Showing posts with label Gladstone Park Primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gladstone Park Primary. Show all posts

Friday 18 March 2016

Ofsted and Academy Trusts

I am grateful to 'Reclaiming Education' for this. CfBT took over Gladstone Park Primary School following forced academisation, despite a strong parent campaign to keep it as a local authority school. E-Act runs the Crest academies.

Chris Dunne's letter, "We will come to regret not having defended our education system",  in the Financial Times can be seen here

Henry Stewart's piece looking at the progress of academies against maintained schools can be read here.

And, in case you missed these pieces on where the money is being wasted and who benefits, there is this piece in localgov.uk and this piece in Schoolsweek

Ofsted condemns Academy Trusts:  The Government has announced that it plans to force all schools to become academies.  The major problem is going to be who will run these schools, given that Ofsted has some major criticisms of at least 8 of the large academy trusts.

Ofsted Inspections of Academy Trusts

Ofsted has carried out focused inspections of academies within 9 multi academy trusts.  Significantly, only one, the last and smallest one, is positive.  The full reports can be found on the Government website here.   A map of where the academies are can be found here.

CfBT:  11 primary/8 Secondary

“CfBT took on too many academies too quickly. The trust did not have a clear rationale for the selection of schools, a strategy for creating geographical clusters or a plan to meet academies’ different needs. As a result, standards are too low. The trust relied heavily on external consultants but did not ensure their accountability in securing rapid and secure improvement. Headteachers were unable to provide each other with the much needed mutual support or share available expertise. Current CST leaders openly acknowledge these errors.”  Full report

Academies Enterprise Trust:  32 primary/30 secondary/5 special

"After operating for nearly eight years, the Trust is failing too many pupils. Almost 40% of the pupils attend AET primary academies that do not provide a good standard of education. It is even worse in secondary, where 47% of pupils attend academies that are less than good......
"Children from poor backgrounds do particularly badly in this Trust. The attainment and progress of disadvantaged pupils, in both the primary and secondary academies, still lags behind that of other pupils, and gaps in performance are not narrowing quickly enough......
"The outcomes of the focused inspections failed to demonstrate that the Trust is consistently improving its academies.  Full report

Collaborative Academies Trust: 9 schools

“Collaborative Academies Trust was set up in 2012 by EdisonLearning ......
.........Too many academies have not improved since joining the trust. Of the five academies that have had a full inspection since joining the trust, only one has improved its inspection grade compared with its predecessor school. Two have remained the same and two have declined. This means that, at the time of the focused inspection, there were not yet any good or outstanding academies in the trust. “  Full report

E-Act (formerly Edutrust): 23 academies (was more)

“...Nevertheless, the quality of provision for too many pupils in E-ACT academies is not good enough.
......Standards in the secondary academies are too low. Previous interventions by the Trust to raise attainment and accelerate progress have not had enough impact and any improvements have been slow.
....Pupils from poor backgrounds do not do well enough. These pupils make less progress than other pupils nationally. This is an area of serious concern. “  Full report

Kemnal Academies Trust: 15 secondary/26 primary

“Less than half of your academies were good or better and there are no longer any outstanding academies in your chain. .........

.. an overwhelming proportion of pupils attending one of the academies inspected are not receiving a good education. “  Full report

Oasis Community Learning Trust: 50? Schools – DfE list and Oasis website appear to disagree.

The academy trust has grown rapidly, taking on 30 new academies in the last three years ...
Across the trust, some groups of pupils do not achieve well. Disadvantaged pupils, particularly boys, make significantly less progress than their peers nationally.......... there is no evidence of an overall strategy or plan that focuses on these particular issues.  Full report

School Partnership Trust:  41 schools

“The impact of the Trust’s work in bringing about improvement where it is most needed has been too slow. Where standards have been intractably low for some time, the Trust is not driving significant, sustained improvement. ...

......The standard of education provided by the Trust is not good enough in around 40% of its academies inspected so far. “ Full report

The Education Fellowship: 12 schools

“There is no clear record of improvement in the trust’s academies and standards across the trust are unacceptably variable. In around three quarters of the academies, standards are poor.
Standards declined in five of the eight primary academies in 2014. In the majority of the trust’s 12 academies, the gap in attainment between disadvantaged pupils and their better off peers, both within the academies and compared with pupils nationally, remains unacceptably wide.”  Full Report

Wakefield City Academies Trust – the only positive one!

