“Last Friday, [5 June] I visited Thomson House School in Mortlake, and I was delighted to hear the news that the school had recently been graded as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. This is an excellent reflection on the hard work of the teachers at the school, as well as the behaviour and work ethic of the pupils.
As some local residents may know, the Department for Education withdrew its funding for Livingston Academy, the school which was due to be built as part of the Mortlake Brewery development. While enrolment in primary schools in Richmond and across London has fallen, creating funding concerns for local schools, modelling has consistently reported that extra provision is needed for secondary school placements.
Amongst the matter of school placements in the borough, we discussed a range of issues impacting pupils at the school, including space for the pupils to play and safe crossings in the area.
I would like to thank everyone at Thomson House School for welcoming me last Friday.”
Comment: It is somewhat strange you might think to place such focus on the secondary school issue, which is now buried in the past. And no mention of Thomson House School’s wish for consideration of them moving their sites by the level crossing at Mortlake Station and in Vernon Road to the Stag Brewery site.
AND it was not accurate to write solely about the falling enrolment in primary schools, when the relevant issue is falling numbers within primary schools, such that consideration may need to be given to the viability of all schools in the area.
AND whose modelling? Is that the same evidence that was challenged at the Public Planning Inquiry eighteen months ago?
Is this merely continuation of a political trope?
Discover more from EastSheenMatters
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am afraid our MP’s newsletter continues a pattern of scant mention of Mortlake in any supportive or listening manner. This matches all the newsletters emanating that come through our doors from Richmond Council. It is why we can feel forgotten. The leader of the council is on recent record saying that his will be a listening administration, yet he (still) does not seem to hear. The same narrative about the need for a secondary school is persisted in, despite the views of other secondary school heads , the local community, the detailed independent report presented to the Inspector, and the somewhat uncertain findings of the Inspector himself who did not seem wholly persuaded by the Council’s case for the school, but on balance preferred to come down on their side. The evidence presented the other way was from many points of view more persuasive. This now seems to be the view of the Department of Education and Science. The logical inconsistency in Sarah’s comment about falling rolls scarcely argues the need for a secondary school nearby unless she was assuming the Council were thinking of bussing in pupils from further afield. She has not addressed that at all, and simply alludes to some modelling she has been shown. We live in hope that MESS, MCBG and other community voices will be heard. The leader says he will listen. Now is the time to show that this is true. We are not and have never been NIMBYs here. We have always argued for a more thoughtful development of the Brewery site, working with the community, and have long supported greater affordable development, which now seems to be a shrinking hope as well.
LikeLike
I’m not aware of any recent modelling. I do know that recently Achieving for Children predicted that secondary rolls would begin to fall before 2030, i.e. that incoming Year 7 numbers would begin to fall below outgoing Year 11 numbers. Not a reason to build a new secondary school. Geoff Woodhouse
LikeLike
Absolutely agree with your comment Richard. Her post was at best economical with the truth!
LikeLike
Where does this nonsense come from?
modelling has consistently reported that extra provision is NOT needed for secondary school placements.
LikeLike
Agree.
Flogging a dead horse .
LikeLike