Judicial review backs Richmond Council on Catholic school (From Your Local Guardian)
Contact us: Got a photo? Text SLPICS to 80360, click to upload your story or see our Contact us page
Judicial review backs Richmond Council on Catholic school
4:26pm Friday 16th November 2012 in Richmond By Rachel Bishop
Unsuccessful: The campaigners were disappointed by the decision
The judicial review into the Catholic school has been found in favour of Richmond Council.
Mr Justice Sales made the unusual step of making an announcement today because of the children awaiting confirmation of a place at St Richard Reynolds school.
Mr Sales stated the council had acted lawfully in its processes.
Leader of Richmond Council Lord True said: “I am delighted with today’s outcome which supports the clear, democratic decision that was taken locally in pursuit of the previously longstanding policy of both parties on the council. It will come as an enormous relief to the hundreds of families whose hopes for their children’s education has been threatened by this hostile legal manouvering.
“Over the past year, the British Humanist Association has elbowed its way into Richmond with its clear national agenda of hostility to faith schools – their action has been uncaring and unsympathetic to the many people within the Richmond Catholic community who have worked hard to bring their dream of a dedicated secondary school to fruition.
“It has also totally ignored the parallel action being taken by this Council to provide more places for all."
Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign teamed up with the claimants British Humanist Association (BHA) to take the case to review.
Chief executive of BHA Andrew Copson said: "We are disappointed, but we will certainly consider appeal, if the full judgment, when we receive it, allows that.
"This [decision] obviously hinged on a technicality, but the wider principal that discriminating religious schools shouldn't have preference over inclusive schools is still an important and serious and we will never stop campaigning on that basis."
Justice Sales will make his full account of his decision in coming weeks but said Richmond Council had acted lawfully.
Paul Barber, from the Diocese of Westminster, said: "we are absolutely delighted. It's what we expected, but we are very glad to have this unnecessary uncertainty out of the way."
Interim governor for the school Andrew Cole said: "It would be been a great shame if the school had been delayed. This is fantastic news."
Comments(233)
PhillipTaylor
says...
5:35pm Fri 16 Nov 12
I endorse everything which Cllr True says in your report.
I hope we can now move on. Or are the campaogners going to try to appeal the decision?
Phillip Taylor
Nichole D.
says...
7:48pm Fri 16 Nov 12
John 11:35 Jesus wept.
gaurav
says...
8:07pm Fri 16 Nov 12
RISC has brought together people all across the borough who are deeply passionate about education, inclusiveness and communal harmony and we will continue to campaign "to ensure that every state-funded school opening in the borough from now on is inclusive, so that no child can be denied a place in a good local school because of the religion or belief of their parents".
richste
says...
8:10pm Fri 16 Nov 12
Unfortunately Justice Sales has passed his judgement in the high court and decided against RISC and the BHA. The full details of the decision will not be available for about 2 weeks. The legal system is a complex one and the RISC core team will meet shortly to determine where we go from here after having received the full judgement and discussed it with our lawyers.
RISC would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to everyone who has given their time and resources to assist us throughout this long campaign. We are a local group who have always maintained the highest level of respect for the Catholic parents seeking adequate school places for their children living alongside us and that has not changed.
The leader of RISC, Jeremy Rodell, said "Obviously there will be a lot of people in Richmond who will be disappointed with this judgement. Our key point all along has been that it's simply wrong to set up a new state school in the borough that will discriminate against most local children simply because of their parents' beliefs. That remains just as wrong now as it was before. Clearly we respect the outcome on these legal points, and I would like to wish the school well. But this is not a good result for inclusivity and fairness."
RISC will get in touch with our supporters with further details as soon as possible.
Copthall resident
says...
8:33pm Fri 16 Nov 12
And what hypocrisy from Lord True to claim he was championing localism when the Catholic Diocese press release made it very clear "a victory not just for Richmond Council and the Diocese of Westminster, but more importantly, for all those seeking to send their children to a church school. The Diocese of Westminster would like to thank Richmond Council for its support over the last few months"
JeremyRodell
says...
11:54pm Fri 16 Nov 12
Of course RISC welcomed the BHA's decision to become involved, and has benefited from their expertise and financial backing for the legal case.
But that does not detract from the fact that the issue of inclusive admissions, and Lord True's crusade to force through a school with the highest level of faith-based discrimination possible, has united a large number of local people.
Instead of respecting those with whom he disagrees, Lord True has on several occasions now deliberately misrepresented them.
Readers can draw their own conclusions from his decision to do so once more on the very day that he won his case.
Twickenham Resident 12
says...
7:29am Sat 17 Nov 12
lottieprosser
says...
8:52am Sat 17 Nov 12
PhillipTaylor
says...
11:29am Sat 17 Nov 12
The decision by Mr Justice Sales was the correct one.
Perhaps Mr Rodell and Co will tell us how much the costs were and whether the council taxpayer has to stump up for them or not?
Phillip Taylor
PhillipTaylor
says...
11:29am Sat 17 Nov 12
The decision by Mr Justice Sales was the correct one.
Perhaps Mr Rodell and Co will tell us how much the costs were and whether the council taxpayer has to stump up for them or not?
Phillip Taylor
ruggabugga
says...
11:44am Sat 17 Nov 12
But with another judicial review looming, whatever the outcome of the legal battle, he will have lost the support of many, many thousands of Richmond and Twickenham residents.
It's looking more and more probable that the local Conservative Councillors and Lord True will lose the war at the polls in 2014.
lottieprosser
says...
12:44pm Sat 17 Nov 12
Knellerman
says...
2:14pm Sat 17 Nov 12
So they can get their children into the best secondary schools based simply upon the value of their property. How inclusive is that.
If these well-heeled parents were really serious about inclusivety, then they would be campaigning for a school allocation based on lottery where their own children would have to attend the less successful schools and mix with the "great unwashed".
But rather than campaigning against their own advantages, and perhaps to hide their own guilt, they use the pretext of campaigning against a faith school where more poorer children in the borough seem to be destined for a better quality education.
So if the humanists in the borough were campaigning for a lottery system of education where the quality of your child's education was not determined primarily by the parents' wealth and social standing, then I might have some sympathy with their stance.
If they are really concerned about inclusiveness, then surely they should be just as concerned about privileged access to education based on wealth as well as faith.
I for one would prefer a school which is strong on the spiritual and moral dimension, rather than one where you get your place because daddy is a banker.
Perhaps the new catholic school should make a special allocation for the children of bankers, in the hope that the behaviour of their godless parents whose immoral behaviour has brought this country to its knees might not be repeated.
As for Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, my honest opinion is that his backing of the campaign against a new faith school in Richmond is as much about him furthering his own beliefs and to supress the beliefs of people of faith.
He was privately educated at a religious school (Henry V111 in Coventry) and then at an Oxford college that was founded on Christian principles.
I wonder if he would feel the same if his parents had put him into the local sink estate comprehensive.
The overall objective is to improve the quality of education for all children. There is no magic bullet, but faith schools tend to produce better results and therefore more children will be afforded a better education.
I note that the humanists have made their stand in Richmond, one of the more affluent areas of the country.
If they took on the fight against church schools in poorer northern areas of England, they would be run out of town.
Because parents who are committed and prepared to put themselves out to ensure the best education for their children, seem to like faith schools.
The humanists have a point, but until they come up with a way of tackling the inequalities that children from deprived backgrounds suffer, their notion of "inclusiveness" is actually a false god.
Besides which, on a practical point, if the new catholic school actually delivers and excellent education, then it would in effect free up for places for children to attend other "excellent" schools in the borough.
So everyone wins, especially children, whose future would not be sacrified on the altar of humanist, oppressive, ideaology.
BS_Twickenham
says...
3:06pm Sat 17 Nov 12
/news/education-1865
4050).
All of our schools can and should aspire to be outstanding, no matter what their denomination.
In my view, all of our schools can and should also aspire to be inclusive, no matter what their denomination.
Copthall resident
says...
3:36pm Sat 17 Nov 12
On what do you base your claim about the roads on which RISC supporters live. One of the drivers of the RISC campaign is the uncertainty faced by parents who live in the areas that even the Council acknowledge are set to become black holes of secondary provision, Fulwell and around Twickenham Green, the catchments of Archbishop Cambridge, Stanley and Trafalgar Schools, lovely places to live but scarcely Richmond borough's most affluent streets.
And then of course there are those of us who live in the streets around the school, once again not Richmond's most affluent, who would have liked to see the school at the heart of our community serving our community instead of the focus of four wheel drives from across and beyond the borough.
metis
says...
4:49pm Sat 17 Nov 12
Twickenham Resident 12 wrote:Why does Twickenham Resident assume that a Catholic education is of a higher standard?
As a Twickenham parent, who's closest school will be the new Catholic School, I'm very angry that my children will be discriminated against on the basis of my religious beliefs (or lack of them), and potentially receive a lower standard of education. I thought that in the UK today discrimation on the basis of religious belief was not allowed, but clearly this has not been the case today....
gaurav
says...
5:01pm Sat 17 Nov 12
As a local parent, along with thousands of people in Richmond, I am extremely disappointed with this judgement. We still believe - in common with the vast majority of the British public that 'state funded schools, including state funded faith schools, should not be allowed to select or discriminate against prospective pupils on religious grounds in their admissions policy' (http://www.telegrap
h.co.uk/education/ed
ucationnews/9670234/
Selection-by-religio
n-should-be-banned-i
n-state-schools.html
). Our key point all along has been that it's simply wrong to set up a new state school in the borough that will discriminate against most local children simply because of their parents' beliefs. That remains just as wrong now as it was before.
RISC has brought together people all across the borough who are deeply passionate about education and communal harmony and we will continue to campaign "to ensure that every state-funded school opening in the borough from now on is inclusive, so that no child can be denied a place in a good local school because of the religion or belief of their parents". This Big Society campaign has people from all backgrounds, with a lot of them tirelessly working in Richmond's state education sector to improve our existing schools and set up new inclusive schools. We are all in it together and will continue to work at the grass root level for the benefit of everyone in our community.
I hope that as my kids continue their education in state sector, religious discrimination will end in our state schools. One day, in our multi cultural and diverse and tolerant society, religious discrimination will be as illegal and unacceptable as racial discrimination is today. We brought this challenge to help to bring that day closer and our campaign will go on locally in Richmond and hopefully inspire millions nationally.
Knellerman
says...
5:14pm Sat 17 Nov 12
There is not a black hole, the choice for children living in your area has not changed.
Indeed, children in that area have access to Twickenham Academy which is a five minute bus journey away from you and where the council have spent £millions upgrading the buildings and facilities and appears to be inclusive, based upon your own criteria.
There would appear to be plenty of places available at this academy which is just a stone's throw away from you.
Do you want the State to build a secondary school on every street corner?
Why cannot Twickenham Academny serve the needs of the families who feel they are in a black hole, yet who live in virtual spitting distance of the refurbished school?
So how are you missing out by the creation of a catholic school in Twickenham when there is already provision in the borough for secondary education in "inclusive" schools a-plenty.
LizzyJ
says...
5:36pm Sat 17 Nov 12
However, nothing can change the fact that it has an unusual Swedish teaching method that will appeal to some and not others. Even if it does manage a 'Good' it won't be popular with everyone.
If our council is going to fill Twickenham with querky schools (whether that be Kunskapskollan or Catholic or girls-only) then it needs to make sure that all children have equal access to them so that everyone can choose the one that they find least querky. That is real 'choice', which our council is meant to be in favour of.
It should go without saying that we expect them all to be equally good.
Dellon
says...
6:10pm Sat 17 Nov 12
There have been lots of changes in the last two years. Firstly, the link system has abolished whereby many primaries were linked to our oversubsribed secondary schools. This is because most RC and some community primary schools were not linked. 2013 will be the first year for applications on distance only, and there is new uncertainty about catchment areas around Orleans Park or Teddington, so yes, there are likely to be black holes. Along with the lack of provision for boys, it is understandable that parents in Twickenham are anxious. It is fair that Catholic parents can now apply to local schools, but they now also have an extra option not available to their non-Catholic neighbours.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, it is not now within the council's power to simply set up a new secondary school, but with the expansion of our primary schools by 21 classes in 15 years or so, we need more schools. The new legislation requires all mainstream schools to be academies or free schools - the decision rest with the DfE and there is competition for sites.