“Two years into its development, WCAT is making a positive difference to the quality of provision and outcomes for pupils within its academies. “ Full report

Wednesday 6 November 2013

Michael Pavey claims his position on academies has been consistent,

Cllr Michael Pavey has responded to my posting earlier today which accused him of diluting his earlier opposition to academies and free schools.

Here is what he has to say (unedited):
My position on academies has been consistent.

I distrust academies as a dangerous step towards the marketisation of education. But I have always been clear that Copland is a necessary exception. The recent Ofsted report highlighted extremely serious failures at Copland. Extremely troublingly it found that the most disadvantaged pupils were suffering the most. This is unacceptable and profound change is necessary. I wish this could be achieved through local authority leadership, but years of budget cuts have left us under-resourced for a school improvement challenge of this magnitude. An academy conversion was the only feasible alternative to give Copland the fresh start it desperately needs.

Furthermore, I am delighted to be proposing a partnership with Ark Wembley, an enormously popular local school.

The situation at Gladstone is considerably more complicated. I met the campaigners as one of my first acts after becoming Lead Member – and I applaud their work. However it is right and proper that the lead on this is provided by the school Governing Body. Far from cutting them adrift, the Council has provided close support and I fully respect the decisions they taken.

I’ve not changed my views on academies but the world is not as black and white as some would like to assume.

My responsibility is to the families of Brent and their children. I’m always happy to meet any residents to discuss my positions on academies or any other issues. Virtually every time I meet them they are disinterested in discussions about structures and just want to talk about raising standards. Local families want their children to get a top quality education so they can make something of their lives. That is the driving force behind every decision we have taken.”

Cllr. Michael Pavey
Lead Member for Children & Families
Labour Councillor for Barnhill, Brent Council
07941474261  @mikeypavey 

Tuesday 29 October 2013

Forced academies: Victory and victims

Parents at Snaresbrook Primary in the London Borough of Redbridge were celebrating tonight after the Department for Education decided not to intervene in their school.  After being judged 'Inadequate' and put in Special Measures the school faced being forced to become an academy, a fate that has befallen Salusbury Primary School in Brent and is being challenged by parent campaigners at Gladstone Park Primary.

Unlike Salusbury and Gladstone Park, Snaresbrook and its parents had been strongly backed by Redbridge Council.

A DfE spokesperson said:
Our policy remains unchanged - we cannot stand by when a school is judged inadequate and believe that becoming an academy with the support of a strong sponsor is the best way to ensure rapid and sustained improvement.

Snaresbrook Primary School does not have a history of underperformance and has made significant progress after being judged to require special measures by Ofsted in June. We therefore do not plan to intervene to convert Snaresbrook to an academy.

However, being judged inadequate by Ofsted is extremely serious and we will continue to monitor the school’s progress in coming out of special measures.
Gladstone Park Primary too did not have a history of under performance and previously had a 'Good' Ofsted rating. Its results are still above the national average at Key Stage 1 and Key stage 2.  However despite passionate requests from parents Brent Council did not get behind their campaign or make strong representations to the DfE. Governors are currently consulting on an academy sponsor.

Meanwhile Roke Primary School (now Harris Primary Academy) parents are facing the consequences of the Croydon school being taken over by the Harris Academy chain in September.

Inside Croydon LINK reports than 1 to 1 SEN support has been removed in a move that some parents interpret as an attempt to reduce the number of SEN pupils in the school.  Children and parents were in tears after the news.

In a further move showing disregard for parents and pupils, the management  closed the Bourne Children’s Centre, which ran toddler and parents’ groups.  The building into a storeroom, causing a marked decrease in provision of service for families with children at the school.

Parents also accuse the academy managers of manipulating pupils attainment data in order to create the impression that the new academy is out-performing expectations. Parents report that pupils previously said to be exceeding levels in face to face meetings with teachers are now categorised as below expectations, enabling the school to claim vast improvement at the end of the year.

Inside Croydon reports:
Harris has provided each child with targets for the next half term, yet many parents said these had already been achieved in the last academic year when the school was still Roke Primary. The headteacher sent a letter telling parents that “previous levels you have been given may vary slightly to the levels recorded on this report”.
A spokeswoman for the Roke parents’ group told Inside Croydon:
We predict that results will now show remarkable improvement during the first year of the Harris academy and be used as a false benchmark of their success in turning our school around, as well as legitimising contentious forced academy policy.

Academy status and the new management have had to apologise for mistakes in homework which appeared to be cut and pasted from American websites and for unzipping 5 year old girls' dresses to check that what they wore beneath met the new school uniform requirements.

