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.

As Michael Needley, the leader of Sovereign’s education team, apparently told an audience of investors last year, education is a ‘tremendous sector’ for high-return investment firms. ‘Let’s all go forth,’ he said. ‘Let’s all make hay.’

[Puts head in hand and weeps]

more responsible solution ... Uxbridge Road site ... headteacher ... vision for the school will appeal to many residents of Hampton North

But there's already an undersubscribed school there and no projected need for places - same problem as in Whitton. I see the councillors of all sides were thinking hyper local (what's in it for our ward). But with the new MAT, HA's (or TA's) success (or failure) is now Waldegrave and Teddington's success (or financial headache), so what any councillor said a few months ago has surely been overtaken by events. A North Teddington site would be the most appropriate for their admissions policy or a split site in North Teddington, according to the school's own business case and the demand shown within 2km of the admissions point according to the cut-off point this year. Unless they change their policy to include random selection to allow a fair chance to those near a school wanting an extra option.

Your links seems to go to the blog not the post so I can't find it Chris.

I did find a news story about Lord Nash's first academy venture, as a business man before he got to world the political power. Apparently his company was connected to the Westminster cemeteries scandal. Dead people, sick people, young people - where there's government money, there's a profit to be made.

'got to world wield the political power'

Predictive text probs

mumnlondon2: the second link (in teh final para) goes to powerbase.info/index.php/Sovereign_Capital.

Mumsnet have stopped using colour coding to indicate links so we need to make them more obvious in what we write - how?

A North Teddington site would be the most appropriate for their admissions policy or a split site in North Teddington

I agree, I do think a North Teddington split site would be the most viable option. There aren't large sites available for a secondary school in Teddington. It seems like a good compromise.

Parents around the admissions point won't have their community pulled apart and kids commuting across the borough. There wouldn't be the traffic and pollution concerns. It wouldn't affect either academy as much and therefore minimise the impact.

It also would mean that protected green open spaces within the borough were conserved, something that the mayoral candidates have spoken out and seem to feel strongly about.

Turing could keep 100% admissions around North Teddington and wouldn't have any Whitton/Hounslow Borough kids at the school. Would mean more Richmond Borough places so everyone here should be happy with that.

Perhaps the EFA already have some suitable sites in mind.

Or as a third option, they could stay small like RET's Hove school (100 pupils) and stay put in Livingstone House. However, it is hard for small schools to sustain a sixth form.

I don't think Livingston House is big enough even for 100 per year for 5 years. Have never heard sny whisper of other sites in North Teddington or Fulwell. Plus Council wants Livingston House to become a primary school in a couple of years.

Interesting article on sixth forms. A lot of parents thought it would be good for the local schools to have one to attract teachers who want to teach A level but doesn't mean they expect their own children to attend them!

The council say here that: It is essential to identify another new site within this area to meet possible longer-term need. There´s no more room for expansion in our 5 primary schools in Whitton/Heathfield.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that. If Heathfield can go to 4FE, then so could Chase Bridge, for example. Though I think that would be to the detriment of CB.

A friend who works in a field which services independent and academy schools
told me that a lot of academies are really struggling financially and had a bad shock when the reality hit them. When they opted to become academies they strongly believed that their financial position would improve but they simply didn't factor in properly the effects of having to pay for all the services that the LA previously provided. As a result they've had to make quite drastic staffing cuts and have had to have people like TAs teaching classes full time. The big academy chains are amongst the worst for keeping schools short despite paying their own staff very generously. Funding from the DfE is definitely not going to be impressive, so the problem can only get worse.

icimoi The big academy chains are amongst the worst for keeping schools short despite paying their own staff very generously. And of course the field is wide open to have cosy relationships with suppliers (which to be fair some LEAs were guilty of too) or even be the suppliers.....

Whittonmum Perhaps the EFA are looking at suitable sites now. Even if there was a whisper of suitable sites in North Teddington (and if there were I am sure Fullwell parents would be shouting it here. When It was announced Turing was not going to open for lack of site a thread highlighting possible sites, basically the Uxbridge Road site, Udney Park and an industrial site presumably Greggs, on the main Mumsnet popped up very quickly) the EFA are concerned only with finding sites that can be delivered as cheaply as possible. Hence they had no problem opening the GEMS school in a difficult site and no doubt would not have had a problem with the A316 site if the Council and Vince Cable had not facilitated Ryde House for Old Deer Park School. The Council and our MP have only taken the stance they have on the Whitton site because it was around election time, and Turing was a convenient scapegoat. On the GEMs school and St RR they have completely ignored the feelings of local residents, indeed emphasised that the school place need overrides them, and on the A316 site they were ignoring the impact on nearby schools. I think it far more likely that they have no problem with the Whitton site or if the Council willed it, possibly the Uxbridge Road site. The Council are also entering the second half of their term, they have already taken steps to make the shortage of school places opaque by trying to airbrush the parents currently without offers. They will not want it to become an issue pre election.

