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.

Waldegrave area A was about 1600m.

I heard on the grapevine that the cut off into Twickenham for Orleans was Radnor Road.

Also that people just off Meadway are about 150th (!) on the waiting list.

at a distant less popular school eg ... Buckingham for Hampton parents.

Buckingham is in Hampton. Its RECENT Ofsted rating is good. Heathfield Juniors also has a 'good' rating. They're both large schools so usually can meet all demand. Last time I checked the census spreadsheet they looked near to full in Y7.

mum posted statistics that showed most parents offered Heathfield who did not make it a choice rejected the place

I don't recall that, but I remember some council document a couple of years ago that showed 10 families had rejected Archdeacon Cambridge places even when they were first preference offers. That's pretty high, considering there are only 60 places. It's also got a 'good' rating. So maybe Twickenham Green parents are choosy even about schools on their doorstep that they have specifically asked for.

Best wait for recent data before making assumptions, though.

Before St Mary's in Hampton opened about 3 years ago parents in that part of Hampton were being offered places in Sunbury - there were no spare places at Buckingham.

Agree with Frustrated about the original black hole of Fulwell - it was definitely envisaged that Turing House would be meeting the needs of people who had no offer of a secondary school place not filling up with people who were rejecting TA and HA. They were supposed to on the up and to be full by the time it opened.

Has the Twickenham Green primary now got permanent planning consent?

Good point LProsser, looks like the planning application was submitted and a decision due tomorrow. 29 objections and 142 comments in support of the school, many of them from parents in Whitton, Hampton or Hounslow who were grateful of a place because the local schools in their areas were oversubscribed. Hope those families turning down Archdeacon (it was for 2013 entry) now appreciate how lucky they were.

So no evidence that Heathfield or Buckingham are 'unpopular' - completely the opposite. Would have to say the same about GEMS Twickenham Primary. If some pupils are travelling 3-4 miles from out of borough, the original travel plan (pupils from a 500m radius all walking) wasn't so realistic, though.

One way to see the black hole is on the Turing consultation map here www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zTCMhftEzN0s.kndOGsI_Fy90&hl=en
If you tick the boxes to show last year's Offer Day boundaries for Orleans Park and Teddington, then visualise boundaries of the same size around TA/HA you get a picture of how it will be when they improve. It might take a while for them to be that ámalo but also the boundaries for the other schools are shrinking as the primary bulges come through as Gegs74 shows.
RTS will take some pressure off but I haven't seen any signs of parents getting excited about that yet. Hopefully it will be good and popular.
Yes some parents do go private so those boundaries do increase over the summer but so many of those parents don't want to go private and just feel they have to as people here have said before. Better choices mean fewer going private (good thing in my book too).
Waldegrave is a red herring as its just for girls and brings in lots of house movers. I think it should do random allocation rather than distance in its catchment area like St Richard Reynolds does.

I can't make out those layers easily on my tablet but interesting. Radius not accurate because distance is measured by footpath not as crow flies.

A full lottery for Waldegrave wouldn't be popular but an element within a distance cut-off (20%?) would seem fair. There is a problem 'black hole' between Twickenham Area A and Cresswell Road Area B (it's Orleans Park catchment - though it does have a chance of a balanced intake). A lot of parents see that as unfair, too.

Two big differences between Waldegrave and TH with their split catchment is that
(a) Waldegrave takes 85% from around its site not 20%
(b) it has a line, not a point, which gives as much chance to those on the other side of Twickenham bridge as over Richmond bridge, so in a way it's three admissions points

TH was meant to be a resource for the Middlesex side of the borough with its science specialism. It could have been a boys' school and fitted nicely into the shape left by Waldegrave. Instead it's mixed, but it could have a lottery element to ensure Whitton and Hampton pupils have equal chances without skewing it against the interests of HA/TA.

After all, Hampton Hill juniors is 1.7 km from Hampton Academy and Lowther is 3.5 km from RPA yet both have been tied to those schools through the link system. If pupils expect their local school - operating ENTIRELY on distance - to support them, it should work both ways.

I don't think they've used a radius muminlondon as then it would be circular. The key says they're derived from the council maps but they have points so possibly they drew round the edge.
Of course Orleans and Teddington are bigger than TH or RTS or the academies so will have bigger areas even if they're as popular. Isn't Teddington something like 240 in a year group?
I think Turing has aimed to compensate for Waldegrave as there's something on the website about it, but they say its for girls who want a mixed school as well as boys. There are definitely girls there this year who turned down Waldegrave.

Yes, it is a radius - I can see it now, a red star in the middle of a perfectly formed circle 2237m in diameter. But it also contains half of Bushey Park, the Thames, the Ham lands and several golf courses and as well as all the scraggy bits around the railway lines that are impossible to cross. The bit in between Waldegrave and Teddington is now served very neatly by Grey Court. The other overlays clearly show that to the east of the circle, there's a nice area around Twick Riverside (where some of the big houses are) where Orleans Park and Waldegrave areas overlap.