The Snaresbrook victory, along with the news from Lewisham, should reinforce campaigners' determination to fight for our public services. Let's hope Brent Labour will get behind them.







Thursday 24 October 2013

Make Willesden Campaign hits the ground running


Willesden Green residents active in campaigns over the Willesden Green Library redevelopment, the Willesden Bookshop, Gladstone Park Primary School, council cuts and the Queensbury pub gathered together last night at the launch of the Make Willesden Green local election campaign.

Alex Colas, the candidate for MWG, spoke about how residents felt unrepresented and unsupported by local councillors and others talked of Willesden Green becoming a backwater as Wembley became the focus of the borough. There were fears that Willesden would lose its sense of community as the public realm was degraded and housing became unaffordable for ordinary  families. Recent developments were reducing the area to a dormitory.

Alex said that his campaign would be carrying forward values which had started with the library campaign but would look at the bigger and broader picture in order to influence the council. He said that it would be a local campaign but not a parochial one. The Coalition clearly had a major responsibility for the current situation but the campaign would not let the Council off the hook.  We must fight for a democratic, representative Council.

Alex's agent said that Labour were trying to distance itself from the present administration, which began with Ann John's library closures by choosing new, young candidates for 2014, but the policies remained the same. In Willesden Green, Cllr Lesley Jones, who was part of the Ann John regime, was standing again.

The Make Willesden Green campaign has people responsible for four main areas of policy: education, housing, public realm and local democracy and is welcoming policy ideas from supporters.  It was hoped that people would come forward as 'street reps' to further the campaign.

The Make Willesden Green blog is HERE   Twitter @AlexWG2014


Friday 18 October 2013

Independent Alex makes grassroots bid for Willesden Green council seat

Willesden Green has had a battering from Brent's Labour Council over the last few years but as a result the community itself has become stronger uniting to try to save its bookshop, the Victorian Library and more recently the Queensbury pub. The much loved and respected Gladstone Park Primary School attracted a determined and imaginative parent campaign when it was faced with forced academisation by Michael Gove with the Council seeming to stand by and do little to help. 

Although some of the causes have been lost and others are yet to be won the legacy is that local residents want to see change. Local resident, parent and anti-cuts activist Alex Colas has decided to champion that change by mounting an independent campaign for the Council under the slogan Make Willesden Green.

He has issued the following invitation:
We will be launching  Make Willesden Green on Wednesday 23 October, from 6-7pm at the Queensbury Deli,  68 Walm Lane, NW2 4RA (the tube station end of the High Road). This will be an informal gathering where you can come to hear more about the campaign, as well as offering your support and ideas. The launch is open to all residents of Willesden Green and neighbouring wards, and children are very welcome.
 The 'Green'  in Make Willesden Green does not refer to the Green Party but to one of a series of demands as Alex explains on his blog: LINK
The ‘Make’ in Willesden Green is all about emphasising the participation of ordinary residents in the public life of our neighbourhood. There is plenty of community activity in Willesden Green – some of it political; other less so. But it tends to be ignored by Brent Council and by our elected officers.

Make Willesden Green was set up over the summer by residents who feel unrepresented by local Councillors and mainstream parties, and who want to redress this imbalance. Our  aim is to make connections between local campaigns like Save the Queensbury, Save Gladstone Park School or Keep Willesden Green, and give them an electoral voice at the Council elections next year. This electoral platform emerges directly from the energies and ideas expressed around these campaigns, but it does not claim their exclusive representation. Instead, Make Willesden Green seeks to continue highlighting the democratic deficit in our Borough by  putting issues of  democracy, equality, sustainability, the defence of public realm and public services at the centre of the electoral campaign.
I have worked closely with Alex on some of these campaigns and along with others in Brent Green Party I am sympathetic to his decision to stand as an independent grassroots councillor. Indeed he wrote a guest column for us in the current edition of our Willesden Green News.  We have yet to finalise our candidates for the local election and decide our strategy in each ward but obviously we will take into consideration our respect for Alex and the platform he represents in Willesden Green ward. For his part Alex says in his guest column:


The Greens are the only local party to have consistently supported grassroots campaigns for democracy in our neighbourhood.
We have a positive record of working with independent campaigns and individuals, as well as other parties, on specific issues such as the Welsh Harp or the recent racist lettings agency issue.

This is the column Alex wrote for Willesen Green News:

Tuesday 25 June 2013

Michael Pavey reneges on anti-academy promises

Cllr Michael Pavey, only months into his new job as Brent's lead member for children and families, tonight reneged on his promises of opposition to academies made when he was standing for the position.