And the only reason TA and HA are threatened by Turing is because it provides what parents want, and not some Swedish experiment. If under the MAT they provide that, though it may take a few years to deliver/become apparent, then the demand will be there for TA, HA and Turing.

I think with TA and HA they simply dont deliver the results. They didnt intheir previous incarnations andthey haven, tunderthe current incarnation. Ifthe Swedishmodel was producing good results people wouldhavebeen happy.
Re a site for Turing they really needto move into the golf course behind the sixth crossallotments. Then move thegolf corse to uxbrigde rd.

Even if there was a whisper of suitable sites in North Teddington (and if there were I am sure Fullwell parents would be shouting it here

I thought that any commercial negotiations with the EFA were supposed to be hush hush so as not to compromise them. Why would Fulwell parents with insider knowledge be shouting about it now?

The EFA are concerned only with finding sites that can be delivered as cheaply as possible

A split site in Teddington wouldn't be the most costly option possible.

really needto move into the golf course

Unfortunately, as much as Turing might like to do so they can't simply take over a golf course which is leased by a private company on a contract that is goodness-knows how long.

plus Council wants Livingstone House to be a primary school in a couple of years

They can still look for a primary school site in the meantime.

Or as a third option, they could stay small like RET's Hove school (100 pupils) and stay put in Livingstone House

Which would keep those parents happy who like the idea of Turing as a small local community school.

whittonmum If anyone could give a heads up to the EFA, the Council and Turing to bring the school closer to the area of need then I am sure they would. Do you know Fulwell? Can you suggest anywhere suitable for a 5 form entry secondary, even 4 form entry on split sites plus an additional primary site (which would be a disaster for the Council to handle PR wise coming to an electon, given they gave away the perfect site for a 5 form entry community school plus a much needed community primary serving the whole community, albeit with provision for special needs education that could have been met at similar cost, maybe less, anyway). The only other option I know of as someone who does walk the streets is the council owned MOL scrubland next to David Lloyd on Uxbridge Road . It is getting into cloud cuckoo land where unicorns might fly to assume otherwise , and actually if the forces ranged against Turing were to succeed into forcing them to become too small to achieve all the benefits of being 5 form entry eg operate an effective sixth form, as well as fail to provide for a looming school place crisis, then it would be something darker altogether in my mind and many others.

One thing all the activist groups over here in Twickenham have focused on, and we have had lots of experience , the Catholic School, the station, Gloriana and now the pile of nei classic flats, is to come up with workable alternatives.......

When the council did its school planning projections in 2011, it assumed the secondary free school would be 100 places until 2020. A stab in the dark - how could they know what was being planned? - although there was clearly early interest from commercial providers like IES, a parent group and the Maharishi school. And Gove had mentioned Richmond specifically in a speech. A Turing governor was attending education committee meetings at the time, although the RET proposal wasn't developed until 2012.

My point is that the council estimated that sort of site/school size early on. And maybe they got it right.

They included the Free School projections under suffrance, it would have totally undermined the forecasts to do otherwise, and in projections that were aimed at justifying giving away the Clifden site. There were lots of risks that have materialised since, ironically most on the Surrey side where it wasn't expected by even the most critical, but then the pent up demand is clearly on the Middlesex side and the academies have not won parent confidence to the extent of RPA, given Turing is oversubscribed.

Build it and they will come (and they all pay rates and have that right )

'on the Middlesex side ... the academies have not won parent confidence*

I don't think they've even officially changed hands yet. Give them a chance. The Swedish methodology can be dropped instantly - no doubt the 'knowledge portal' is patented anyway - but it will take a while to build capacity within the teaching staff and for that to be noted by Ofsted. As twick13 said, the predecessor schools were not 'popular' because the schools were not perceived to be high performing, parental confidence was also related to an intake perceived as not high achieving or disadvantaged compared to other Middlesex schools. Parents like a school with a good top set - more likely to offer single sciences, languages, etc. That's a vicious circle which RPA has found challenging to break even without competition (and Grey Court in North Kingston also had that benefit). The new trust is now competing directly with Turing.

