As most parents with primary aged children already know from various meetings with Richmond Council, next year the Council needs to create some seven additional reception classes across the borough. Locally Orleans Infant School, St Mary’s CE Primary School and Chase Bridge Primary School are all going to take an additional class. It appears there are still 50 children in the TW1 postcode without places. According to Matthew Paul, Deputy Head of Commissioning, Delivery and Service Improvement;
“This year, due in part to the recession, demand has increased to the point that the shortfall in places compared with normal capacity of 1,937 is over 200. We have therefore provided seven additional reception classes across the borough, including one each at Chase Bridge Primary and at Orleans Infant. The take-up rate from birth (i.e. the number of children born in the area, plus those who have moved in, whose parents want state school places for them) has increased this year from 70% to 78%.”
Here is the full letter to St Mary’s CE Primary School from the Council.
ADDITIONAL RECEPTION CLASS AT ST MARY’S, 2009/2010
I am writing in regard to the kind decision of the school’s Governing Body to accommodate an additional Reception class at the Infants’ site for the 2009/2010 school year. My letter sets out the reasons why we, as the Council, made the request to the Governors and will, I hope, provide you with some reassurance concerning the impact that the additional class will have.
The Council has a duty, under Section 14 of the Education Act 1996, to provide state school places for all in-borough children whose parents request them.
Between 2000 and 2007, the number of live births in the borough rose by 21%, from 2,384 to 2,884, and Richmond Borough’s primary schools were top of the national Key Stage 2 league tables throughout those years. As a result, demand for places in reception increased by 200 pupils in that period, with a large leap in numbers in 2007, which has increased in both subsequent years.
This year, due in part to the recession, demand has increased to the point that the shortfall in places compared with normal capacity of 1,937 is over 200. We have therefore provided seven additional reception classes across the borough, including one each at Chase Bridge Primary and at Orleans Infant. The take-up rate from birth (i.e. the number of children born in the area, plus those who have moved in, whose parents want state school places for them) has increased this year from 70% to 78%.
Although we have secured funding to create five planned forms of entry, including one via the conversion of St Stephen’s and Orleans Infant into two-form entry primary schools, we do not have funding for any further permanent expansions of existing schools. Similarly, we do not have funding, or secured sites, for any new primary schools. We will, though, continue to lobby the Government for additional funding.
The pupil forecasts that we produced last September, based on the birth data and the ‘take-up rate from birth’, indicated that the shortfall of primary school places would mean that we would require two additional Reception classes in 2009/2010. We therefore arranged well in advance for extra classes to be provided at Holy Trinity and St Mary’s and St Peter’s, as precursors to their planned permanent expansion. As demand, exacerbated by the recession, was subsequently higher than our forecasts indicated that it would be, we could see that we would need further extra classes and so we arranged for extra classes at Chase Bridge and St Elizabeth’s. Before deciding if any further classes were needed, we needed to see how quickly - or not - the waiting lists would move compared with previous years. It soon became apparent that, despite the provision of those four additional classes at the initial allocations stage in March, the waiting lists were moving very slowly and that more places would be needed if they did not start moving more quickly. In considering that movement, we had to balance the cost of extra classes against the likely situation in September, i.e. we do not want to provide further extra classes if, by September, the waiting lists would have moved to the extent that the extra classes would be only half full. However we have provided two further classes, at Lowther and at Orleans Infant.
Since the closing-date in December 2008, we have received 150 late applications, many of which were submitted since we made the initial allocations in March 2009, and which have added considerably to the pressure on places. The School Admissions Code does not allow us to prioritise ‘on-time’ applicants over ‘late’ applicants; and the High Court judgement against Greenwich Council in 1989 makes it unlawful to reserve places solely or mainly for in-borough applicants. Due to legislation which limits class-sizes to no more than 30 (with limited exceptions) within key stage 1, we are unable just to slot children in here and there to make classes of 31, 32, or 33 pupils, despite the fact that some schools would be willing to do this.
Before the St Mary’s Governors their decision, we still had 80 in-borough children unplaced (i.e. they had applied - either on time or late - but we had been unable to meet any of their preferences or offer them an alternative place), we needed another Reception class in the TW1 (Twickenham/St Margarets) area, where unmet demand was most heavily concentrated. The remainder of the unplaced children will be offered places from waiting lists for other schools. In considering how best to provide places for the unplaced children in TW1, we looked at several options, including providing a second extra Reception class at Orleans Infant, or a Reception class at St Stephen’s, as a precursor to its proposed conversion into a two-form entry primary school in September 2010; but, after exploration of those ideas with the schools concerned, none of those options appeared to be realistic in comparison with the proposal to make a request to the Governing Body at St Mary’s.