Knellerman
says...
6:12pm Sat 17 Nov 12
Have you looked at Waldergrave school, which is fairly selective and exclusive and where your education is determined by your gender. This is a state school in Richmond.
Have you looked at the Tiffin school, which is also a Richmond state school,which is highly selective in its admissions policies and the ability to get into this school appears to depend on how much your parents can afford to spend on private tutoring to get you through the stringent entrance examination.
There are examples of anomalies in the selection and admissions procedures of other schools across Richmond, and indeed, in other parts of the country.
But you appear to only take issue when it involves an example of a faith school laying down an admissions criteria.
This is not so much a campaign for inclusiveness, it is a campaign against people who have religious beliefs, in my honest opinion.
I am an Anglican, but I detect a whiff of good-old fashioned anti-popery going on here.
After all, the CEO of the Humanist Association went to the Henry VIII school, and the anti-catholic stance of that monarch is well documented.
Not that I am suggesting that this is driving his stance, but it is a legitimate question as to whether his own educational influence in itself may have led to a prejudice against catholics. There is no evidence that it has, but perhaps it is something worth pondering and probing.
The campaign against faith schools, while staying silent on the many anomalies that mitigate against "inclusion", leads me to conclude that this is not a campaign to further equalities in education, but an opportunity to use a secular bludgeon to seek to eliminate any religious influence in society and anyone who thinks this campaign is about equal rights is being used as a patsy, for the furtherance of a pure anti-religious agenda.
metis
says...
6:17pm Sat 17 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
6:28pm Sat 17 Nov 12
In fact it is the Catholic school places that are aplenty. Catholic parents will still for the foreseeable future according to Paul Barber, Catholic Education Officer, have the choice of their preferred option of places in established out of borough schools, of which there are sufficient to meet their needs. There is no sign of middle class families stopping cleaning the silver and schmoosing their priest to get the points they need for the Oratory Lottery of goodness and access to Gumley, Sacred Heart Hammersmith etc. On top of that they have the back up of places at St Richard Reynolds, and the Academies if they live close enough.
LizzyJ
says...
6:28pm Sat 17 Nov 12
The fact that bad admissions policies exist elsewhere is a very strong argument for getting this one right before it opens.
Metis - querky schools can only be justified if there are enough spaces for everyone to have a reasonable choice.
My son's choices are now - Kunskapskollan, sex-change or Catholicism. That's not a reasonable choice.
Knellerman
says...
6:37pm Sat 17 Nov 12
Should we then launch a campaign against the Swedish educational system?
As you say, the Swedish system does not suit every pupil, and therefore by definition is not inclusive.
Does not this Swedish approach to education, albeit under a state system, exclude those parents and pupils who do not agree with a school system where the pupils are expected to gather together by themselves in the main hall every morning.
It is called self assembly.
LizzyJ
says...
6:50pm Sat 17 Nov 12
And its worth pointing out that Kunskapskollan is considered pretty querky in Sweden too. Its not a mainstream option there.
If St RR had an inclusive admissions policy it would probably still mainly attract Catholics, because most other people wouldn't want to go there. But at least that way people would feel they'd had the choice of more than one school.
Copthall resident
says...
6:54pm Sat 17 Nov 12
I remember why Edward the Confessor School closed in the first place, because local middle class parents deserted it in favour of out of borough schools when the social make up of it's intake changed.
This debate has always been about the availability of good school places on both sides .
Dellon
says...
6:55pm Sat 17 Nov 12
LizzyJ
says...
7:05pm Sat 17 Nov 12
i.e. working your own way through an online "stepped" curriculum, under the supervision of teachers whose main role is to counsel the kids to strive for ever higher targets, rather than teach inspiring, memorable lessons. If your kids are especially motivated they can work through the modules super-quickly and do their GCSEs early, that is if they don't die of boredom or get eye-strain first.
And they don't even have an orchestra.
Dellon
says...
7:39pm Sat 17 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
11:13pm Sat 17 Nov 12
It's a question that will not go away.
Irena P
says...
11:47am Sun 18 Nov 12
Lord True has demonstrated that he is not fit to lead the council, and before he gets too smug (he's proven that he's no diplomat either,) he should know that he may have won the battle (as he has pointed out!,) but certainly the voters of Richmond will have the last laugh at the next election.
WilliamGrogan
says...
12:07pm Sun 18 Nov 12
I went to Catholic Primary & Secondary schools in Ireland and their successful brain washing of children since the formation of the Irish Republic produced several generations of docile sheep that allowed hundreds of paedophile priests to abuse thousands of children while the authorities, who themselves were “educated” in Catholic schools turned a blind eye.
Last week a 31 year old pregnant Hindu women died unnecessarily in an Irish hospital for want of a termination of her pregnancy which was miscarrying. They told the women and her husband she couldn't have the termination that would have saved her life because “this is a Catholic country”, which due to the brainwashing of generations of children has the most draconian and misogynist abortion rules in the world.
In Ireland there is a major battle to take control of education away from the Catholic Church. To see the UK doing the opposite in 2012 is astonishing.
John Dowdle
says...
12:59pm Sun 18 Nov 12
It is his religious preferences which now appear to determine the kind of education that children will receive in Richmond. He is, of course, not alone in his endeavour. He has the full support of the Diocese of Westminster and - no doubt - even higher up in the hierarchy of the Church of Rome.
Indeed, it seems as though any new provision of education will from now on be largely tilted towards religious schooling. This may be based on what is happening in the USA where the establishment of creationist schools and similar setups is becoming a new - if unfashionable - norm. It certainly helps to explain the overall dumbing down of US society and its clear failure to sustain its once former reputation as the world's leading place for science and technology.
Ultimately, the current government is behind all these types of policies which result in a state-imposed outcome, despite the wishes of a large number of local residents.
The solution lies in your own hands. Vote them out at the next opportunity and vote in people who will support secular education.
One final point: I am surprised to see the incorrect spelling of the word quirky used by commentators above. Is this a sign that standards in Richmond are already slipping?
akhanw
says...
1:15pm Sun 18 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
1:45pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Of course it would have been good if he had unreservedly supported RISC's position, but I can't fault his actions as an even-handed constituency MP acting in line with party and coalition policy.
Dellon
says...
1:55pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Irena P
says...
2:01pm Sun 18 Nov 12
akhanw
says...
2:10pm Sun 18 Nov 12
A. Gnostic
says...
2:12pm Sun 18 Nov 12
How can it be right that the state funds both Tiffin schools which discriminate against less academically able children, and which require parents to buy private tuition to pass the entrance exam?
These are fundamental questions which I have not heard Risc addressing.
Why is Risc a single issue campaign group?
What I pick up from many of these posts is that parents don't want the Twickenham Academy option, which many will be left with. Even before the Swedes took over it was an unpopular choice. But instead of saying that the new school becomes the focus of complaint.
akhanw
says...
2:24pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Local parents are concerned about TA and even getting involved to help it. Unlike the Catholic community that has decided to opt out of working for our local schools with the rest of the community. TA It is now nearly full and likely to get oversubscribed next year
JeremyRodell
says...
2:48pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Still waiting for an answer.
A. Gnostic
says...
2:54pm Sun 18 Nov 12
I am sure many of its supporters are not anti-Catholic but I have not read anything by JR which tackles the issue of unfairness or lack of inclusivity in our current system.
The best schools in this borough are in the most expensive areas and are monopolised by wealthy home owners. This is just as bad to my mind, that the children of the less wealthy are excluded from the best schools. Why is selection by postcode not considered a form of exclusivity? The gap between rich and poor in this borough is very wide, compare house prices for Richmond Hill and Powder Mill Lane.
Whatever school opened in Clifden Road it would have selection criteria, probably based on proximity, which would exclude some. Fulwell and Twickenham Green are still considerably more expensive places to live than the nether regions of this borough.
There seems to be an assumption that the Catholic primaries serve well-heeled families, but recent research suggests that free school meals is a blunt instrument as a measure of poverty or inequality. St Edmund's Catholic Primary school is in the less well-heeled part of the borough.
When a campaign group sees inequality stemming from only one source and not speaking about the wider issues of exclusivity, it raises questions.
The Catholic school is not the perfect solution to the need for school places but it will fill a need and will almost certainly be a good school. Places will be freed up elsewhere, if parents don't like them that is a problem for those schools and not the fault of the new school.
Where Risc goes from here will be interesting and indicative of its real commitment to inclusivity.
Copthall resident
says...
2:58pm Sun 18 Nov 12
The fact that Waldegrave remained a girl's school whilst Teddington evolved from being a boy's school is a matter of history, as is the fact that a neighbouring borough chose to retain it's Grammar Schools. If Lord True or any other politician were to try to dismantle these existing institutions then there would rightly be a huge outcry from current and prospective parents and pupils. It would be political dogma versus the loyalties of the community to established institutions. However the existence of Waldegrave does create a real inequality for the parents of boys.
Now Lord True has decided that we should add to that inequality, I think it is pretty basic to every value system that two wrongs don't make a right.
As a result of this new school discriminating against local children, as it happens on the basis of religious beliefs, but it would be unfair whatever the basis, then they may well be left with no school place, let alone choice of place. All the more unfair when the section of our community who are being privileged by this school do not face anything like the level of uncertainty about school places. The number of places available to the Richmond Borough Parishes in the nearby, or more distant highly esteemed, out of borough Catholic schools have actually gone up this year. The Catholic parents I know anticipate that those schools will remain first preference for some time to come and that initially St RR will fill up with the children of Catholic parents in neighbouring boroughs dissatisfied with their local Catholic School.
As Jeremy says it just isn't right, and that is why so many people have supported and become involved with RISC.
Dellon
says...
2:59pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
3:17pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Clifden Road would actually cover the full social mix of Twickenham's community, including across the railway line via the pedestrain bridge and quite possibly across the A316.
On what basis do you judge that the best schools in the borough are in the best areas and monopolised by wealthy homeowners? Heathfield School which serves Powder Mill Lane is deemed good and rapidly improving under an inspiring team of teachers by OFSTED. I would like you to repeat that to some of the hardworking teachers who work very hard to deliver an excellent education to all the pupils in our Primary Schools in the borough.
A. Gnostic As a matter of interest why did you change your user name so that you could post the same misinformed views under another name, even though they have already been countered above? I find it hard to believe there are two people in the borough so closely aligned in misinformed opinion?
A. Gnostic
says...
3:18pm Sun 18 Nov 12
By asking the wider questions about existing schools I am trying to address the issue which your group should be asking if it is true to its name. So it is perfectly logical to ask questions about the current system.
They are not 'entirely different questions', they are part of the debate.
What about a lottery for places at secondary schools? We have gender exclusivity (Waldegrave), intellectual exclusivity (Tiffin) and proximity to school gate exclusivity.
Is it not right to expect a group which campaigns for inclusivity to at least have a view on this?
Irena P
says...
3:19pm Sun 18 Nov 12
The fact that Jeremy does not agree with faith schools is masking a real, objective issue that the school age population of Richmond is growing. The primary schools are bulging and the pregnancy rate is too. 6th formers won't be leaving the borough either now and schools will need to configure their schools for years 13 and 13. While you point out that there is wealth in Richmond, we are living in harder times. There is evidence that many families who would have sent their children to private schools are now not able to afford to do so, and will be needing to send their children to state secondary schools.
In a few years there will not be any available places and there will be a lot of unhappy parents and children. So the pressure is on, and if you look at this issue rationally, strategically and holistically, the catholic school fills a want but not a need.
akhanw
says...
3:23pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Are you expecting a single campaign to solve all the issues in our education sector ?
A. Gnostic
says...
