where pupils as young as three are being exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide that breach EU legal limits and which the government accepts are harmful to health . . One-third of state nursery schools, nearly 20% of primaries and 18% of secondary schools in the capital are in areas where toxic levels of nitrogen dioxide threaten children’s health
……………
It comes with a league table of 3,261 schools; here are the top-scoring LBRuT schools (the European nitrogen dioxide (NO2) legal limit is 40 micrograms of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre of air):

The Royal Ballet School 50.4
Richmond Adult Community College 45.9
Deer Park School 44.2
St Stephen's Church of England Primary School Richmond 43.3
East Sheen Primary School 41.8
St Osmund's Catholic Primary School 39.4
Windham Nursery School 38.7
Twickenham Academy 38.4
Marshgate Primary School 38.2
The Swedish School 38.1

The lowest-scoring is Hampton Court House: 28.3.

Happily in two years’ time we shall be clear of the EU and its pettifogging rules, free at last to breath as much dirty air as we want!

This article sets out exactly how much money each local school will lose and how many teachers this equates to - pretty scary:
www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/richmond-upon-thames/in-the-know/see-which-richmond-schools-will-be-affected-by-massive-funding-cuts#

181 by my count. This excludes the new directly funded academies and free schools.

The non sponsored secondary schools - Teddington, Waldegrave, Grey Court, Orleans Park etc. are already directly funded academies so it would be interesting to see if there is any difference between them and St RR, Turing, RPA etc. Teddington School is set to lose nearly 3 times the amount it has already lost this year and found very challenging(£250k) by 2019. Will LB Richmond councillors feel they ought to help out the primaries by raising council tax a bit more?!

I saw that Sarah Olney MP asked a direct question in PMQs yesterday on school funding in the borough being squeezed, when free schools in some areas are costing millions in capital funding yet are surplus to capacity. The answer was a non-answer denying that school funding was being cut. That's not the reality on the ground.

Secondary offer day. 1886 applications, 77 more than last year. 68% offered 1st preference, 86% offered one of their top 3 preferences. 31 with no offer at all. As we know, this will move a lot over the summer.

Sarah Olney (LibDem) A recent NAO report exposed massive Government overspend on new free school sites, and the DfE estimates that it will need to spend a further £2.5 billion on land for these schools. Schools throughout my constituency are reporting chronic levels of underfunding. Will the Prime Minister please review the plans for new free schools and provide existing schools with the investment they need?

The Prime Minister I am happy to say to the hon. Lady that we have, of course, protected the core schools budget in real terms. Yes, we have had free schools—I understand that she raises a concern about them—but we have seen the programme of free schools and academies continue under this Government to ensure that we are creating more good school places throughout the country. That is what we want to do and that is what our policy will continue to do.

theyworkforyou.com

What a useless non-answer from the PM.

The fault lies with Sarah Olney’s question, which reflects her and her staff’s inexperience: it is a broad swipe when when a sharp thrust is needed. She could have asked:

The 3 secondary schools in my constituency - Christ's Church, Grey's Court and Richmond Park Academy - will lose £1.6 million a year from the new funding formula. They will have to sack 44 teachers to stay in the black. What is the Prime Minister’s message to the parents and governors of these schools

Her recent adjournment debate on surface access to Heathrow shows that she can cut through the verbiage and pin government and Heathrow down by the simple tactic of taking them at their word. She needs to practice applying this approach to everything she does.

Does anyone know the cut off distances yet for secondary school allocations this year?

This week’s print RTT has ’Bleak assessment as schools face cuts (p 3).

The figures given come from schoolcuts.org.uk developed by the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers: Richmond £7.3mn. total cuts = £341/pupil. The cuts/pupil for inner London boroughs is much higher: Wandsworth £603, Greenwich £598, Lewisham £600. There is a postcode search to make it easy to see how your local schools are affected.

Note that the RTT gives the wrong url: www.schoolcuts.org which is a similar US site.

Here are the cut off distances as printed in our offer letter (distance column is titled "furthest distance offered"):

Christs - open places 1.291km
Grey Court - 2.941km
Hampton High - n/a
Orleans - 1.611km
Richmond Park - 1.945km
St Richard Reynolds - randomly allocated within criterion 2
Teddington - 3.429km
RTS - 5.445km
Turing House - 3.294km
Twickenham Academy - n/a
Waldegrave - area A:1.911km area B:5.304km

All have a waiting list apart from Hampton High and Twickenham Academy.

Not entirely clear on the Turing House distance - presuming it covers the furthest from either admissions point, but they haven't split it out like Waldegrave.

Thanks Jodah.

2016 cut-offs …

Christs 1.438,
Grey Court 3.271,
Orleans 1.466,
RPA 3.731,
Teddington 2.433,
TH 2.526,
Waldegrave A 1.616, B 5.172.

So all reduced apart from Teddington and TH. RPA has significantly reduced!