On the 26th April there was a meeting at Orleans Infants to explain to parents the need for a temporary classroom to accommodate an extra class of Reception students. Richmond Council also provided a detailed note explaining the reasons for adding the class at Orleans, instead of other schools in the borough.
The reason for adding an additional class at Orleans Infants…
“This exceptional demand is more concentrated within St Margarets than it is in any part of the borough and the need for additional places for 2007/2008 entry is therefore greater there than elsewhere. We do not believe that this demand will dissipate before September unless additional places are provided.
We therefore feel that providing an extra class at Orleans Infant is the right thing to do, as it would meet the excess demand more fully than any other school could.”
Plans for this bulge year upon graduation…
bq. “We are confident that, were an additional class provided at the school, any children from the cohort who, in three years’ time, could not be offered places at St Stephen’s could be accommodated at other schools, including The Vineyard and Chase Bridge. However, St Stephen’s would welcome additional children to ensure that they are able to budget for the high quality education they provide. The school currently has a falling roll, with 40 vacant places, which is a significant issue for the school and their children.”
Regarding longer term issues with providing additional spaces…
“From a longer-term perspective, our pupil forecasts predict a consistent, but small, shortfall of places in St Margarets over the next eight years, but those forecasts will now have to be revised to take account of the clearly much smaller ‘drop-off’ to the private sector. The Authority will therefore reconsider the possibility of expanding Orleans Infant to a four-form entry school. Although they were specifically asked last year to look into the feasibility of changing the school into a 420-place school, the fact that IID’s architects felt that there was room for such expansion means that there should be room for expanding the school into a 360-place infant school instead. We will advise the administration that this expansion appears now to be essential, subject to securing funding from the DfES.”
No matter how you look at it there are still several open issues:
- The Council has no ability to know how many children have moved into an area and can only react to numbers when parents apply for school places.
- Even if Orleans was expanded to four intake classes, there is no realistic way to expand St Stephens Junior School.
- The success of the St Margarets’ Schools will continue to attract new parents from across Greater London.
Thank you to Simon Lamb for providing the Council’s note and offering up many of these points for consideration.
Comments
New and prospective parents moving in need to be reminded that the old principle of 'caveat emptor' still applies and not to believe what they are told about local schools by estate agents eager for commission. Perhaps a bill board advertisement by the railway station is the answer?
Chris Squire on 2007-05-03 21:41:10 +0000The note from the Council refers to a map attached. Can we see this?
The note betrays what we have always known: that our elected representatives of all colours find it difficult to think long term. The situation is uncannily similar to 2004, the last time these problems hit the headlines, and we knew then that number of children in St Margarets was on a steep incline (as the Council note at last recognises). Yet politicians did nothing; Geoffrey Samuels was more keen to set up a new Catholic secondary school for some reason. As an eloquent illustration, I enclose below this message a paragraph from a letter which local parents and other residents sent to Anji Phillips in July 2004 which is just as true now as it was then.
Let's hope that the publicity this time will mean we get a new school north of the A316. Squeezing more and more children into presently good schools is not the long term answer and will inevitably change the nature of those places. Our children deserve better.
Excerpt from letter from St Margarets Parents & residents to Anji Phillips (2 July 2004):
"You also expressed surprise at the level of demand in the St Margarets area even after the St Marys expansion. None of us are surprised. As I stated, you don't have to be an expert on demographics to see that an increasing number of young families are moving to the area. Whoever is responsible for forward planning has been in our opinion negligent. The approval for Octagon to build nearly 200 new homes on the Brunel site is unlikely to improve matters in terms of demand for school places. In fact it will make it fairly likely that anyone living further from the school than Ailsa Road to ever secure a place at their local school in the future. How can you think that this is in the best interests of the Boroughs residents? At present the opportunity still exists for Clifton Lodge and the Violet Needham Chapel to be utilised for educational use. If planning permission is refused for change of use, the sites are surely worth considerably less to Octagon than if permission is granted for residential use. Would it really be too much to ask that LEA and planning staff liaise on these matters to ensure that residents and council tax payers get the local services they deserve?"
Ben Driver on 2007-05-04 10:24:35 +0000Ben Driver is, to my regret, right about the past, but wrong in thinking that there is now anywhere to put a school north of the A316. The only way now to provide more places and some flexibility is to find space for both Orleans Infants and St Stephens to change to two-form entry schools which means finding extra space for St Stephens either across the A316 or around Moormead. In either direction, this looks like a battle with allotment holders. Unless anyone else can come up with a site?