3:31pm Sun 18 Nov 12
I agree about hard working teachers, I haven't said anything to the contrary.
I don't call the area you describe as being representative of the full social mix. I live across the A316 and agree that Heathfield is very good. It's run by a different borough but Twickenham children can apply.
I have a lot of sympathy with the views you and others express but you can't ignore existing inequality and I don't like the anti-Catholic tone of some views expressed by some people on this debate.
A. Gnostic
says...
3:40pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Many Catholic children are in secondary schools in this borough and if their younger siblings go to the new Catholic school those places will be freed up.
I agree with your other points.
A. Gnostic
says...
3:56pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Every school has selection criteria and this results in some children not getting places at the schools they or their parents want for them. Do you agree that it's alright to discriminate on the basis of where the child lives, or what sex they are?
A. Gnostic
says...
4:32pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Your comments about my user name suggest this site is only for people with your views. I thought it was for all. Isn't it an inclusive site?
Risc has raised important questions and done a good job getting local voices heard. Can't it cope with reasoned debate which tries to tackle underlying issues?
Copthall resident
says...
4:50pm Sun 18 Nov 12
I have not seen anything associated with the RISC campaign that expressed anti Catholic views. Indeed a few of it's supporters are Catholic and I would be very sensitive because I come from a Catholic background and married a Catholic. One of the things that has impressed me about this campaign has been the way it has been conducted in a principled way and with integrity, and it's leaders embody those values. Many of the people involved also work hard, often voluntarily to improve our schools.
I am afraid the same cannot be said for those supporting the school, and the term "Humanist" has been banded around in a derogatory way by supporters from Lord True down (and lets be clear Lord True is a completely biased supporter of the school, this was always about his networks of influence and never about the local community) in a way I am sure many would find entirely unacceptable if the word Catholic had been substituted. Yet Jeremy Roddell has never responded in kind to the slurs and the way some, including you, have sought to make this campaign personal. We are all grateful to him for the way that he has taken on the role of championing fairness for the local community.
In what way do you not see that a school centred in Twickenham's community would not be representative of it's community. One of the worst manifestations of the long term failure of LBRUT to have a proactive education policy that meets the needs of residents is the fact that the children in our community's end up at different schools, and neighbourhoods break up as people move. In Clifden Road itself children attend 8 different primaries / preps and 6 different Secondaries. Turing House School has attracted so much support because it meets the needs of local parents "We are a small group of parents who care about our local area and its people. Faced with shrinking catchment areas and increased demand for our local secondary schools, we can see our community breaking up as families move away or choose non-local schools. We believe the area needs another excellent secondary school. We know many other people agree with us, so we decided to try and do something about it." Equality is surely about everyone having access to a good local school that serves the community, if that situation had existed then our schools would cater for all but a very small group of devout Catholics and some people who strongly want single sex education, and few would begrudge special provision.
John Dowdle
says...
5:09pm Sun 18 Nov 12
The last witch-craft trial took place in this country as recently as during the Second World War.
I do not blame Richmond parents and children for wanting to avoid becoming enmeshed in any further irrationality and unreasonableness as propagated by religious extremists in the past, which - let us not forget - involved members of the Church of Rome burning other - alive! - people at the stake.
Their recent record on child abuse can hardly inspire any parent to want to trust their children to the barely tender mercies of paedophile priests, can it?
Copthall resident
says...
5:13pm Sun 18 Nov 12
My comment about your user name was because your views are very similar to Knellerman's and seemed to have failed to register some of the points that had already been made in posts above. I am very happy to debate these issues, as one of the biggest problems with this debate has been that supporters of the school rarely seem to understand the difficulties faced by non Catholics in the borough. When discussing it with a group of old friends our Catholic friends had completely failed to register the traumas we had faced in finding places at both Primary and Secondary level. Traumas I could have solved very easily if I had been prepared to compromise my principles and exploit our Catholic credentials.
jeremyhm
says...
5:44pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
6:09pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Turing House School, initiated by local parents, might meet the need but again no certainty over funding or site.
Dellon
says...
6:17pm Sun 18 Nov 12
1. That site won't be ready till 2017.
2. There have been 20 or so new primary classes added since 2000. The bulge hits secondaries from 2014. There are 30 new places at achrist's and er, that's it.
4. More people are staying in the state system than ever before because they can't afford private.
4. An LA can't set up a new school that's needed without considering a free school or academy. So ultimately Michael Gove decides, not the council.
Dellon
says...
6:22pm Sun 18 Nov 12
And no more space for expansion anywhere else because of sixth forms (though I support them).
So where do the other 19 classes (570 pupils) go?
John Dowdle
says...
6:36pm Sun 18 Nov 12
The state has withdrawn from providing a national education service and is also starting to withdraw from providing a national health service.
The recent farcical "elections" of police commissioners (outside London) is just a way of cutting the funding of police services and then putting ritual lambs/scape goats (police commissioners) in place to act as lightning rods to draw the inevitable public anger at policing cuts away from central government.
This is why you are all being forced to swallow having ANY provider - other than the state - providing education for your children.
Vote the right way at the next general election and you will continue being force-fed this diet of privatization for years to come.
Dellon
says...
7:43pm Sun 18 Nov 12
akhanw
says...
8:08pm Sun 18 Nov 12
This is a model that works very well in most western countries I have experienced US, canada, Europe, Oz ...
Also I personally prefer mixed gender school and am concerned about the under provision for boys in Richmond. However gender is something a child is born with, cannot change or fake. Segregating children by religion using state funds on the other hands is very divisive and hinders bonds and friendships in neighbourhoods. It is not a surprise that nearly 75% of the British public disagree with religious segregation in our state schools.
The Richmond case is finally bringing the topic out in the open.
Now could you please exchange the courtesy and answer my questions - Is it fair to deny a child a place in a school because of religion ?
pmulak
says...
8:21pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Western Civilisation was built upon the recognition that Christianity was the Truth. And Truth deserves privileged position, don't you think. Apart from anything else...secular education (which is government controlled education in the main) is inferior.
JeremyRodell
says...
8:30pm Sun 18 Nov 12
John Dowdle
says...
9:05pm Sun 18 Nov 12
These lovers of paedophile priests will do nothing to protect your children.
Incidentally, the headline to this article is incorrect. The judicial review did not back Richmond Council on the principle of religious schooling but simply ruled on the decision-making process. Courts do not take a stance on religious education.
Without wanting to set off on another tack, I find the dogmatic certainty of people like the unlikely named True and pmulak extremely disturbing. It is their kind of fanatical ideology which will inevitably undermine the entire concept of democracy if we let them do it.
As Winston Churchill once remarked, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
pmulak
says...
9:14pm Sun 18 Nov 12
A. Gnostic
says...
9:24pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Yes, as long as the state provides an at-least-as-good-as alternative. No child should have an advantage because of their parents' religion.
Also, no, if the state cannot ensure that there is good provision for all children, regardless of religion and other factors beyond the child's control.
Copthall resident: I haven't slurred Jeremy Rodell in the slightest. Nor am I being personal. As leader of Risc I wonder what his views are regarding the Catholic Church. I am being detached and considering different angles. This site is for all residents with a view. I appreciate both sides of the argument but I see nuances.
I am the parent of a child with an autistic spectrum disorder. Parents of neuro-typical children who only have to worry about which school is best for their child have no comprehension of the genuine 'trauma' parents go through when mainstream is not an option.
We have to give up jobs, battle an incredibly bureaucratic system, and fight tooth and nail just for a school that has knowledge of our child's condition.
This is an entirely separate discussion but it has sensitised me to parents' feelings when they want the best for their children. I truly sympathise with parents who want a good school and feel they haven't got one. It's why I am involved in this debate.
I am born and bred in this borough. I care about its schools. I went from Archdeacon Cambridge to a selective out of borough school and it did not harm my friendships with children who stayed in this borough. I still have friends from infants school.
There are many strands to this issue. It makes sense to consider the wider arguments, single issue campaigns have a limited life span.
Thanks to copthall resident and akhanwa for replying to me, I really respect your positions and want the best for your children's school choices. Whatever your beliefs they deserve a good state-funded education.
If the internet has wrongly reported Jeremy Rodell's views he should say so.
richste
says...
9:47pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Yes, as long as the state provides an at-least-as-good-as alternative. No child should have an advantage because of their parents' religion.
Also, no, if the state cannot ensure that there is good provision for all children, regardless of religion and other factors beyond the child's control.
So do you mean if there are variable quality schools, 1 religious group should be given exclusive privilege. Are we not all meant to be in it together ?
A. Gnostic
says...
10:00pm Sun 18 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
10:02pm Sun 18 Nov 12
You don't have to believe what I say on the point of "anti-Catholicism", just read Copthall resident's post above (4.50pm 18 Nov), first para.
Now will you please give a clear answer to the question you keep avoiding. Here is is again: How can it be right to set up a new state-funded school that will discriminate against local children simply on the basis of the religion or belief of their parents?
Exactly the same question would arise if it were an exclusive school for Muslims, Anglicans, Jews, Hindus or anything else.
A. Gnostic
says...
10:10pm Sun 18 Nov 12
richste
says...
10:12pm Sun 18 Nov 12
Do you or not agree with religious discrimination in our schools ?
akhanw
says...
10:32pm Sun 18 Nov 12
How can you be part of community if you are not even allowed to become part of the family of local schools in your neighbourhood?
A. Gnostic
says...
10:38pm Sun 18 Nov 12
How am I trying to discredit your supporters? I have much sympathy with them.
You should respond to innaccuracies about your views as they are shown on the internet. If you are wrongly reported I will staunchly defend you, for what it's worth. Put the record straight instead of saying I am slurring you.
Copthall resident should not answer for you. I admire the principled stand of Risc supporters. Copthall and others have given robust responses which I have really thought about. Good on them.
I have not avoided any question and have very clearly answered the question you and others ask in my post of 9.24 pm. I'm sorry I don't see things in black and white.
Can't you see I'm trying to offer a balanced view, and is that not worthy of respect?
A. Gnostic
says...
10:45pm Sun 18 Nov 12
It's a complicated area.
Long live Risc, keep it free from anti-religious prejudice and we might be getting somewhere.
Riverman
says...
10:55pm Sun 18 Nov 12
pmulak
says...
11:07pm Sun 18 Nov 12
A. Gnostic
says...
11:19pm Sun 18 Nov 12
There are more non-religious schools by far than religious ones, and the former work on proximity criteria, so you'll always get a place nearby if not at the very nearest. Sometimes it's good to go to the school a bus ride away, opens horizons. Extreme localism has its limitations.
Dellon
says...
11:31pm Sun 18 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
11:57pm Sun 18 Nov 12
In fact you've misunderstood the quote you found. As I've said in the press before, along with a wide mix of people, including many Catholics, I did attend a meeting organised by a local "Protest the Pope" group that took place in Richmond Reference Library some weeks before the Papal visit. The reason I did so was because it provided a platform on which to draw attention to the issue of the proposed school, which at that stage few people were aware of.
Personally I had no problem with the Pope visiting the UK - he's the leader of a faith with many adherents here (though I didn't think it should have been a state visit, an honour given only to heads of state - in this case the Vatican - which, say, the Dalai Lama has never received). I therefore did not participate in any of the Protest the Pope rallies or other activities.
So what I said in the meeting was that, rather than getting too worked up about a short visit, the plan to set up a new Catholic school (all Voluntary Aided with exclusive admissions policies) which would then be around for decades was more worthy of concern. I was right: we now will have a highly discriminatory school with a 125 year lease.
If I were anti-religious, I would not be a member of Richmond Interfaith Forum, or be increasingly involved in other "interfaith" activities. I'm passionate believer in the importance of mutual tolerance and understanding between those of different beliefs. We are all human beings and should aim to respect each other as such, even if we disagree and sometimes need to argue for what we think is right. In my experience, there is far more that unites people of goodwill, regardless of their beliefs, than divides them.
I'd be more than happy to continue this discussion privately. But please can we focus on the issues now, rather than my personal position?
ruggabugga
says...