We are sorry that we made our request to the Governors so late in the school year and we are extremely grateful to them for having considered the matter and then having agreed to it. We have provided all requisite assurances to the Governors concerning the funding that the school will receive in order to provide the facilities for the extra class and to mitigate the knock-on effects that it will have. Past experience has shown that when schools have accommodated extra classes there has been no adverse effect upon educational standards or the welfare of the children and staff within the school.
The parents of the children who will be offered places in the extra class all stated preferences - most of them as their first preference - for St Mary’s and they are therefore aware of the school’s ethos and values. They are also all living within Twickenham area. I am sure that those parents will be very grateful to have received offers of places at the school.
Finally, I must reiterate my grateful thanks, on behalf of the Council, to the Governing Body and staff of the school, who I know will do a superb job in educating both these extra children and all the other children within the school.
If you have any queries in relation to this letter, please contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Paul, Deputy Head of Commissioning, Delivery and Service Improvement
Comments
I wonder whether the collective brains at the council will be able to extrapolate this issue forward another 6 years, and plan for the required extra capacity at the secondary schools - in advance !
Ed on 2009-07-13 17:47:20 +0000As I read this, the '50 without places' is for the whole borough and few will be in TW1:
' . . Before the St Mary's Governors their decision, we still had 80 in-borough children unplaced . . we needed another Reception class in the TW1 area, where unmet demand was most heavily concentrated. The remainder of the unplaced children will be offered places from waiting lists for other schools . . '
The key word is 'Before'.
Chris Squire on 2009-07-13 18:54:02 +0000Indeed it is Christopher, indeed it is. BEFORE 6 years are up, you need to find additional places at secondary schools for those 80 bulge-year children. Not too challenging for you, I hope?
Ed on 2009-07-13 20:01:12 +0000I can't tell you how furious I am about this. For the Council to make out that this is a new problem only foreseen two years ago is disingenuous to say the least. We all know that this problem has been simmering for many many years.
I campaigned vigorously in 2001/2 for a primary school to be a requirement of the planning brief for the former Brunel University site. Because of the shortage of primary places at the time, the rising local population and the new development this was a perfect solution. But both the LibDems and the Tories ignored it, preferring to pay their attentions to their political battles over Twickenham Riverside . Now they have the utter gall to suggest it is a recent phenomenon, putting the blame on everyone and everything except themselves.
It's disgraceful and, as always it is the schools, the children and our community that pays the price.
Judy Maciejowska on 2009-07-14 18:32:20 +0000Judy Maciejowska doth protest too much; she should study the St Stephen's Expansion News by Matthew Paul [Deputy Head of Commissioning, Delivery and Service Improvement, 020 8891 7588, m.paul@richmond.gov.uk] www.st-stephens.richmond.sch.uk/expansionNews.html from which comes:
'Why did the Council not build a primary school on the old Brunel University site in North St Margarets? Before Brunel University sold the site to Octagon in 2002, we were informed that the cost of buying sufficient space on the site for a school would have been £15 million. That cost, even before the cost of constructing a new school (between £5-10 million) was factored in, was prohibitive. It was also felt that as the site was so close to the borough boundary with Hounslow, building a school there would have provided as many places for Hounslow children as it would have done for Richmond children.'
Chris Squire on 2009-07-14 19:46:47 +0000Those costs were always disputed and a Section 108 agreement could have covered a very large part.
The argument about Hounslow children was also a thin one. The three neighbouring schools in Isleworth were not oversubscribed at the time and were - and I believe, still are - good schools.
More excuses, more excuses.
Judy Maciejowska on 2009-07-14 23:29:38 +0000JM writes ' . . The three neighbouring schools in Isleworth were not oversubscribed at the time and were - and I believe, still are - good schools.'
If that was the case, why did residents of N St Margarets [which used to be part of Hounslow Borough] want a new school? School admissions ignore borough boundaries and the existence of spare capacity just up the road would have been, at that date, a decisive argument against building a new one. Presumably when the area was in Hounslow, residents sent their children to these schools and were happy to do so.
I note the point about a possible S108 agreement; i know nothing about this so I won't comment.
Chris Squire on 2009-07-15 01:09:44 +0000The correct term [a Google search reveals] is 'Section 106 Agreement': 'Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government's Circular 05/2005. Matters agreed as part of a S106 must be:
I think it's obvious that the Brunel development was not large enough to justify a new school by itself, particularly when both Richmond and Hounslow schools had spare capacity. So the site would have had to be bought at the open market price.