Making a statement at the full Brent Council meeting he  said that Gladstone Park Primary  was not a failing school, has suffered a blip, and results were improving. It was a shame that it was being forced to become an academy and instead it should have been supported in its improvement strategy. He welcomed the Parents Action Group campaign and commented that this was' community action at its very best' BUT he respected the governing body's approach to the CfBT.  He said. 'If we have to have an academy these are the sort of people we should support'. He went on to say  that this was the time to 'bury the hatchet.' (referring I think to both Copland and Gladstone Park).

On Copland he said that he was pleased to announce that the DfE had approved the council's application to impose an Interim Executive Board headed by Grahame Price of St Paul's Way School LINK and said that there had been a 'terrible situation' at Copland with two thirds of the lessons inadequate and it had been failing the most vulnerable pupils. After the IEB the next step in the 'radical surgery' that the school required was academy conversion.

No sign of any fightback on forced academy status and what amounts to the privatisation of our schools and their removal from local democratic accountability.

Thursday 23 May 2013

Beware: Sham consultation ahead

Guest blog by Save Roke Campaign, Parents at Roke Primary in Croydon have been campaigning against their children's school being forced to become an academy. They have been working with the Save Gladstone Park campaign. The process at Roke is further along the line and Harris Academies (run by Lord Harris the Carpetright millioniare and Tory Party donor) has been chosen by the DfE as sponsor. Harris have been carrying out a 'consultation' with parents...


The results of the Harris consultation have finally been published. It is a government commissioned document that will enable the Secretary of State to make his final decision on Roke. The consultation cost £5k of taxpayers money. Yet it contains biased reporting of statistics and omission of data that is unfavourable to Harris. It is alarming but not surprising because the consultation was not run by a neutral or independent arbitrator but by Harris themselves.

Harris have twisted their stats making it look like 62.5% parents support a Harris academy, when in fact only 19% of respondents said this, meaning that 81% did not voice support for them!

So how strong is the support for Harris at Roke? Support is miniscule. Only 15 parents from a school with 442 pupils voted for a Harris academy. If we go by one vote per child, this is a measly 3% of parents. This means 97% of parents were either against, undecided or did not bother to express an opinion by abstaining from the vote. Many parents felt it was a fait accompli and a fake consultation. They did not believe that we would be listened to, so they did not bother to fill in their consultation forms.

Harris will argue that there only 80 people returned their forms. They will state that only around 17% bothered to vote and will deduce that most parents are indifferent. We beg to differ. Of course there is always some indifference or apathy, but we think this figure actually captures two things: 1) the powerlessness parents feel at controlling the outcome and 2) the fact that no one has actually explained in an accessible way what academisation actually means. There were no verbal presentations or explanation. Some parents just don't feel informed enough to have an opinion. What is clear is that there was absolutely no ringing endorsement of Harris.

Given that there has been such a spirited campaign against the forced academy at Roke, this was the opportunity for pro Harris parents to really make their voice count in an anonymous ballot, the fact that only 3 % came out to support Harris- speaks volumes about how welcome they are at Roke.

Incredibly, Harris manage to present the results in such a way that makes it appear that 62.5% of parents support them sponsoring Roke. They achieved this by only including the responses of the 24 parents who voted 'yes' to a question asking if they supported academisation at Roke, of these just 15 went on to say they supported Harris as sponsor. These are tiny numbers. Harris completely ignored the opinions of parents who voted 'no' to an academy. Their opinions on whether Harris should sponsor the school were not included in the analysis. It means everyone who voted that they did not want to be an academy - had absolutely no voice about whether or not they wanted Harris to be the sponsor.

The school ran their own poll to gauge parent opinion which had a much larger response than the Harris poll (129 families- only one vote was allowed per family), probably due to greater faith in the way the poll was being run. As a final blow to transparency, only half of these results were included in the consultation report, despite these being submitted by both the school and the Save Roke committee. Results pertaining to whether parents wished to become an academy were included, but a question about whether parents supported Harris as sponsor should we become an academy, was completely omitted. We can only think that they were omitted because the results were clearly unfavourable to Harris. It showed that 83% of respondents were against a Harris academy and preferred Riddlesdown Collegiate as sponsor. We know which survey we trust. We are dismayed that Harris have completely written out Riddlesdown as a legitimate alternative, from the consultation.

Here is the missing information.
Q2 If the school does become an academy, who do you want as the sponsor?