12:03am Mon 19 Nov 12
sirarthurbliss says… 12:17am Wed 29 Aug 12
” Time for a reminder that Lord True and his wife are trustees of a charity: “To benefit such Roman Catholic Charitable purposes as the Trustees shall in their absolute discretion from time to time think fit”. Latest figures show it has assets of over £30million:
http://www.charities
direct.com/charities
/sir-harold-hood-cha
ritable-trust-225870
.html
I don’t recall Lord True making a declaration of interest before council debates about the Catholic school."
Irena P
says...
12:17am Mon 19 Nov 12
I'm afraid pmulak has let the Catholic side down in the dignified stakes. How dare he say that Catholicism is the only true faith. I can assure you that there are religious people who are part of RISC and who are part of this forum. We are entitled to our beliefs too.
Pmulak - I suggest you consider putting your Bible where your mouth is, and perhaps 'love your neighbour as thyself.'
Dr James Murphy
says...
1:32am Mon 19 Nov 12
Thoughts pmulak?
metis
says...
1:32am Mon 19 Nov 12
The familiar 'Tyranny of the majority' argument seems to be acceptable only when it aligns with their own point of view.
The only fair way to ensure parents get a better choice in education for their children is through a voucher system.
Finally, as a lengthy conclusion draws close, I cant help thinking that supporters of RISC and BHS would have been better served had their leaders directed all that time, effort and resources towards launching a school of their own than wasted it on negative campaigning to sabotage the opposition.
pmulak
says...
5:36am Mon 19 Nov 12
But instead of opposing new Catholic school, Tory Councillors are taking the dignified route of sending their kids private.
Richmond should learn from this ruling - the Govt wants the Church and trusts it to set up high quality schools and not another failing academy. The only schools approved here are now Church schools. Conncil and DFE will not allow non church schools to openhere till 2017. Rather than being inspired by RISC, the Twickenham & Kingston free schools should get practical and if they need to get a school in next year, they take guidance on how to get a VA school from the Council
Dellon
says...
7:10am Mon 19 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
8:11am Mon 19 Nov 12
This has never been about RISC wanting to promulgate one set of beliefs over any other.
Dr James Murphy
says...
8:23am Mon 19 Nov 12
I'd like to hear your thoughts please pmulak.
jeremyhm
says...
9:48am Mon 19 Nov 12
LizzyJ
says...
9:54am Mon 19 Nov 12
Dellon
says...
10:44am Mon 19 Nov 12
metis
says...
11:27am Mon 19 Nov 12
Copthall resident wrote:Congratulations on your daughter's exam results. However true proponents of faith schools believe that education is more than just academic success. The correlation between academic success and the strong discipline and moral framework that faith schools try to adhere to may be co-incidental, but I suspect not. Some would like to emulate that success without the tedious religious element and will game the system to that end. The core of Catholic teaching is not to produce perfect specimens for a distant utopia but that humans are imperfect and love and forgiveness is what really counts.
*metis* What a load of rubbish! All schools including Catholic ones have to teach about the beliefs of different religions, and the different viewpoints on major ethical issues in order to conform to the frame work for Ofsted Inspections and the examination system. Thanks to just having obtained a GCSE in Religion and ethics and studying for an A level in the Philosophy of Religion my daughter is far better equipped to understand the ethical and religious views of everyone in society, including Catholics, and to reach her own conclusions than anyone of my generation.
This has never been about RISC wanting to promulgate one set of beliefs over any other.
Secondly, you seem to suggest that Ofsted and state agencies should be the over-riding arbiters of moral behaviour. I would rather that power reside with parents and that they be responsible guardians of their offspring.
Copthall resident
says...
2:47pm Mon 19 Nov 12
The Catholic Schools in the city I went to school in were always, and still are, poor performing schools in comparison to the non Catholic equivalents, regardless of the moral framework because they are a reflection of the Catholic and (since they are undersubscribed) wider community they serve, which is not as affluent as in Richmond. That is not in any way to undervalue the considerable work they do with the underprivileged, those who do not have English as a first language etc., love and forgiveness in action.
I completely respect the wishes of my truly devout friends, and those who grew up in a Catholic culture, to educate their children in Catholic Schools. However I do not think a Catholic ethos is in any way superior to the moral ethos that has to prevail in all schools, indeed that moral framework is undermined by seeking to privilege Catholic parents with choices that the rest of us do not have, compounded by the hypocrisy it encourages in parents seeking access to that privilege .
George TW1
says...
3:45pm Mon 19 Nov 12
metis
says...
3:53pm Mon 19 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
4:19pm Mon 19 Nov 12
The issue here is whether it is right for a state-funded school of whatever type to be able to discriminate against local children simply because of the religion or beliefs of their parents. RISC supporters think that's wrong. What do you think?
metis
says...
5:02pm Mon 19 Nov 12
The 'core' values quoted are noble indeed. But whereas common values are decided by an ever shifting consensus and are subject to the vagaries of time. The Christian values derive from The Almighty, are (supposed) to be immutable, timeless and regardless of status. The difference is dependent on ones beliefs. I think I prefer the latter, since there is less likelihood of them being hi-jacked for political reasons and secondly I find reassurance that the great and the mighty are subject to the same 'core' values as the common man. If it doesn't work in practice, I think it a worthwhile ambition.
JeremyRodell
says...
5:55pm Mon 19 Nov 12
metis
says...
6:09pm Mon 19 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
6:16pm Mon 19 Nov 12
The implication is that there are circumstances where, in your view, it would be ok to discriminate against black people - and in favour of white people - in provision of state-funded education. Is that correct?
SarahThomas
says...
6:28pm Mon 19 Nov 12
There are local priorities and differences in many areas - I have friends who are unable to access IVF in their local area as this is not funded by their PCT whereas in neighbouring areas it is.
I understand that many see no need for a Catholic secondary school in the borough but most Catholics do.
metis
says...
6:29pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
6:31pm Mon 19 Nov 12
SarahThomas
says...
6:40pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Except this would mean less choice for those who do not want a faith based education wouldn't it?
Would you support two Catholic schools in the borough?
Dellon
says...
6:55pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Dellon
says...
7:52pm Mon 19 Nov 12
metis
says...
8:24pm Mon 19 Nov 12
It is high time that power was given back to the parents and not the dictated by the State. Anyone should be able to start a school and provided there was enough support it would be viable under the voucher system - where the money followed the child and not the institution. Free schools go someway towards this but has further to go.
This is my last posting on this subject...........fo
r now.
ruggabugga
says...
8:35pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Or will you?
LizzyJ
says...
8:38pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
8:51pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Moreover parents seeking a non Catholic education in this borough have for decades been faced with difficult decisions about secondary school which Catholic parents were innoculated from. Many moving, going private and going through the hoops to get into the out of borough Catholic Schools with all the resultant stress, breaking up of communities etc. If all those parents had turned up at the Council's door and insisted on a place at a local school there would be more than two big new schools.
What is unfair is that an additional Catholic School has been delivered by the back door specifically to ensure it is exclusive, and given a desired site in the heart of our community, furthering the privilege of an already privileged group, and denying entirely that privilege to local children on the basis of their beliefs.
Catholics will continue to have the preferred options of the established out of borough schools according to Paul Barber and the submission in court.
Quite a few parents from St James's sent their daughters to LEH and before the catchment shrunk, Waldegrave in preference to Gumley. For many parents currently following the Catholic School route the choice was about the certainty of a good education rather than a Catholic education. If that demand was met I doubt very much we would be talking two big new Catholic schools to meet demand.
metis
says...
8:54pm Mon 19 Nov 12
LizzyJ wrote:Under a truly free school system the founders/governors/p
Metis - parental choice is exactly the driver behind the Free School system. If the Diocese had opted for a Free School we wouldn't be having this argument because they'd be competing on an equal footing as everyone else! However, they decided to thumb their nose at the rest of society and push themselves to the front of the queue, grabbing the best site with no competition. That's why we're all so furious. If any other group had done the same we'd be furious with them too. But they haven't. Its just the Catholics.
arents would determine their own admission system - not the Government.
pmulak
says...
10:07pm Mon 19 Nov 12
richste
says...
10:30pm Mon 19 Nov 12
/iplayer/episode/b01
p2wh9/Sunday_Morning
_Live_Series_3_Episo
de_19/
Sunday Morning Live discussing faith schools and whether admissions should be selective on religious grounds (segment starts at 45 mins)
Twickenham resident
says...
10:33pm Mon 19 Nov 12
As entry to the new Catholic state school on the Clifden Road site discriminates on the basis of religion (rather un PC in 2012), as oppose to the current accepted discrimination of how close you live or if you have siblings at the school, I should like to know how many local residents, who live within walking, cycling or a short bus ride, have applied for a place for their child.
I know people who do not live within car or cycling distance who have applied and who if successful, will have to drive their children to the school, along already overly congested roads, in the centre of Twickenham which is a nightmare during school operating hours.
Once off the High Street, the only route to the Clifden site is along residential roads, either Copthall Gardens, Clifden Road or Station Road. This road is gridlocked during peak times and has a dangerous blind bend by the Albany pub, where there is no pavement. Any child who takes the train to Twickenham or walking from the Albany area risks its life walking along this stretch of road. Will the Catholic Church or the Counci pay to improve safety in this area or will try try to enforce a one way system on existing residents? If so they will meet fierce opposition.
Parents intending to drive their children to this new school can expect a journey of up to an hour in the morning if they come from the other side of the A316.
When this site was previously a school there was no where near as many cars or traffic. However, none of these issues appear to have been addressed and the propoganda we are given tells us that traffic in this area once the school is in operation will be less.
Twickenham resident
says...
10:36pm Mon 19 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
11:05pm Mon 19 Nov 12
I am also worried about what happens when all these children arrive and leave by train and encounter the heavily policed Richmond College Flashmob. If it scared Vince Cable what will it do to all those alterboys who didn't succeed in getting into the Oratory?
Besides who would want to join that other great black hole of Twickenham, the Station Road ratrun jam!
milessm
says...
11:09pm Mon 19 Nov 12
talking of discrimination, it will be unfair to turn a Catholic child away in favour of a non Catholic. The Catholic parents contribute to the Church in many ways not to be denied a place in their own school !!!
JeremyRodell
says...
11:43pm Mon 19 Nov 12
pamluk and milessm are clear: they think it's fine as long as the members of their tribe (in this case Catholics, but their argument would apply equally to white people, or black people, or Muslims, or Chelsea supporters) are the ones to enjoy the privilege.
Metis seems to be saying that there are some "end objectives" which would justify racial discrimination in school selection. What are they exactly?
SarahThomas
says...
12:17am Tue 20 Nov 12
Perhaps with a bigger school, or two schools. If non-Catholics would value a Catholic education and are prepared to support the school's ethos then they would be welcome.
Would you support two Catholic schools in the borough?
metis
says...
1:34am Tue 20 Nov 12
You and others here seem to be under the impression that religion is just an exam subject where assembly and RE lessons are just an optional extra. Religion is a belief system that affects every aspect of your life and how you conduct yourself in it. So, I have no problem with non-catholics attending provided they demonstrate a genuine commitment to the whole package. To favour one who is Not committed above one who is - is not in anyone's interest. I hope that answers your question.
Let me clear one thing up; I am not in favour of any discrimination on grounds of skin colour whether it be a positive or negative discrimination. Exercising discrimination on other basis can sometimes be justified depending on circumstances.
milessm
says...
6:05am Tue 20 Nov 12
milessm
says...
6:21am Tue 20 Nov 12
Copthall - your views on black hole, traffic etc are not shared by the majority. Everyone got a chance to have their say in the consultation on type of schools and their view on issues and the overwhelming majority agreed with the Councils position. A few naysayers will always exist. You should now accept the democratic result.
richste
says...
7:06am Tue 20 Nov 12
What is good should be available for everyone without any discrimination. There are many Caholic schools in privare sector that have inclusive admissions and there are no problems or dilution of ethos.