Trevor Whittall on 2007-05-04 13:10:36 +0000We are of course grateful to Simon for raising this issue now. Much more productive would have been to seize the opportunity of a school on the Brunel Site while it was up for grabs I have been informed under the conservative reign. However as the Supermarket saying goes '....When its gone, .........its gone' and I am afraid the residents of St Margarets will have to pay the price of the opportunity that was missed when Cllr Geoffrey Samuels was at the helm, which may never be made up. There are currently two St Margarets children unplaced plus another two late entrants. It is fully expected that places will be found for them.
However the situation is far from satisfactory and we are today suffering from not only the lack of foresight some 3 or 4 years ago by the previous administration but also from the fact that this is not an easy nut to crack. Your local councillors are currently haranguing Cabinet Member for Education, and the council officers. We have made very clear to them the need for extra Primary School places in St Margarets and have emphasised the way the current place allocation rules(which take the nearest first) work against some of our children. However at the moment there is no other more suitable alternative system that can be applied.
I have asked officers to investigate the possibility of obtaining information from NHS records to try and get a better picture of children moving in and out of a given area so that we try and avoid being caught out next year as we did this year. We are also looking at where schools have the capacity to consider taking up mixed stage teaching to relieve the pressure on overburdened areas. Some time ago the Clifden Road College site was for sale; we are looking at that again.
As has been said the Brunel Site has gone and it is difficult to foresee a new school in this area not least because of lack of necessary funding from central Government and the lack of a suitable site but we will investigate any conceivable option to better serve the residents of St Margarets and North Twickenham and the Borough.
Cllr Ben Khosa
Ben Khosa on 2007-05-04 18:38:34 +0000Since Borough boundaries are ignored for school admission purposes (as a result of the 'Greenwich Judgement') building a school north of the A316 will act as a powerful magnet for parents in Isleworth - even if a suitable site could be found. The last Council investigated expanding Orleans and St Stephens but this was ruled out since it is not possible to expand the latter - according to the architects. The admission system has also changed so that parents can no longer hold open places at 2 local schools (church and community) which should make planning easier. Councils have a duty to provide a place at a local school and at a borough wide level that has never been a problem. As the Council note shows, the number of applicants now exceeds the number of places so some serious money will need to be spent to bring supply in line with demand. This is a new development and will probably consume most of the Council's reserves. The previous Council ordered the expansion of Collis in Teddington and was prepared to fund the whole scheme regardless of whether the government would assist (which they subsequently did). Development has been ordered by administrations of both parties and it is a crude and simplistic caricature from Cllr Khosa to suggest otherwise. In any event, residents are more concerned with the future than with attempts to rewrite history.
Simon Lamb on 2007-05-07 10:23:35 +0000Simon is right. There is as much blame attached to the administration of 1998-2002 as 2002-2006 in that council officers and some councillors (especially those charged with cabinet responsibility for Education such as Councillor Miller and Councillor Samuel) failed to see a school north of the A316 as part of the solution.
This leaves few options, but there are some and they are needed. Even a minor economic recession would result in even more pressure on places if fewer parents could afford the option of private education. So, apart from using allotment land, are there any choices? We are informed that the OIS site can accommodate a two form entry school (420 children). St Stephens has been accommodating 360 junior children, which is insufficient for a two form entry school. However, Darell school in Kew has operated successfully for years with an intake of 45 children per year with mixed age teaching, giving a potential total of 315 children on the site. Is this an option for providing at least an extra 15 places, or would it put parents off?
Trevor Whittall on 2007-05-08 12:43:31 +0000I was one of the parents whose child did not initally get a place in 2004 at Orleans Infants. I was fortunate in the end to secure a place by keeping him at home after school started until a place became available. It was awful to think that he might possibly not get to go to his local school where neighbours children were going.
On 2004, our LEA was working with the lowest level of slack in school places compared to other London Boroughs - we had only 4% against an average of 8% elsewhere. As we pointed out at the time, birth rates and the number of young families were increasing - it was therefore easy to predict that the problem would occur again - shame on politicians of both local parties for not addressing this problem adequately.
