Hi @All First of all, thank you to everyone who has taken the time to comment and engage in this discussion. In particular, we really appreciate those who have offered constructive feedback, shared useful insights or taken the time to guide us. I'm a member of the Campaign and I spent time reading through the comments, and whilst we may not all agree, thoughtful, respectful discussion helps us learn. We welcome questions and scrutiny, and hope we could keep the conversation focused on facts, evidence and constructive solutions/feedback, rather than assumptions or personal judgements based on people’s accents, how they speak or how they come across in the BBC interview.
Also, I’d like to make one thing clear: we are not an entitled group of parents. We are hard-working people and taxpayers, just like many of you, who are simply asking the Council for transparency and more time. However, we are not sitting back and doing nothing....
We are an active group of parents challenging the closure proposal, scrutinizing the fairness of the process, seeking clarity on the Council’s rationale, and developing a financially viable plan that includes cost-saving measures and potential new sources of income. We are also working to attract new families and challenge negative perceptions caused by the pre-consultation itself. And we are doing all of this while working full-time and managing our own family responsibilities.
Why? Because we believe in community, positivity and helping one another. We believe that, before an established school and its community are lost, every reasonable alternative deserves a fair hearing. Our communities (everywhere) deserves transparent answers. The Council should demonstrate that closure genuinely represents the best use of public money compared with giving the school time to develop a viable alternative.
We are not just opposing closure. We want fairness, and most importantly, we want to be part of the solution.
The financial argument deserves scrutiny too
We recognize that low pupil numbers create genuine financial challenges. We are not suggesting that every small school should remain open regardless of cost, or that the Council should provide unlimited funding. However, the Council’s £400k figure is a projected cumulative deficit over three years, based on what could happen from 2027 if nothing changes. We are currently over 200K surplus. And a projected future deficit is not the same as a £400k bill that needs to be paid today. The Council’s projections are based on assumptions about what happens if the current position continues. We are now actively working on alternatives, reviewing costs and exploring new income opportunities.
And there is another crucial financial question the Council must answer. Kew Riverside is part of a long-term PFI contract with five years still remaining. Closing the school would require the implications of early termination to be addressed, including indemnity or termination costs. These could be substantial and could equal or even exceed the projected £400k deficit being used to justify closure. Has the Council fully accounted for these costs, and can it demonstrate that closing the school would genuinely deliver better value for public money than giving us time to develop a viable alternative? These are open questions for which we’re awaiting answers.
On the School capacity and pupil numbers: Yes, Kew Riverside has a physical capacity of 210 pupils. However, because the school operates a mixed-year model, its practical operating capacity is significantly lower, estimated at a maximum of around 120 pupils. The five-year 2021 projection indicated that pupil numbers could reach approximately 109–110 in 2026, bringing the school much closer to its estimated operating capacity than the headline figure of 210 suggests.It is therefore important to distinguish between physical capacity and operational capacity. Comparing current enrolment directly with 210 places risks presenting a misleading picture of how underused the school actually is.
What does the academic evidence actually say?
Some comments suggest that poor academic results explain why Kew Riverside has fewer pupils. The evidence contradicts this. The School's published Year 1 phonics screening results show that a consistently high number of pupils are meeting the expected standard, exceeding the national average. Likewise our Year 6 reading results exceed the national average:
The school has also shared reading figures accounting for certain pupils who joined in Year 5 or later in Key Stage 2 and may be disapplied from the relevant assessment. These figures were 80%, 80% and 88%, respectively, compared with national figures of 74%, 75% and 75%.
These results challenge the suggestion that poor academic performance is the obvious explanation for low pupil numbers. The school also has a pupil population with higher-than-average proportions of children with English as an additional language, special educational needs and disabilities, and those eligible for Pupil Premium. This context matters when interpreting outcomes and understanding the support children need. You can read the school's recently published Ofsted report here:
https://www.kewriverside.richmond.sch.uk/attachments/download.asp?file=3619&type=pdf
Please look at the evidence for yourselves rather than relying on rumours or assumptions.
Small does not mean unsuccessful: I also think the suggestion that a school is only nurturing because it has fewer pupils is too simplistic. A smaller school can offer genuine advantages, particularly for children who need additional support or who have not thrived in other settings. What matters is the quality of the education, the support children receive and what they are able to achieve.
Kew Riverside is a close-knit community where children are known as individuals, families build lasting relationships, and children can feel safe, supported and included. That has real value, alongside academic outcomes.
What about falling pupil numbers and future demand?
Falling birth rates and changing demographics are affecting primary school rolls across the borough, as well as across London and the UK. There may also be other factors influencing applications, including perceptions of mixed-age classes and competition from nearby schools. We should distinguish between low enrolment and poor educational performance, because they are not the same thing.
Also, it is reasonable for us to ask whether the Council has fully considered future demand, including planned housing developments, before making a decision that would be very difficult to reverse. Once an established school and its community have been lost, recreating that provision if circumstances change would be far from straightforward.
We ask that everyone sticks to evidence, facts and constructive debate.
We welcome scrutiny. We simply ask that our school, our children and our community are given a fair chance.
If, after reading all of this, you feel you can support our campaign, we would be very grateful if you could sign and share our petition: https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/Account/ePetitionDetails.aspx?ID=249
Every signature helps us show the Council how much our school means to our community and why it deserves a fair chance:
Have a lovely evening everyone!