Instead what the Conservatives and the Council have done is built walls, not preseved community relations and created a big division in our society.
Irena P
says...
7:36am Tue 20 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
8:12am Tue 20 Nov 12
On traffic the Council have measures in place to limit the use of cars and lorries/vans travelling to the site and the hours during which they can do so recognising that the narrow approach roads are already congestyed. It is not an issue unless people are wrongly anticipating that they will drive their children right up to the school gate.
What the "majority" may not have caught up with on the black hole is that the Council have now conceded that with many of the assumptions underpinning their forecasts, a new free school from 2013, a new school in Kingston, the impact of removal of links, having been undermined they need to amend their forecasts. They are now working with the new Free School and have actively promoted a catchment centred just west of the Green, equidistant from Teddington, Orleans and Twickenham Academy to meet the expected shortfall in school places there, however funding and a site for that school is not certain.
Copthall resident
says...
9:20am Tue 20 Nov 12
The church conceded 10 places in the primary school because a Catholic primary school on this site was not justified by either a need or a desire. However there is a need for Primary School places for non Catholic children and our Education Officer saw meeting that need as the only way of justifying a primary school on the site. It wasn't a great compromise, it was a way to get a Catholic Primary School where it wasn't otherwise going to be allowed.
That there isn't a need or desire was deemonstarted by the fact that an additional class at Sacred Heart Primary could not be filled. Many non Catholic parents were very upset to find themselves being offered places there even though they had not included it in their preferences. Even more upset when they realised that Catholic first children would have priority over their siblings.
SarahThomas
says...
9:30am Tue 20 Nov 12
There will be a Catholic school on the Clifden Road site. Lets now have some positive work to help make the Turing School a reality as well as the school on the college site.
Even Jeremy wished the Catholic school well immediately following the Judicial Review result. If he and RISC mean it lets see some positive work for the other proposed schools rather than this continued negative stuff.
lottieprosser
says...
9:53am Tue 20 Nov 12
SarahThomas
says...
10:10am Tue 20 Nov 12
ANY school that I opens is invariably closed to 90% of the population due to it's size, catchment etc.
The Diocese of Westminster is responding to long-held requests from local parishioners. The council have kept it's promise to support a Carholic school whilst at the same time successfully identifying another site at Richmond college.
The Turing School have identified another site.
It is absolutely not true to say that the council has not supported the new Free School proposal. I have it under very good authority that they have and continue to meet with the steering group to offer help and assistance. The only thing that Nick Whitfield did say was that they would not support a community school on the Clifden Road site in 2013 as it would be to the detriment of already existing, undersubscribed academies.
The Catholic community are paying for this school through taxes as well as having to fundraise to pay for the refurbishment costs and the longer term 10% building costs.
Knellerman
says...
10:28am Tue 20 Nov 12
If you put a Richmond Council hat on and try to see it from their point of view, then you can see what is really going on here.
The council need to take a strategic view and think about the medium to long-term future of educational provision in the borough. They have to balance out the need to provide the best education for local children while getting Best Value for local council tax payers.
The borough already has some of the best educational provision in the country and no doubt they want to build on this.
So let's talk about the elephant in the room. RISC no doubt have supporters who take a principled stand, but it appears to me from the debate that has developed over many months, that there is a real fear from parents in Twickenham that their child might have to attend WHitton School, now known as Twickenham Academy.
To put it crudely, some parents in Twickenham do not want their children mixing with those "smelly" kids from Feltham.
Children from Feltham (who are not in the borough) get places in TA because the school is undersubscribed by R and T residents.
The council know they have to provide more places through whatever means over the next few years.
Therefore should they open a new state school in Clifden Road or work towards increasing uptake at the existing state provision at TA?
To this end, TA has basically built a brand new school and new management appointed to transform the school, presumably in academic attainment.
The bottom line is that the new catholic school meets part of the strategy by creating more secondary school places.
I think it is no coincidence that at the same time the linked school system has been scrapped which is likely to drive more local pupils towards TA.
My son is due to go to secondary school in 2013. He is in a former link school for Orleans. It looks now that he has no chance of going to what would have been out first choice.
I have no resentment towards local catholics developing their own school. SImply because what they are doing is lawful.
It looks like our son might end up in TA.
As committed and supportive parents, if this is the case then we will do our best to support the school and play our role in helping to drive up standards there.
I suggest that others, who may have a prejudice towards TA start to take a more positive outlook and resolve to help create a great school, thus improving the inclusive access to a good education for more local children, rather than brooding over the creation of a new catholic school.
LizzyJ
says...
11:06am Tue 20 Nov 12
If you can guarantee to get your son into TA then you're one of the lucky ones. If you also like the Kunskappskolan ethos, then you're even luckier. However, if you're one of those people, like me, who are further away and don't know if there are going to be any TA places left for my son, then things are less certain.
When I went to look round TA the children were lovely. Its the education methodology, and the Head's weak defence of it that I don't like, and now that the council have no control over the school that's not going to change. Nevertheless, I'll be grateful for a place if that's all we're offered. Grateful, but still angry about Clifden Road.
Dellon
says...
11:28am Tue 20 Nov 12
The Coalition Agreement does promote inclusivity in our schools. Lord True appears to ignore that and the unforeseen consequences of the new Education Act which he voted for. It appears we now have a situation where exclusive VA schools are still allowed, and it is even easier to set them up if local councils are sympathetic, yet more religious schools are also allowed as free schools and there will be more of them (along with schools sponsored by companies who may hope to profit). This two-track system inevitably will lead to more segregation and fewer inclusive mainstream schools where local parents feel they have a voice.
JeremyRodell
says...
12:33pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Indeed I do wish the new school well in that the children who will attend it are just children. No one wants to deny them a successful education. It's not their fault that the school has been designed to be highly discriminatory and was forced through in the way that it was, to the disadvantage of others.
But the argument about inclusive admissions will not go away. Catholic VA schools are NOT inclusive - they only take children of non-Catholics when there are spare places after the local Catholic parents have taken what they want. The 10 "community" places (out of 30) at the small primary here is very much an exception, and of course, they are open to children of Catholics too.
One day we'll have a government with the courage to remove the legal exemption that enables this blatant discrimination to continue. All faith schools will then be genuinely inclusive, as many are already.
SarahThomas
says...
12:39pm Tue 20 Nov 12
It would seem an odd argument otherwise to have only one small school where not even all children attending Catholic primaries could get in.
I agree, that in an ideal world all children would be able to receive a Catholic education. I surprised that you think the same.
Frank Connor
says...
1:59pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Twickenham Academy may well outstrip other schools in the area in terms of academic results in the next few years if what I hear is correct. But the fact remains that there will still not be enough secondary school places for all non-Catholic Twickenham children.
Looking at brown field sites in the area, the old sorting office land by the station would seem to be the best site for a new secondary school, but sadly it is earmarked for something else?
metis
says...
2:21pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
2:29pm Tue 20 Nov 12
odtaaa
says...
2:38pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Last year around £150,000 was allocated to the Catholic Children's Society to provide counselling and support school aged children and families in distress. I cannot see how this organisation can deal with say a 15 year who has had unprotected sex, and should be advised to instantly take a morning after pill, if she is not a Catholic, along with longer term support and advice.
Now against the interests of borough residents they have given the Catholic Church the right to discriminate against 90% of the population in the borough.
This is going to force many resident secondary students to seek their schooling out of the borough.
Primary schools are being rapidly expanded and will therefore increase demand for secondary places.
The council is also funding Richmond schools to set up sixth form colleges, which will mean a dramatic reduction in the number of class rooms available and therefore a dramatic reduction in the number of secondary school places.
Having lived in Manchester, Scotland and worked in Northern Ireland I have seen at first hand the violence and conflict because of religious segregation. Hopefully this will not happen here, but I am pessimistic.
lottieprosser
says...
3:10pm Tue 20 Nov 12
SarahThomas
says...
3:16pm Tue 20 Nov 12
You need to make sure your facts are right about the help that the council are giving Turing School. You are very wrong and will be causing unfounded anxiety.
Copthall resident
says...
5:10pm Tue 20 Nov 12
-- As a result of the shortage of suitable sites and the impact of planning issues, quite a few of those free schools already approved for funding are being delayed or even not opening, especially in London (http://www.guardian
.co.uk/education/201
2/oct/08/free-school
s-without-sites)
- The process for finding and funding a site for a Free School is that once it is approved, then the D of E can use it's powers to force a local authority (if it is not already willing) to hand over the preferred site at a peppercorn rent for 125 years. That is what would have happened if Turing House had been approved and the Clifden College site available, or were to make another site available to meet the clear local need. If the preferred site is another government building not currently in use a similar process applies as with the NPL BUT if it not already a school then the Planning process can become an obstacle. That is exactly the problem with the NPL site, the current planning consent is for it to be pulled down as a condition of other development. It's neighbours are also forming themselves into a pressure group to argue that it is also unsuitable because of access and the impact of additional traffic etc. on their amenity. Of course with Clifden College all those issues have already been thrashed out with neighbours and it is a matter of the new school honouring the existing conditions.
- I agree the Council are working with Turing House School NOW finally acknowledging it is needed but they have very limited control over whether it is funded, although the forecasts they produced to justify the Catholic School may well have undermined the case for funding in 2013. Who knows what the politics of the process the Dof E will use to decide funding for 2014, it is opaque and one that presumably will balance resources with need on a national basis.
- The Council have now acknowledged that their forecasts need to be amended. Parents could see they were risky in the first place, nobody wanted those risks to materialise but they have, the new school in Kingston is now not certain to be funded and may well be smaller, RPA has exceeded everybody's expectations in terms of improvement, Turing House did not get funding for 2013.
Frank Connor
says...
5:18pm Tue 20 Nov 12
It is certainly the case that the Turing School has so far not identified a location. It is also true that acceptance by the DfE depends upon potential sites having been identified.
If LBRUT has been actively working to identify a site it is not obvious. The TS Steering group appear to be doing all of the work with LBRUT passing comment....and all credit to the TS Steering Group and all involved.
Of course there might have been a very obvious site which is in public use at the moment but then that is no longer available to the community at large.
Frank Connor
says...
5:21pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
5:27pm Tue 20 Nov 12
SarahThomas
says...
5:31pm Tue 20 Nov 12
For less informed parents who may be reading this I feel it is really important to put the record straight. Of course if it were true it would cause anxiety for parents.
Council staff have been meeting with the Free school proposers since the start!
Knellerman
says...
5:34pm Tue 20 Nov 12
I will try to summarise some of them
1. The catholics used to burn people at the stake, so therefore they are an undesirable body, therefore there should not be a catholic school.
- If this is the quality yardstick, then I suppose we can argue that in the 20th century, the two great secularists, Stalin and Hitler caused the deaths of some 40 million people, including six million jews who were part of a genocide.
So by the logic displayed, we should not have any secular schools at all, based upon the past crimes of secularists.
2. Why is the state funding an organisation of child sex abusers.
While the abuse of children within the care of the catholic church was shameful and has been acknowledged as such, it pales into insignificance the level of abuse at secular children's care homes, with a tinge of the BBC.
Because of their experience, as far as I can see, catholic institutions now have some of the best child safety policies around.
3. The creation of catholic schools is divisive - do we want a repeat of the troubles that we had in Northern Ireland?
- the troubles in Northern Ireland stemmed from a civil rights issue where catholics were excluded from jobs and were generally disadvantaged. Feeling excluded by their Protestant masters, they threw their lot in with the Republican movement where they identified more with their catholic cultural values.
To suggest that the creation of a new catholic school in Twickenham is going to spark some kind of violent reaction against religious segregation is a bit of a desperate and fanciful notion.
4. A hindu woman died for want of an abortion in catholic Ireland: Therefore all catholics are bad and evil.
- we are yet to find out why this woman dies. There is a growing feeling that it may have been more down to a medical error, rather than due to a religious stricture.
Besides, the abortion laws in Ireland do not apply here and from what I understand, most ENglish catholics do not follow the Vatican throughts and actually use contraception.