On procurement, my experience of local government bodies is of a strict (some would say overly bureaucratic) procurement process - tenders for work, best value/environmental or equality impact assessments, having to sign framework agreements and all that. And they are publicly audited. It's no surprise that defenders of academies on mumsnet also provide services to them. The Perry Beeches scandal and Kings Science Academy scandal before it were about money unaccounted for, paid to relatives of directors, with no contract or procurement process. If you 'slash red tape' you also open the door to corrupt practices.

I appreciate it will take time. Can the Swedish methodology be dropped instantly though? They have a lot of resources, even building lay out, aimed at delivering it, as well as, as you say, the softer elements of teacher culture etc. . I genuinely wonder just how quickly the MAT can implement the best practise from the other schools, given there are presumably no extra financial resources? But I do think we should not underestimate the support the schools do have, if not oversubscribed they are certainly not half empty. And there are things they can do quickly like improve the contact with parents, improve the face they present to parents. From what I gather where Turing and RPA have scored highly with parents is that they are better at communicating with them and making them feel part of their community.

But the underlying point is that whatever the reasons these schools have deterred parents into finding other options for their children's education. Turing, and the extra places at the other community schools have provided those parents with a local state option and satisfied some of that pent up demand but if those places had not been there most of those parents would not have sent their children to TA or HA. Hobbling Turing is not the answer to their problems. They will only succeed if they get better at winning the confidence of Whitton and Hampton parents. Both schools are surrounded by outstanding primaries, with plenty of pupils who would fill top sets.

They will only succeed if they get better at winning the confidence of Whitton and Hampton parents

Indeed. And Fulwell/West Twickenham parents.

PB.com has Nicky Morgan’s academy plan could boost her leadership hopes – or kill them stone dead:

Nicky Morgan reckons she has what it takes to be Tory leader . . (she) clearly hopes her big project — the plan to force all England’s state schools to convert to academies . . – will appeal to the Tory grassroots. If it does she could emerge as a serious contender . . after the EU referendum. It’s just as likely that it will kill her hopes stone dead.

Although she told members of the NASUWT at their conference that there was “no reverse gear” there is every chance she will be forced into a humiliating retreat by Tory rebels in the Commons or by the House of Lords. In the Upper House the government does not, of course, have a majority and since the measure wasn’t in the Tory election manifesto there will be little to inhibit . . peers from filleting the measure.

Key issues are likely to be the scrapping of the role of parent governors, the transfer of land in what is essentially a privatisation process – and the price tag – put at more than a billion pounds by Labour’s Shadow secretary Lucy Powell. Tory councillors in heartland counties are angry too . . One Cabinet member is said to have called the plan “bonkers”. In the latest and what could be the most serious move Graham Brady, chair of the Tory backbenchers 1922 committee, signals that the threat of a rebellion is real . .
…………..
0/10 for political judgment, I think. Anyway, if you care about these issues you should let our new MP know, particularly if you voted for her last time.

And Fulwell/West Twickenham parents

Indeed. TA and HA catchments already overlap with each other (some Heathfield pupils go to Hampton Academy) and they are the adjacent inborough wards - there are only so many they can expect to apply from Hounslow.

Can the Swedish methodology be dropped instantly though?

Why on earth not? The main feature was the curriculum materials and assessment online, but they're spending money on consultants so presumably it will be to develop the curriculum again (state schools are getting used to having to chop and change all the time). There's no such thing as university PGCE departments teaching a 'Swedish methodology' - teachers are trained to teach in mainstream schools, and it was the Swedish approach that they had to adapt to. Waldegrave is a teaching school so can supervise new teachers. And as for the building and classrooms - if Turing House can set up in ex commercial office space with no labs, or gym, or drama studio, or whatever you'd expect, I don't think a bit of AstroTurf lining a few chairs is going to be the biggest obstacle.

Looks like the Richmond West Schools Trust has been set up.

Out of interest I looked up Russell Education. Interesting snippet from the recently filed accounts: 'Turing House School ... facing similar challenges to King's School and St Andrew the Apostle in terms of site issues'. There was an in-year deficit of £760k because of lower than expected pupil numbers 'due to a lack of progress of works on site which caused anxiety amongst parents of potential students'. I thought that would be why they wanted to raise PAN at their other schools.