The three Hounslow primary schools just across the Crane are: The Blue Schoolâ, St Marys RC Primary Schoolâ and Worple Primary Schoolâ.
Chris Squire on 2009-07-15 10:10:50 +0000Judy is quite right about this. She, I, Richard Lebus of SMERA and others went along to make representations about the Brunel Brief when it went through the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. I produced maps to show that not one Hounslow child would have been allocated a place in a school at the southern end of the site in preference to those without places in North St Margarets.
This is of course still the case.
The O&S Committee almost wavered in favour of accepting our modest amendment, which would have allowed for future educational need to be considered, but two things stopped them:
It is also fair to say that when the Brief was drawn, the then sitting councillors, who included me, failed to challenge the Education Department's assertion that there was no demand for extra places. This was a mistake which I have regretted ever since.
A school provided on the Brunel site would indeed have been expensive, and there was also a strong preference for not creating 1FE schools. However had the Brief been amended there might have been a possibility of Octagon having to finance a school or improvements to a school elsewhere. I doubt if they would have been obliged to provide a site big enough for a school on the site.
One might also say that the Ballet Rambert School represents a significant educational facility.
There is a strong and quite irrational prejudice against the Worple School. By all accounts it is improving and also has splendid facilities. There would need to be a critical mass of parents favouring it and that takes a certain amount of courage I think. I didn't have it, so why should I expect others to?
No-one really comes out with much credit in this matter, viewed from a historical perspective.
However I think we do need to look forward herein.
The borough has secured enough money to turn Orleans Infant School and St Stephen's into two 2FE primary schools. The catchment of the latter will include North St Margarets. There are other possibilities, but they are not funded. I would suggest that they get on with it. If the scheme becomes part of yet another mindless party political controversy and is lost through delay and dithering, whose interests will be served by that?
Laurence Mann on 2009-07-15 14:52:10 +0000Christopher wondered why North St. Margarets residents wanted another school when they used to be part of Hounslow.
Laurence said: "If the [latest] scheme becomes part of yet another mindless party political controversy and is lost through delay and dithering, whose interests will be served by that?"
For sure, Laurence is right (as usual), but it doesn't stop me being angry.
Judy Maciejowska on 2009-07-15 15:26:35 +00005 years ago, my son was one of many children who were consigned to a waiting list for school places. We lived 804 metres (or 6 minute walk) from Orleans Infants and were number 18 on the waiting list. The only school place we were offered was 2 ½ miles away on the other side of Whitton. At that point (from memory)Richmond was operating with only 8% slack in primary places - far lower than the national average. We argued vehemently for additional capacity to be created then based on live birth rates and the simple fact that there were more children than places and as a group we all felt (as did a barrister expert in school appeals) that we had a convincing and watertight case.
It's not a new phenomenen - maybe it's been exacerbated by the number of children transferring from the independent sector but it has always been an accident just waiting to happen and the council are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The area north of the A316 is packed with young families - for most of them the schools in St Margarets are their local schools - they are closest.
Whoever is tasked with predicting demand for primary school places has failed local taxpayers miserably.
karen on 2009-07-16 12:11:21 +0000Hello everyone, this really is ground-hog day isn't it? Like Karen my eldest son was put on impossibly long waiting lists in 2004 having been offered a school miles away, and he was eventually lucky enough to gain a place at St Mary's after half a term elsewhere. All parents involved that year felt the Council were being incredibly short-sighted in their planning and it is galling to see so many one-off bulge classes squeezed into so many good schools (some at appallingly late notice) when it was so obvious then and still is now that a new school in North St Margarets, especially with so much new housing, is the answer. If this week's headlines are to be believed, the Council really is going to get more money, so perhaps Mr Paul will be saved the bother of "lobbying the Government for additional funding" and can instead turn his attention to longer term solutions for this annual problem for local parents and their children.
Ben Driver on 2009-07-16 15:57:30 +0000KP write ' . . We lived 804 metres (or 6 minute walk) from Orleans Infants. . '. This implies walking at 5 mph! I suggest that walking with young children, with the bridge over the A316 to cross, one would be doing well to achieve half that, i.e. 2 ½ mph, so the walk would be 12 minutes at least.
The shortage of places in 2004 was addressed by opening St Mary's on a second site in the grounds of Orleans school, a scheme vigorously opposed by the parents of pupils at that school and described to me by one of the then councillors as the 'least bad' solution.