Contrary to some of the views on here, catholics do not have two heads or webbed feet. They are just ordinary people who happen to attend a particular church.
And if there are enough of them around to want their own schools, then there is nothing wrong with the State giving a helping hand.
After all, catholic and Anglican schools have been the bedrock of our educational system for over 1,000 years.
If we are going to ditch that millennium-long tradition, then we need a much more considered debate than RISC's objection to the establishment of one catholic school in Twickenham.
Frank Connor
says...
5:37pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Copthall resident
says...
5:44pm Tue 20 Nov 12
SarahThomas
says...
5:52pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Whether they would like my prayers or not, I am praying that Turing House School and the Richmond college school proposals are successful. I want all children in our borough to be happy. Not that this fits in well with your selfish Catholic stereotype.
Copthall resident
says...
6:00pm Tue 20 Nov 12
However the Council really needs Turing House now. An election in 2014 when these eggs come home to roost must be alarming even Lord True, even if he has achieved his legacy. I know the political thinking was that by 2014 TA, HA, RPA would be improved enough for people to be choosing them and everyone would be happy. The irony looks to be that they will have improved so quickly, that together with the impact of removing links and sixth forms they will have filled to capacity and there will be no flexibility to provide the resultant places needed without Turing House.
Copthall resident
says...
6:05pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
6:21pm Tue 20 Nov 12
As has always been the case in the Borough it will be parents who sort it out in the end. Just as credit for educational excellence which Lord True is trying to steal should really be aimed at parents.
akhanw
says...
6:32pm Tue 20 Nov 12
I find it shocking for the Catholics to suggest that we should move out of Twickenham if we are concerned about Clifden Road being a Catholic school. Seems like Lord True and his Catholic acolytes want - a physical religious separation in our borough.
SarahThomas
says...
6:56pm Tue 20 Nov 12
I think you may need to go back and read my posts - I have reapeatedly said I would welcome more Catholic schools - this would enable everyone to be educated together. This would not of course be welcomed by those who actually do not want faith schools at all.
You have no idea what I do for a living and in what way I am actively supporting various schools in this borough.
The Catholic community are very much involved in this borough at primary level and beyond. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this ONE secondary school will do anything less.
To try and suggest anything less is disingenuous and just trying to stir up trouble.
The Judical Review found in the council's favour. If it found in Risc's favour and I was posting some of the rhetoric that I read here you would be shouting that 'the law should be respected'
It is a shame that now that the decision is made and the school will be welcoming pupils in less than a year people can't try and use their energies to make a real difference for the other schools that I wish nothing but success for.
Frank Connor
says...
7:06pm Tue 20 Nov 12
All the evidence around the Borough is that 'people' are doing nothing but.......
lottieprosser
says...
8:53pm Tue 20 Nov 12
lottieprosser
says...
8:59pm Tue 20 Nov 12
metis
says...
9:47pm Tue 20 Nov 12
God Bless you.
akhanw
says...
10:06pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Why dont you get the Catholic schools admissions policy to become inclusive, so that everyone in the local community will be in harmony. If these schools do well for our local community, then I and am sure lot of locals will support another Catholic school with inclusive admissions. Win our hearts and minds first, rather than exluding us please !
akhanw
says...
10:09pm Tue 20 Nov 12
richste
says...
10:19pm Tue 20 Nov 12
"Our petition doesn’t rule out new faith schools in the borough, even Catholic ones. Some of the petitioners support state-funded faith schools, others don’t. But that’s a national policy issue. And everyone agrees we need good schools. Our petition is simply about one issue: inclusive admissions at new borough schools. And that need not preclude faith schools: half the Anglican primaries in the country have inclusive admissions. And the Church of England is moving towards more inclusivity in its other schools as well.
All we are asking is that the council ensures that state-funded schools opening in the borough from now on – whoever is running them – have inclusive admissions policies, such that no child can be denied a place in a good local school simply because of the religion or belief of their parents.
Does any Catholic school supporter disagree with this petition ?
Dellon
says...
11:24pm Tue 20 Nov 12
Is that true of Richmond/Twickenham?
JeremyRodell
says...
11:51pm Tue 20 Nov 12
But the new CofE primary Free School in Hampton, due to open in 2013, will have fully inclusive admissions (which is why RISC has not commented on it).
pmulak
says...
7:48am Wed 21 Nov 12
Hopefully this judgement will encourage them to follow the Catholic school model - it gives them more chances of funding as well
John Dowdle
says...
8:31am Wed 21 Nov 12
Please do not label these people as secularists, as they as far removed from secularism as any of the medieval despots who claimed a "divine" right to rule (possibly like your local True character?).
Dellon
says...
10:06am Wed 21 Nov 12
The CofE primaries that prioritise church goers over other children admitted on distance do not have a sub-category of 'baptised Christians' below that of church attendance. St RR's school admissions policy has several categories of baptised Catholics without a requirement that either children or parents have been to church regularly if at all. They may be lapsed or atheist, and they will be prioritised over local children who may be practising Anglicans, of other religions, or who simply need an education when the schools fill up.
LizzyJ
says...
10:15am Wed 21 Nov 12
Dellon
says...
11:21am Wed 21 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
1:44pm Wed 21 Nov 12
What pmulak seems to wants is exclusive schools for his/her tribe, which are set up to indoctrinate children rather than just educate them. But children of devout Catholics grow up in Catholic families and their parents will, no doubt, aim for them to see themselves as Catholics in any case. That's a parent's right. But it is not a right to expect the state to fund exclusive schooling, especially when it's to the detriment of others.
What is really so threatening about mixing at school with children from other backgrounds, even at schools run by the Church? Is it a fear that children will begin to think for themselves? If so, then children from Catholic families are in any case likely to conclude that they want to be Catholics. But they will do so having worked with, and maybe enjoyed the company of, those with different beliefs. That is the world they will live in.
There are plenty of examples where segregation has led to misery, but very few where breaking down barriers has been other than a good thing.
Despite the question being posed several times in this thread, no-one has yet explained in what way it is ethically justifiable to set up a state-funded school that will discriminate against local children simply because of their parents' religion or beliefs. That remains the key argument. But the impact of segregation on children and society is another reason why it's a bad idea.
Knellerman
says...
3:48pm Wed 21 Nov 12
He actually tries to make an argument that Stalin and Hitler were not secularists, but misguided Christians!!!
The reality is this. We are not a secularist state. Our monarch is Defender of the Faith.
This means that when people of Faith want to organise themselves so that their Faith can be furthered through schools, then the State is obliged to support them, because this is the attitude which the Crown supports.
It is not about denying people access to opportunities, but defending those who wish to pursue their Faith.
Government is keen to, if you like, privatise the establishment of new schools which meet different needs.
If you were starting from scratch and wanted to privatise educational provision completely, then religious schools would win all the tenders because the reality is that they have generally provided good quality education over more than 1,000 years.
The idea that the johhny-come-latelys at RISC can come along and disrupt a 1,000-year tradition based on one school in Twickenham is obviously a nonsense based upon current trendy thinking of people who are opposed to religion.
But the reality is that parents think differently, and have rejected the attempt by RISC to impose their own perception of equality on the wisdom of the ages.
The reality is that for 100,000 years, there is evidence that the human species have consistently made artistic and other expressions to understand the spiritual nature of our existence.
If you look at all the ceremonies if State and the prayers said in Parliament on a daily basis, as a society we are not yet ready to abandon the wisdom of 1,000 years of spiritual wonder, just for the sake of an ephemeral campaign by RISC.
You can rant all you want about the establishment of a new faith school in Twickenham. But the reality is that there are still enough people around who believe that there is a greater power than themselves in the universe, rather than the humanists who appear to follow a creed which determines that they are the greatest thing in the universe.
Certainly there is discrimination going on here. But it is discrimination towards those who
believe in high values based upon faith.
Of course it is unfair, because if you do not follow a faith or religion you will exclude yourself from the new school which seeks to follow Christian principles and asks pupils to think about themselves in a wider moral and spiritual context.
Secular schools do not do this, no matter how you might want to argue "inclusivety".
Because we are not a secular state, the role of faith in education and other matters is still considered valuable in the creation of a compassionate and enlightened society. It is not the only factor, but people of faith are still considered to have a voice in our country.
If you look at the history of our country over the last 200 years, every social advance and every march towards social justice was initially sparked by people of Faith, from the abolition of the slave trade, to the establishment of labour rights.
People of Faith have an enduring track record of advancing social good, and therefore I welcome the establishment of a new Faith school in Twickenham.
The establishment of a new Faith school in Twickenham, is likely to create a new generation of people who will find common cause with secularists in the pursuit of equality and justice.
The establishment of a new catholic school will add to the diversity, that the secularists often cite as being vital to a healthy society.
It appears to me that the secularists are all for diversity, except for the diversity allowing religion to exist.
Which makes me wonder if they are not really fascists at heart.
Frank Connor
says...
4:09pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
4:10pm Wed 21 Nov 12
JeremyRodell
says...
4:28pm Wed 21 Nov 12
The issue that unites RISC supporters is inclusive admissions, and the exclusion of children at the new schools simply because of their parents' religion or belief. That's why we did not comment at all on the proposal to establish a new, fully inclusive, CofE primary in Hampton.
We were criticised for putting out a leaflet with a mock-up of the school sign saying "Children of the non-religious, Anglicans, other Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs & others need not apply". Yet that is exactly the situation. This school will exclude children of religious parents as much as non-religious.
We indeed do not have a secular state, as the Queen is formally Head of the CofE. But we also have a modern country in which fairness and equality are generally regarded as core values and are enshrined in law. That means that, in most areas of life, no group has a right to claim state-funded privilege over others groups, faith or non-faith alike: there is no faith-based discrimination in NHS hospital admissions. Schools are an exception in law. That does not make discrimination in school admissions right, it just means it's not currently unlawful.
Slavery, racial discrimination and disenfranchisement of women were legal once. One day, faith-based discrimination against children at state-funded schools will, I hope, be outlawed too.
John Dowdle
says...
5:28pm Wed 21 Nov 12
The Monarch is Supreme Sovereign of the Church of England. The title Defender of the Faith was originally awarded to Henry VIII by the Pope but subsequently withdrawn after he divorced Queen Katharine, so the continued use of the title is dubious - to say the very least.
Following the vote at Synod, we now have a situation in which The Monarch can be a woman and Supreme Sovereign of the Church of England but women are not allowed to be bishops in the same church. How rational is this - and is this any sort of basis for arranging for the education of our next generation?
Knellerman
says...
6:11pm Wed 21 Nov 12
It appears to me that your arguments are falling apart, and it seems that the courts would support this view.
There is another meaning of the word "discriminate" which means to make one choice as opposed to another.
What about all the bright children in the borough who are denied access to Eton because their parents cannot afford the fees. How inclusive is that?
I cannot see how the establishment of a catholic school in Twickenham is going to disadvantage non-catholic children.
There are ample places in local state schools to accommodate all pupils, despite what the scare mongerers say.
So how does the creation of a catholic school - which will fund 20pc of its costs - harm the life chances or education of non-catholics in the borough?
From a practical point of view, the new catholic school is actually increasing overall provision for secondary school places in the borough in a way which is cost-effective to council tax payers.
Having said that, why can we not have schools which select on the basis of faith?
You harp on about diversity, but this can also mean that there is a choice for parents which discriminates in favour of the way they want their children to be educated.
The alternative is a Stalinist sausage-machine educational system where everyone is force-fed the same, which in itself creates the danger of developing a society where the educational system churns out people who all think the same.
How diverse is that?
Hopefully in the future, we will have many different schools that serve the aspirations of many different and diverse opinions and attitudes.
It is that diversity of outlook that keeps society strong, not the creation of a generation of robotic Zombies who all believe in the same thing.
If you want to do something useful with your life, then I suggest that you direct your campaign against the likes of Eton, from whence most of our political masters have hailed over many generations.