And so on the western frontier, where the densest concentrations of residences are (bounded by the golf courses and cemeteries), Hampton and Twickenham Academies look on like forlorn sentinels as TH competes with their (undefined on this map) in-borough catchment areas.

Mum I wasn't saying that Heathfield Juniors or Buckingham were or are unpopular or not good, merely that for some in the black holes that emerged in Twickenham Green and Hampton they were inaccessible if you did not have access to a car. The black hole emerged on the other side of Hampton and Buckingham is not on a bus route from there, and as Lottie says many were only being offered the prospect of a waiting list place there anyway. The issue is parents not being offered places at any local schools at all (within their own target of 3 miles at primary and at least not involving 11year olds in two bus journeys from one end of the borough to the other.)

Greycourt serves the bit between Teddington and Waldegrave? Well true last year some parents applied for places www.richmond.gov.uk/grey_court_distance_offers_2015.pdf but I would put sending an 11 year old over the footbridge and Ham Common on a dark winter's evening on a par with the journey from Barnes to TA, and I would bet pupils are being ferried by car even though getting over Richmond or Kingston Bridge is a pain at rush hour. I know Twickenham Green parents were initially offered the new Kingston Free School last year but I don't think any took it. However the journeys desperate parents send their children on to access a good school shouldn't be taken advantage of especially when plenty of Surrey parents would like to access Greycourt.

And the dots on the Waldegrave and Orleans allocation maps that overlap are not "big" riverside houses but Tennyson, Poullet Gardens and Radnor's semis. All popular with families.

Mum you go in ever decreasing circles, now proposing a lottery for Turing. But that would be just as likely to discriminate against Whitton pupils as the current and proposed arrangement. Perhaps you would have Surrey side parents applying if Turing's non faith proposition is attractive enough in comparison to Christ's, as well as the whole Middlesex side. In the current situation it really does seem like a compromise interim arrangement to allocate 20% of places to a Whitton admissions point, brought forward and in excess of the numbers applying now and then reviewing that as the actual admissions profile and whole political shenanigans play out. I have every sympathy that Turing are not falling into step with the needs of various Councillors / MPs for a political sound bite by changing the admissions point to one that is not relevant to it's current situation (until the new site is realised) and makes no actual difference to Whitton parents.

I think branding TA and HA forlorn is insulting to the many parents who did send their children there last year and in previous years. They are not quite full but they certainly are not half empty. And if TA and HA had delivered as they should have done with all the investment, what the other Community schools do they would not be bursting at the seams, just as they are. A brand new school sat temporarily in an office building with limited outdoor space and lots of adverse publicity about where it will end up would be no competition.

Would be bursting at the seams......

No muminlondon, I think you're talking about the radius they've used to work out the admissions point. Obviously that's not a black hole. I was talking about the gap between the actual offer boundaries. Its a lot smaller but will be growing, especially if OP only went as far as Radnor Road this year!

'a perfectly formed circle 2237m in diameter radius' - so 4472m in diameter. The admissions point moved 1400m away but that made little difference to Hampton Hill because of road access.

OK Jellytoto but TA and HA catchments aren't given so it's not a black hole at all.

Frustrated

1. Two thirds of the responses to the admissions consultation disagreed with the proposed policy along with the council and four local schools who understand the affected communities. TH needs to find an alternative to mitigate that criticism. Random allocation is an alternative. I respect jellytoto for bringing up the suggestion in a general context.
2. Does it matter if Surrey side parents apply? If there's a shortage of places, why shouldn't they? But I did say 'within a 4km cut-off' so that would exclude them.

I wasn't saying that Heathfield Juniors or Buckingham were or are unpopular or not good

Yes, you did. And it is untrue. If you want refer to evidence, please use a link rather than *muminlondon once said'.

mum I said that they were less popular distant schools, clearly they would not have been offered to parents that distance away if they were as popular as the other community schools but that was a matter of geography not standards.

I don't keep mining the threads for links because all this has already been established in discussion on the thread. And as I say the key issue is the experience of parents

mum a link for you, on random allocations where the Brighton experiment is being reviewed. www.theargus.co.uk/news/11072119.Schools_selection_lottery_under_review_as_part_of___24m_places_boost/ I am told by a teacher there that the Council leant over backwards to make it work in parents favour. Unfortunately LBRUT don't have that strategic priority.

I do think that parental experience is a key point...I am a current parent of children transitioning from primary to secondary in LBRUT, and as such, have been following these threads since the beginning. My experience as a parent going through education in this borough, slightly marked by finding the old transfer information mimeographed letters in my parents' old files, is that argue as much as you like, we have not really had a choice of schools in this borough for a long time, unless near Waldegrave. Secondary school transfer is a personal experience for parents, more than a logical, forensic or political one. As previously noted, parents go through it and move on, so the council, with a political, one term view, can get away with doing the minimum possible, whilst blaming previous administrations for the shortcomings of the system.
Parents who then turn on the one positive proactive event to have happened in the last 40 odd years are misdirecting their focus.
Add constructive criticism where necessary, but don't blame TH for all the inherent problems in secondary allocations locally. It really isn't that simple.