There has indeed been a very sharp increase in the average 'take-up rate from birth' across the borough this year, from 70% to 78% www.st-stephens.richmond.sch.uk/expansionNews.html . This means that the fraction going private fell by one quarter. It's likely that [as happened 5 years ago] much of this increase is concentrated in a few areas which are relatively richer than the rest of the borough; St Margarets is one of these.
In fact the number of 'first preference' applications for Orleans Infants has fallen, from 133 last year to 129 this time. The main increase has evidently been at St Mary's.
Chris Squire on 2009-07-17 15:28:18 +0000Christopher, You're always so quick with the figures, but I cannot fathom what point you are trying to make any more - your comment on KP's walking speeds being to illustrate what, exactly? KP's family clearly live a perfectly reasonable walking distance from the school of their choice, the speed that they walk is a matter for them, I don't believe even the LibDems have begun to consider regulation of walking speeds yet!
Every day we walk from our road in east St.Margarets to St.Marys Infants, I don't know the exact distance but it's probably further than KPs as it takes around 15 minutes, then round to the juniors, and home again, a total round-trip of 35-40 minutes - and that's often going fast, on scooters! We comfortably gained that place at the local school of our choice, I believe the council has a moral responsibility to make local places available to everyone in the community who requires it, and I'm afraid that requires a bit of forward vision and planning. If half the people have to drive to across the borough every day, your CO2 policies will be in tatters...
Repeated assertion that the council has done nothing wrong and has planned perfectly rationally and adequately simply doesn't wash any more, no matter what spin you put on your figures. LM is at big enough to express his regret at not pushing ahead for something on the Brunel site. The fact is that the situation has been "chronic" for several years and has now gone somewhere beyond "acute".
My information is that at least the Blue School in Isleworth is also full - and their governors turned down the request of a bulge class for next year. So there are not perhaps as many vacancies up north as people muight be suggesting.
The political view always seems to be that it's easier to get the builders in and make physical alterations, because there's stuff written on bits of paper that's too difficult to change. I thinkmit's time you politicians took the upper hand and actually negotiated your way around these bits of paper to make better use of what money we do have, instead of making excuses that the pot is too empty. Nigel Cannings proposals for Orleans/St.Stephens being a case in point.
Ed on 2009-07-17 21:53:48 +0000The point is that 804 metres is not a 6 minute walk - it is a 12 minute walk. What matters is the time taken, not the distance, so it is important to get it right.
The Council's legal duty is to offer every child a place in a borough school. One could imagine it having a duty to offer a 'local ' place and arguments over what that should mean in terms of walking time. One could imagine it having the discretion to increase class size up to, say, 35 to squeeze children into a local school. One could imagine it having the power to tax and borrow and spend to provide enough local school places. None of this applies: education authorities operate under tight rules from central government and have little freedom of action.
What LM says [and I agree] is that a Section 108 agreement might have screwed some money out of Octagon but not a school site; the money would have gone into the capital fund for schools across the borough, not in North St Margarets.
I note what you say about the Blue School. I think there has been a London wide rise in the birth rate compounded in our part of Richmond upon Thames by a sharp fall in the going private. The recent expansion of St Mary's is enough to cope with the former but not the latter. Next year, as prosperity returns [if it does], the going private may return to normal.
Whatever airy promises they make when they are seeking election [as JM will no doubt be next year], politicians soon learn once elected that the pot is indeed pretty empty and that 'to govern is to choose'. If they opted instead to tax and spend to meet the wishes of every special interest, they would be voted out by disgruntled council tax payers at the next election.
Chris Squire on 2009-07-18 11:02:00 +0000Christopher Squire wrote:
"The point is that 804 metres is not a 6 minute walk - it is a 12 minute walk. What matters is the time taken, not the distance, so it is important to get it right."
Yes it IS important to get it right and I'm sorry but that is plain WRONG. You should read some documents on school admission procedures I think. "Time taken" and "Speed" are irrelevant, it is the DISTANCE which is used, as computed by a geographic information system over public land and publicly maintained footpaths. (By way of information - short-cuts over private land and proximity to public transport are also disregarded).
Ed on 2009-07-25 13:47:24 +0000There is no conflict here and there is no call for the aggressive tone of voice in what is only a conversation. I agree that what matters to the school admissions is the objective distance calculated by GIS; what I meant to refer to [in the context] was what matters to the parent, which is how long it takes, i.e. distance divided by a realistic measure of walking speed. Children do not walk at 5 mph and they often don't walk at 2 ½ mph unless hustled along by their parent:
' . . Then, the whining schoolboy with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school . . '
As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII: William Shakespeare
Chris Squire on 2009-08-03 01:28:29 +0000