The chances of a bright child from the borough getting into Eton without the serious financial backing of a parent are zilch.
How inclusive is that?
But instead of tackling the real inequalities in society and the alarming lack of social mobility, you seem to spend your energy opposing the creation of as catholic school, which is peripheral to the real inequalities.
Just get over it. You have made your point, but have lost the argument.
Perhaps you should take up another issue that would actually make a difference for society, especially in the context of inclusivety and equality.
It is apparent that you are tilting at windmills as far as your opposition to the establishment of a catholic school in Twickenham is concerned.
Dellon
says...
7:26pm Wed 21 Nov 12
The judge has decided that the council followed the law. It doesn't mean to say people can't still debate or feel strongly about the policies on which the governing parties have voted which entered into law. Governing parties can get voted out (phew!).
Within the current law, the new alternatives are faith schools with inclusive admissions policies like Hampton CofE primary. Or even voluntary aided schools with open places for local children? Local children would only take up the places if they had no other option or if they were Catholic.
If you want to start a campaign to tackle social mobility, how would you do it ? Do you think Lord True or Michael Gove would take your ideas on board?
Knellerman
says...
8:09pm Wed 21 Nov 12
One of the main strands of their argument was that through their own survey, they had evidence that most people were against this new school.
But I have just found and objective survey conducted by Richmond and Twickenham Council over jan/feb 2012 which shows 95pc support for the establishment of a new catholic school at Clifden Road,, and 93pc agreement that the establishment of a new catholic school will add to the diversity of the borough.
No doubt RISC will have some mealy mouthed platitudes to explain away how the will of local people is overwhelmingly at odds with their position.
And no doubt they will attempt to make a case how their "superior view" trumps the overwhelming view of local tax payers.
And no doubt they will argue that the council asked the wrong question, or didn't ask the question that suited them.
Until proved otherwise, I am left with the impression that RISC have been manipulating surveys and figures in order to further their own cause, rather than relying on objective data.
I hope I am wrong. Because if I am right, then impartial observers might conclude that this is a hallmark of fascism. But I am not jumping to such a conclusion.
LizzyJ
says...
8:21pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Dellon
says...
8:26pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Dellon
says...
8:41pm Wed 21 Nov 12
http://beta.rcdow.or
g.uk/att/files/educa
tion/news+files/2012
/richmondconsultatio
nresponsesummary.pdf
The other was run by the council - there were 4244 responses, of which 1182 used paper forms (and an FOI request revealed 99% were Catholic), and overall 57% were Catholic.
http://www.richmond.
gov.uk/clifden_road_
site_consultation_20
12_final.pdf
Copthall resident
says...
8:42pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Copthall resident wrote:Good grief Knellerman I thought you had trawled through the arguments . If you wanted a comment on the "survey" which even Lord True called a consultation, you did not need to look very far. For your information a survey takes a representative sample of the population, taking great care it represents all segments of the population and then to ensure there is no bias in the questioning or methodology aims to find out their views on an issue or likely voting/consumer behaviour . Lord True himself said the consultation was never aimed to find out what the majority thought, it was "to elicit the quality of the arguments for and against". As I say above this was neither a democratic process or a survey. It was a consultation according to rules defined by the Council and, it is clear amended as they went on, to get a clear result. The handing out of paper forms to enable a section of the Catholic community to vote, whilst denying that facility to similar groups in the rest of the community is about as extreme an example of bias in methodology as you could get.
milessm Nobody knows what the majority think, there has been no process that met the requirements of a democratic or research exercise. What we know is that the majority either didn't know or didn't care enough to respond to the consultation. We know that the vast majority who responded to the consultation in favour were Catholic helped by the fact that response was urged from the pulpit and even paper forms given out to make response easier for all sections of the Catholic community (but the same arrangements were not in place to facilitate such responses from similar sections of the rest of the community). We know that the numbers of parents directly affected by the proposal i.e the parents of school age children voted equally for and against and we know the vast majority of local parents voted against as did the majority of non Catholic Christians and the majority of non Catholics. That is all we know.
On traffic the Council have measures in place to limit the use of cars and lorries/vans travelling to the site and the hours during which they can do so recognising that the narrow approach roads are already congestyed. It is not an issue unless people are wrongly anticipating that they will drive their children right up to the school gate.
What the "majority" may not have caught up with on the black hole is that the Council have now conceded that with many of the assumptions underpinning their forecasts, a new free school from 2013, a new school in Kingston, the impact of removal of links, having been undermined they need to amend their forecasts. They are now working with the new Free School and have actively promoted a catchment centred just west of the Green, equidistant from Teddington, Orleans and Twickenham Academy to meet the expected shortfall in school places there, however funding and a site for that school is not certain.
Knellerman
says...
8:44pm Wed 21 Nov 12
While you tried to discredit my reference to the survey because it was run by the Westiminster diocese, of course in the interest of balanced debate you did not refer me to the full council consultation which came up with a similar result.
Oh what beautiful democrats you are.
Here is a link to the council survey which appears to kill many half-truths and apparent lies from RISC about what local people really want, in my opinion.
http://www.richmond.
gov.uk/clifden_road_
site_consultation_20
12_final.pdf
richste
says...
8:45pm Wed 21 Nov 12
1. How many people signed the RISC petition
2. How many people signed the Catholic school petition
3. How many people responded to the Richmond Council consultation on Clifden Road site
4. What % of Catholics said they needed Catholic schools at Clifden Road
5. What % of Non Catholics said that they did not support Catholic schools at Clifden Road
6. What % of people in the UK do not support faith based selection in our state schools as per a recent poll ?
Some clues - You will find a large no of support on both sides and that overwhelming majority of Catholics support Catholic schools and overwhelming majority of non Catholics including Anglicans do not support the Catholic schools.
This is a very complex issue involving a lot of dimensions such as principle of inclusivity in faith schools, demand and supply of school places and sites and funding in Richmond etc etc. It has been debated for over 18 months and will continue to be - hopefully in a constructive and healthy manner as few matters are more important to us than our childrens education.
milessm
says...
8:58pm Wed 21 Nov 12
" A period of silence from certain all too well ventilated local voices would also be welcome"
Copthall resident
says...
9:41pm Wed 21 Nov 12
I'll shut up when I see that fairness, rather than influence and dogma prevails, believe me no one will be happier than me if we are wrong and all my neighbour's children have, in future, access to "good" (as rated by OFSTED) local schools, something denied to my own children.
Riverman
says...
10:47pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Dellon
says...
11:03pm Wed 21 Nov 12
45% of Anglicans agreed with the proposal.
Note that only 12.9% of those who responded were Anglicans. More than a third of the places in Twickenham primary schools are in CofE schools.
richste
says...
11:11pm Wed 21 Nov 12
The debate is not for or against Catholic schools, but for or against inclusive admissions in the Richmond Catholic schools.
Having studied in an inclusive Catholic school, I agree with you that Catholic schools have high standards. To whom much is given, much is expected - hence I believe in faith schools having inclusive admissions and support RISC .
Catholic schools however do not have monopoly over excellence both locally and nationally. A clear evidence in seen in Richmond's primary schools where we have excellence across all type of schools and 2 of the 8 secondary schools that are outstanding are Community schools.
milessm
says...
6:19am Thu 22 Nov 12
The DfE rightly intervened in this legal case and have got the judgement that will end the need to have 50% quota for non faith places. The law of the land has been clarified by an elected government and needs to be respected.
Dellon
says...
8:04am Thu 22 Nov 12
Irena P
says...
8:22am Thu 22 Nov 12
I know this seems like a basic question nearly a week into this debate but with all the comments and opinions and history I'm now unsure how we got here to begin with.
Frank Connor
says...
8:31am Thu 22 Nov 12
Irena P
says...
8:49am Thu 22 Nov 12
However it's not just about finding a site - the site and building needs to be safe and accessible, and appropriate for school provision. It needs to be value for money - eg if it's going to cost £10m to make it fit for purpose for a school it's not going to be viable.
In addition the planning process means that some sites would be earmarked for other uses (even though its set to change im not sure it really has!) so ideally you need to find a site that is already D1 in class use otherwise it can be a mountain to climb. Though it's not impossible. It will take time and the DfE need to really believe in the free school proposal to go through the gymnastics and cost required.
I have helped other school groups to find suitable sites in Richmond and Twickenham AND met with planners and found that this borough is particularly difficult. And conservative. Sites like the post office are totally unaffordable even though it has the size and access to playing fields. I think the best way is to start small and then move to another location.
Frank Connor
says...
9:10am Thu 22 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
9:17am Thu 22 Nov 12
Heliview
says...
9:22am Thu 22 Nov 12
om/Talk/local_richmo
nd_upon_thames/a1608
426-New-Secondary-Sc
hools-for-Richmond-4
, and if you can spare half a day I recommend reading through from the beginning of the first thread to catch up.
Frank Connor
says...
9:23am Thu 22 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
9:27am Thu 22 Nov 12
lottieprosser
says...
9:41am Thu 22 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
9:57am Thu 22 Nov 12
milessm
says...
10:11am Thu 22 Nov 12
Its time the few handful of RISC naysayers left, stopped using Richmond children as playthings and tell their national leaders at BHA to stop elbowing in Richmond.
Copthall resident
says...
10:17am Thu 22 Nov 12
milessm wrote:Actually with the exception of Lord True, that just isn't true. There is still a law passed by the elected government that is consistent with Gove's assertion that all Free Schools should have 50% non faith admissions. http://www.catholich
The Conservative government wants more faith schools and is doing everything in its power to promote choice and diversity. Under their watch it has been made clear by both national and Richmond leaders that there will not be non faith places in faith schools as it does not makes sense to turn a person of faith from attending their faith school!
The DfE rightly intervened in this legal case and have got the judgement that will end the need to have 50% quota for non faith places. The law of the land has been clarified by an elected government and needs to be respected.
erald.co.uk/news/201
2/07/26/gove-i-wont-
relax-rules-on-catho
lic-free-schools/ This ruling is actually inconsistent with Gove's other ramblings on the matter but then that is politics, especially when it is Gove. All that has happened is that a judge, not the government, has ruled that the Council's decision making process was legal.
LizzyJ
says...
10:18am Thu 22 Nov 12
Many Catholics already send their children to the Outstanding ones, and will continue to do so. Unlike the rest of us they have a choice whether or not to send their children to the 'improving' ones. Whether they do or not does not absolve them of any responsibility towards those schools.
Copthall resident
says...
10:24am Thu 22 Nov 12
Knellerman
says...
11:48am Thu 22 Nov 12
I feel like I am living in Tower Hamlets where, if the council backs an initiative that supports the Bangladeshi community, then the white working class community kick up a stink and talk about council policies that are not "inclusive", because they appear to favour one community over another.
When it comes to schooling, well motivated parents will seek to exploit every advantage they can in order to get the best education for their children. Which is only natural.
What is happening here, is that one section of the community has created an institution which reflects their own cultural and educational choice. And the key word is choice.
And suddenly all those parents who have been more than willing to exploit their own advantages, suddenly feel disadvantaged.
The state already gives preferential funding to support all kinds of different cultural and racial groups, in many different ways, often providing grants through voluntary organisations.
In many educational settings, the state will fund initiatives which helps support children to learn about and identify the particular culture that is part of their heritage.
The scenario that RISC paints in Richmond is absurd.
The establishment of a new catholic school does not change one jot the choices that parents have in gaining a secondary school place. The number of places for non-catholics remain exactly the same, if not slightly better if catholic children free up more places in secondary schools in the borough.
Parents in Richmond are blessed with some of the best schools in the country, so therefore the real objection must be that someone has got a better advantage than MY advantage.
Of course it it right that any legitimate organisation which seeks to serve the interests of its own cultural or religious community should be able to provide an exclusive service to preserve its own identity, within a pluralistic society.
What is so wrong with that?
The mantra used by RISC always relates to us creating a "multi-cultural" society and "diversity".
Personally, I find this sloganising rather Orwellian, and an example of double-think.