BTW None of my family or friends are in any way involved in TH nor do my children attend or plan to attend.

propitia it isn't possible for a choice in the state school system without surplus, which then has an impact on individual schools, usually those with more deprived pupils. I agree that school provision is complex in that schools impact on each other. And I'd prefer to see Turing House work with the community in which the school is based, because getting through the planning process with a permanent site is in the interests of the school itself.

But the consultation over Turing House has now closed, it has fixed its policy, and the next development will be the planning application. Nothing we say here will influence that for the moment.

I'd argue that there have been many, many positive events in this borough in the last 10-15 years:

• new primary schools in good locations (Marshgate, Kew Riverside) as well as those that are convenient for parents but not so convenient for residents, - new buildings
• fantastic teachers
• more schools with Outstanding Ofsted ratings
• 25 new primary classes
• four new secondary schools opening over four years (counting North Kingston), great SATS results, a rise in GCSE and Ebacc standards overall
• a new trust solution for Whitton/Hampton academies
• the children services itself going from special measures (in 2002) to being considered an exemplary role model.

From a state school parent point of view, I can see where council does get it right (though there have been mistakes), even where the government has got it wrong. I'm not any way connected to the council, by the way.

Today’s RTT Online has (Outline) Plans for £70m campus and two-school development at Richmond College approved:

. . Increased traffic, loss of light and loss of playing field space were among the concerns raised at the planning meeting on Monday evening. Petra Hardaker, who lives in Egerton Road, expressed concerns about the height of the proposed buildings, which she worried could be as high as 45m, and how the expected 160 extra daily journeys would cause congestion: “ . . it is going to massively impact our light, our privacy and the feel of the neighbourhood which is a nice family area which will turn into an urban space. Even traffic as it is isn’t sustainable so an extra 160 vehicles going back and forward will be a nightmare.”

Sport England also has an outstanding objection to the proposals on the grounds that too much of the playing fields would be lost and there would not be enough space devoted to sporting facilities on the site. Consultation over the reserved matters not included in the outline planning application, including landscaping, parking and elevation will be open to consultation.

. . after the meeting . . the Heatham Alliance said (they were) disappointed in how little attention was paid to some of the 50 formal objections to the plans made by members of the community: “To brush aside the concerns of the community would add to the risks of this huge project, so Heatham Alliance urges the College and the Council to come back with a response that will really win support and help build a better relationship with the local community too.”

Nicola Meadley, of Craneford Way, explained how difficult it was for parents to find good school places for their children and she welcomed a new school on the site . .
..........
The Agenda for the Special Meeting of the Planning Committee, Monday, 7 March 2016 7:30 pm links to the webcast, the planning officer’s report and submissions from the Heatham Alliance (residents) and FORCE (environment).

I agree that there have been lots of positives. Even the 'less popular schools' like Heathfield Juniors have an Ofsted 'Good' rating so we aren't doing too badly compared to other areas of the country.

The new Richmond upon Thames school looks like it will be a fantastic addition to the existing family of schools.

The new improved Richmond College looks really great too. This is something for parents to really get excited about.

It's a shame that all the focus has been on Turing as these new developments are something we should be talking about.

I recently saw this quoted from 'Very British Problems' and it reminded me of the idea of doing another Turing admissions consultation.

"Let's put that to one side for now" - Translation: Let's put that in the bin forever.

Well Nick Whitfield said that the two challenges he had set himself when he took on the job were to deliver sixth forms and a Catholic School in the borough, so presumably he would view those as his main achievements. Though I would agree with you mum that the work he is doing with children's services is to be applauded.

However he is also proud of having prioritised optimising budgets over providing the spare capacity that the audit commission regard as essential to ensuring parents are offered a satisfactory level of school place provision. That is not common to all Councils, in fact is virtually unique, and is something that has become institutionalised over many years in the planning of school places and has disadvantaged many parents in the borough. To be fair it was going on long before the current administration though.

I would say that some of the achievements you list are also down to some outstanding school teams, particularly inspirational Heads like Maggie Bailey and it is good that the sharing of their strengths, expertise and best practise in borough schools has been facilitated.

I would also add the provision for children with special needs, the Catholic School has at least delivered benefit in terms of the new site and facilities in return for it's privilege, and the Council should be recognised for negotiating that as well as at least the 10 community places in the Primary School. Although provision nationally is shameful parents in this borough with children with significant physical, neurological or educational needs do have more provision in this borough than in most others.

I am glad we are focusing on something other than making the Turing House team the scapegoat for the political situation they find themselves in with relation to site.