I believe I am right in saying that when Octagon developed the Brunel site a sum of £606,000.00 was donated by them under a Section 106 agreement. This money was ringfenced for education. It should have been spent developing local schools so that the part of the borough where the development was would be the part to benefit. It's not legally required but that sum of money should morally been spent in St Margarets.
karen on 2007-05-10 14:56:41 +0000The local [Area 1 = St Margarets & N Twickenham and Riverside wards] birth rate is only increasing very slowly (1997-2005: 0.1% p.a.) according to the Local Authority's (LA's) 'Estimate of potential demand for reception places', which I have been analysing for Cllr Khosa. Compare this with the rates for the rest of the Middlesex side of the borough [1.2%], the Surrey side [0.6%] and the local rate for 1991-2000: 3% [taken from the paper by the Orleans Action Group, found on the council web site]. I do not have the actual reception total for 06/07 but I infer that it was well up on that of the previous 5 years, which were in the range 145-152. What has changed, as the 2007 council paper states [p.1 para 2], is the 'take-up rate' = 'total demand/live births 4 years previously'. This has always been low, in the range 40%-46% since 1993, in contrast to Heathfield/Whitton, where it averages 94%. A surplus demand of 49 [2007 paper p. 2] equates to an increase in the take up rate from 45% in 04/05 and 05/06 to 59% in 06/07. It is not surprising that this has taken the LA by surprise. What we do not know is whether not the rate will fall back this year to its customary level in response to this year's problems. As to the £606,000, this would not go far towards a new school, which, on the Brunel site, would have cost £17 million for land plus £10 million to build [2007 paper p.2].
Chris Squire on 2007-05-12 12:40:11 +0000I agree with the sentiments on the Brunel site - its flogging off (I recall reading a legal firm's website at the time boasting of completing the conveyancing in record time) without consideration for anything beyond short-term profit was quite disgusting, especially considering that it was previously an educational site.
Options in the immediate area being so limited, it must now surely be pragmatic to engage in a certain amount of cross-council-border co-operation with Hounslow.
A bit out-of-area and not exactly on the doorstep of St. Margarets I know, but following the redevelopments at West Middlesex Hospital there is a large area of old and now derelict buildings at the North of the site. Could a school possibly be considered for this site (which must be brownfield public land)? A school there could perhaps cover some of the inevitable increase required when the Octagon development is completed.
Another site comes to mind - the old Convent building at the top of St. Margarets Road (just inside the Hounslow boundary) - this has apparently been derelict for some years, why could this not also be considered?
Or perhaps these pieces of land are all earmarked for the inevitable luxury flats "sans supporting infrastructure"?
Ed on 2007-05-12 13:56:50 +0000I work in Isleworth so am familiar with both the sites mentioned by Ed. The plan for the Convent is to convert it into some form of retirement development (not luxury flats) whilst the West Middlesex land is to be developed as a combination of social and private housing with some community assets. There are also 2 schools in the southern part of Isleworth - the Blue School and Worple and there is nothing to stop St Margarets residents from applying to either of them.
Simon Lamb on 2007-05-13 09:29:30 +0000Birth rate is not the most important issue - many parents move to the area when they have children so data on births can never capture this important information. The Council needs to get this from the health authority, overcoming the usual jobsworth objections concerning data protection - it is not detail on individuals that is needed, just numbers and ages. Why didn't Chris stand for election in the first place? He knows much more about the issues than those who are paid to follow these things.
Simon Lamb on 2007-05-13 09:32:27 +0000The reason I did put myself forward as a candidate for St Margarets is that the local party was quite clear that after the four years of the Conservative interregnum, represented by mainly non-resident councillors, what residents craved was to be represented by locals with strong roots in the ward's neighbourhood associations and business community. Which is what they've got. There are in fact four, not two, primary schools in south Isleworth: The Blue School [CofE], Ivybridge, St Mary's [RC] and Worple. Plus two more a bit further north: Isleworth Town and Smallberry Green.
The extra demand arising from the 200 new Brunel houses will be 2 - 3 places a year. The 4-year average birth rate for Area 1 is 324/year and the number of households is c. 12,000. So the rate per 1,000 households is 27/year. 200 households means 5.4 births/year. Apply a forecast take up rate of 45 % to get a forecast extra demand of 2 - 3 per year.
Chris Squire on 2007-05-13 13:03:40 +0000Simon Lamb may look at the border and wonder whether schools there should be considered, but places in Isleworth do not satisfy demand in St Margarets and demand is rising in Isleworth due to new housing there, in any event. Similarly, I am sure Chris Squires' mathematical analysis is correct, but I am equally sure that extrinsic factors will affect demand even from the Brunel development. There will, in fact not be a normal distribution of people according to polulation norms. There will be, particuarly in the 'affordable housing' more families than projected.
So, with increased demand from parents who (with higher intesrst rates) can no longer consider private education, these are not the solution. The council simply has to take a deep breath and find some extra spaces locally, at the least possible cost.
Trevor Whittall on 2007-05-13 22:19:22 +0000Add a comment