How can you advocate a multi-cultural society - which seeks to make everyone the same - and yet in the same breath you proclaim diversity, which says that everyone is different?
How can you have a society where the state will support programmes which, for example, helps black people to understand their Afro-Caribbean roots, but at the same time denies state funding for catholics to maintain their own faith-based community and catholic heritage?
The argument that providing state support for catholics is divisive has no traction. The UK was built upon many different tribes who coalesced into making a strong nation.
Encouraging different faiths or cultural groups to have the freedom to maintain their own sense of identity and purpose within the national context, actually creates a healthier society where the debate is not about a shared fascistic vision of some kind of Aryan homegeny.
As an Anglican, I really welcome the addition of a new catholic school into the cultural mix.
Of course, I could have issues about some of the attitudes of the catholic church towards certain issues. But so do many of the catholics I have met.
The establishment of a catholic school is an investment in the future vibrancy of our national life.
I hope that by inculcating children with a doctrine based on spiritual values, they may develop some individuals who in future may choose to dissent against the monochrome society that the secularists are striving for.
The secularists, no doubt, believe they are driving society into some kind of Utopian future.
Already, they rant about the perceived preferential role of religion and no doubt they would like to eliminate all trace of religious influence.
They would claim not, but scratch beneath the surface and you find a resentment against religious belief.
And I find the idea of a future, where religious and spiritual life- which sustains billions of people on this planet - was supressed to be a very bleak prospect, not least in the diversity of thought.
JeremyRodell
says...
12:01pm Thu 22 Nov 12
milessm wrote:milessm's post contains some of the greatest hits from Lord True's utterances over the past year. We have:
Catholics are also tax payers in this borough and if they can pay for your underperforming academies, why cant they expect to get their promised outstanding Catholic school.
Its time the few handful of RISC naysayers left, stopped using Richmond children as playthings and tell their national leaders at BHA to stop elbowing in Richmond.
- "naysayers", a 2011 hit, meaning people who don't agree with him;
- Richmond children as "playthings", when it is his school that will discriminate against 90% of them; and
- the falsehood that RISC is somehow subject to "national leaders at BHA" - disappointed not to see the word "acolyte" also here - when the campaign was started, run and is supported by local people from a wide range of background. The BHA Chief Exec would be amused to hear that he has any control over RISC. He hasn't. But we're really pleased that the BHA has become involved because of the national angle. That both enabled the legal case and has ensured our struggles here have received wider publicity.
Having said that, the wording in the post that will be most offensive to many people is "your" (as in "your underperforming academies"), with the implicit contrast with "our" brilliant schools (which we won't let "you" into). The evidence for the claimed superiority of faith schools is questionable once social selection is taken into account (the data show that Richmond Catholic primaries are particularly bad on social selection).
And we are all taxpayers, so Catholics contribute to the "underperforming academies" (which are fast improving) and non-Catholics contribute to exclusive state-funded Catholic schools. In fact non-Catholics (over 90% of the UK population) pay almost all the costs of state-funded Catholic schools.
It's not "yours" (non-Catholics) and "ours" (Catholics), it's all "ours" (Catholics and non-Catholics together).
Frank Connor
says...
2:53pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Frank Connor
says...
3:01pm Thu 22 Nov 12
alex twickenham
says...
3:38pm Thu 22 Nov 12
We chose to educate our two children privately, both at local private day schools - not because we could afford it but because the state provision was so inadequate and we chose to put their needs ahead of ours. No villa in Portugal or a state of the art granite topped kitchen for us, just MFI and a much longer mortgage than I would have liked - it was worth it and I wonder whether some of the highly eloquent contributors to this subject might take the same approach to their childrens future rather than continuing this endless and pointless debate about a judgement that has been made?
Alex
PS: Lest anyone thinks I don't know what I'm talking about - I am a volunteer for Young Enterprise, all but one of the schools I help at are Comprehensives. A few are excellent where aspirational kids are encouraged to flourish, others are not since they are governed by the quality of the teachers and parental involvement, which, in most cases is woefully lacking.
Frank Connor
says...
4:16pm Thu 22 Nov 12
alex twickenham
says...
4:27pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Alex
PS: My 2nd post, I reserve the right to respond if appropriate.
Frank Connor
says...
4:32pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Just in case people didn't get it, here it is again.
(http://www.mumsnet.
c
om/Talk/local_richmo
nd_upon_thames/a1608
426-New-Secondary-Sc
hools-for-Richmond-4
)
Certainly shows that there are a large number of people who are very concerned about this issue.
alex twickenham
says...
5:22pm Thu 22 Nov 12
I see that, within minutes of casually swatting me down, Mr Connor moved on to reprise a mumsnet link. Odd that - isn't it?
Perhaps these people have another side - in which case I'm extremely disappointed.
Alex
Frank Connor
says...
5:38pm Thu 22 Nov 12
The issue of inclusion and exclusion within the context of education has galvanised people. Rather than hope the discussion goes away I for one would prefer it to continue indefinitely, and also hope it leads to action, change and perhaps even resolution.
As for my beliefs, Alex. I am not in the habit of discussing them with strangers. However I am not a Humanist and nor am I a Catholic, and I haven't given much thought to my funeral arrangements yet.
alex twickenham
says...
5:51pm Thu 22 Nov 12
I think we are in broad agreement.
As to funerals - who knows? Isn't it better to relieve your children or spouse of the worry - just like making a will?
John Dowdle
says...
7:20pm Thu 22 Nov 12
I have seen a number of references to a Turing House project. I do not know the details of this project but I am guessing that the name of the project is drawn from the name of Alan Turing? His work at Bletchley Park in cracking the Nazi High Command Enigma codes almost certainly helped Britain to avoid defeat in the early years of the Second World War and it has been suggested that the work of Turing and his team of code breakers probably shortened the war in Europe by at least two years.
It is educative to consider what happened to Turing after the war. He continued working on the development of digital computers (he was, arguably, the world's first modern computer builder and programmer).
However, in his private life he experienced considerable difficulties because he was a homosexual. He was reported to the authorities who then insisted that he undertake a legally proscribed programme of chemical castration to conform with the law (which, at the time, made homosexuality a crime). Eventually, he committed suicide by eating a poisoned apple and Britain and the world lost a highly talented individual.
Then - and, no doubt now - there are probably plenty of religiously motivated individuals who think it was right that he should have been subjected to legally ordered chemical castration; they might even think he should have subjected to complete physical castration, for all I know. They would probably disapprove of him committing suicide, not because it represented a massive waste of human potential that the world could ill afford to lose but because they regard suicide as a "mortal" sin. Such tender mercies are to be allowed to determine the educational policies in schools in your area. You have my full sympathy.
Heliview
says...
7:29pm Thu 22 Nov 12
I think most people following this comment thread are getting bored of where its going now, so let's just all agree to disagree and go back to our families.
See you all back here in a week or so when the full judgement is delivered and there's something new to say.
Knellerman
says...
7:59pm Thu 22 Nov 12
In regard to your reference to Alan Turing, you need correcting.
He was not reported to the authorities, he reported himself to the authorities after being burgled by his boyfriend.
He did not appear to have any insight into the danger he was putting himself in by de-facto admitting his own homosexuality.
It is now generally accepted that he had Asperger's syndrome, which often combines savant-like gifts with absolute social naivety.
Children with Asperger's today continue to be misunderstood and persecuted within the educational system,, because of their seemingly eccentric behaviour.
Life has in many ways become worse for children with Asperger's because of the drive in the state, secular system to make everyone the same.
Eccentricity in children is now often seen as a problem needing medical intervention, because the child does not fit the mould that the equality-seeking state and secular education system determines to be the norm.
Another reason why we need faith schools and any other type of school that creates a diversity of provision and understanding, to mitigate against the dead hand of the state.
richste
says...
8:36pm Thu 22 Nov 12
I applaud the work your are doing in our Community schools and you are well aware that a number of children are from disadvantaged backgrounds in both our community primary and secondary schools.
Jeremy - thanks for your resilence and attempts to continue a healthy debate despite the many personal hostile and unfair attacks made by you by Lord True and some people on this thread. I am sure RISC will carry on.
I agree with Heliview that this debate is turning pathetic and would request John and Knellerman to take their discussions outside this forum.
I hope the issue with inclusivity in faith schools, school places, sites and education standards in Richmond will continue to be debated by everyone in our community in a healthy and constructive manner in appropriate forums. For now I am out of this page!
JeremyRodell
says...
10:47pm Thu 22 Nov 12
But the thread has veered off the road. I'm out.
alex twickenham
says...
4:44pm Fri 23 Nov 12
That's alright then, "JR" and "richte" have both opted out of what has become a "pathetic" debate since my late intervention on this thread, so best I join them.
Despite the fact that we are now off page, here are a few thoughts for you.
As a personal observation. I have re-read every post and cannot find a trace of humour. Whilst this is a serious subject, you have to attract non-aligned readers to your cause rather than repelling them with a relentless tirade, over and over again, as RISC seem to have done - otherwise whats the point? All you are you doing is violently agreeing with each other and squabbling with the 2 or 3 brave or dotty souls who have dared to challenge you. These 222 posts are a classic example of how not to conduct one facet of a PR campaign. Sorry Copthall Resident, this is obviously very close to your heart and family but sometimes it helps to lighten up a bit - doesn't it? Why has no-one thought to give the R&TT a mugshot of JR smiling or at least looking cheerful? The habitual glower is quite off-putting.
You might be surprised to know that I still support your cause despite your best efforts to elbow me aside - I can hack it!
Alex
PS: Interesting to note that no-one has posted since JR withdrew from the fray - could he have whipped his team in?
twickerati
says...
6:05pm Fri 23 Nov 12
Knellerman
says...
7:47pm Fri 23 Nov 12
But it seems not.
In the absence of Jeremy Rodell giving his considered view about the ruling, before he went missing, it would appear that Justice Sales completely accepted the argument of the council AND the secretary of State.
The ruling clearly establishes that the creation of a catholic school does not disadvantage any other children in the borough because there are enough places for other children.
It was also made very clear in this LAWFUL ruling that the establishment of faith schools is legitimate.
Call me an old fogy, but I think that 2,000 years of tradition would appear to have more traction than Jeremy Rodell's attempt to create the world, according to him.
milessm
says...
8:49pm Fri 23 Nov 12
But you are right their campaign lacked the organisation and underestimated the catholic support.
The conservatives always backed the winner and have shown leadership in tough times. The silence from Mr Rodel and his acolyte is welcome
The silence have Mr rodel and his acolhave fina
LizzyJ
says...
9:10pm Fri 23 Nov 12
This RTT site has run quite a few stories on the Clifden issue over recent months, and most comment threads have been much shorter. This one only became lengthy because people were responding to you, and one or two other nutters.
Riverman
says...
10:31pm Fri 23 Nov 12
milessm
says...
8:51am Sat 24 Nov 12
Knellerman
says...
12:10pm Sat 24 Nov 12
At last, now the court has ruled against you, the gloves are off.
I wonder if the previously carefully crafted tactic of putting your case in seemingly reasonable language, was simply a device to mask the underlying prejudice against the establishment of a faith school.
Your comment is very revealing.
Because in your own words, people like me who see no problem with the establishment of a faith school is "a nutter".
So anyone who disagrees with you is a nutter?
I would much rather be a "nutter" than the apparent fascist that you are.
As a fully paid up nutter, I am grateful that we have a judicial system that protects us nutters from the totalitarian stance you appear to take to those who simply disagree with you.
LizzyJ
says...
1:08pm Sat 24 Nov 12
metis
says...
2:23pm Sat 24 Nov 12
Save the 'Nutter' campaign begins here.
Knellerman
says...
3:29pm Sat 24 Nov 12
Your comment that you would see people who use extreme language in the from either side is truly baffling.
It was you who introduced the extreme language by describing people who do not agree with you as "nutters".
So by your own logic, and through your own definition, you must therefore designate yourself as a "nutter".
sirarthurbliss says...
4:50pm Fri 16 Nov 12