Riddlesdown Collegiate 83%

Harris Federation 17%


Thursday 9 May 2013

Crucial day for future of Gladstone Park Primary School

Gladstone Park Primary School parents yesterday presented a letter to Michael Gove at the Department for Education, backed by 572 petition signatories, calling for the school to be allowed to continue its current improvement strategy without being forced to become a sponsored academy.

They backed the request up with data evidence that showed the strong progress now being made in years 3-5 where Ofsted had previously found weakness and HMI's and the local authority's approval of the strategy now in place. Any change in school status would disrupt this progress to the detriment of the school and its pupils.

Today some of the Gladstone Park governing body will be meeting with Michael Gove to discuss the school's situation and I understand that Sarah Teather MP will also be attending the meeting. Sarah Teather lost her position working with Michael Gove in the last government re-shuffle and has since distanced herself from some Coalition policies, particularly those concerning welfare.

Monday 29 April 2013

Salusbury Academy Federation split?

Unconfirmed reports are reaching me that the Park Federation Academy Trust LINK  have pulled out of the federation arrangement with Salusbury Primary School.

The split is alleged to have happened as a result of Salusbury staff being unhappy about the possible imposition of a headteacher by the Park Federation's Chief Executive.

The federation is made up of two large primary schools in Hayes, Cranford Park and Wood End Park. Its website currently carries no mention of Salusbury Primary. Park's Chief Executive is Dr Martin Young.

Salusbury governors decided to join  the federation following pressure from the DfE  to become a forced academy as a result of a critical Ofsted report. Gladstone Park Primary parents are fighting the imposition of academy status after the school was given Grade 4 by Ofsted despite previously being Grade 2 and having above average SAT results at Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2.

Sunday 28 April 2013

Bullying academy brokers spotlight falls on Jacky Griffin

Fiona Millar has written about the so-called academy brokers on the Local Schools Network site. A particular focus is Jacky Griffin, who was Director of Education for Brent before moving on to Kensington and Chelsea where she was restructured out of a job.  Her brokering work at Gladstone Park Primary has led to allegations of bullying:

There has been a lot in the news this week about academies and their funding. As we suspected all along,   DFE  management of thousands of schools has proved inefficient. Money ear-marked for school improvement has been squandered and while the government sprays money around with abandon on its favoured projects, other schools are facing cuts.

One particular story caught my eye. It was in the Telegraph and concerned the academy brokers. These are representatives of the DFE who move in on schools that are allegedly failing and forcibly convert them to academy status. I say representatives because it turns out that  they don’t actually work for the DFE. They are consultants and paid through personal service companies which pay corporation tax rather than income tax.This is in spite of the fact that Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander has said that this practice should be outlawed by government departments.

Recently the Conservative leader of Lancashire County Council complained to the Secretary of State about the activities of these people. So who are they? One name that comes up frequently is that of Jacky Griffin. She featured heavily in the forced conversion of Downhills Primary School and several other governing bodies who are being bullied by the DFE into converting to academy status have mentioned her name to me.

She was also involved in the last Labour government’s moves to encourage academies and trust schools as part of the BSF building programme.

Here is a little bit more information about Ms Griffin, in which she is listed as a consultant at the DFE and a Director of Griffin Taylor Consultancy Ltd. And here is some information about her company’s financial position. As it is an exempt small company, with only two directors, facts are limited but one thing seems clear,the DFE consultancy business is a very comfortable one.

Last year the government did provide some information about the tax arrangements of off payroll consultants and employment agencies. Here is a link . It would appear that the daily rate paid to personal service companies is slightly less than that paid to employment agencies,  but in return the  identities and addresses of the consultants are not provided. Does anyone else know who they might be?


Friday 12 April 2013

Brent tells Gove Gladstone Park improvement should be via local school partnership

Yesterday I had another letter published in the Brent and Kilburn Times responding to Mary Arnold's letter of the previous week when she accused me of having 'distorted views' on Brent Education.

In yesterday's letter I wrote that 'Brent Labour Party appears to have given up the fight against Michael Gove's policies and instead seeks to work with them. Parents (a reference to Gladstone Park parents fighting forced academy status) have been left on their own to challenge DfE bullying.

A posting appeared on the Brent Labour website by Mary Arnold containing the very welcome news that Brent Council has written to the Michael Gove asking him to accept that Gladstone Park's school improvement plan is 'most effectively delivered with the support of a local school partnership'.
Gladstone Park is the latest school to be challenged by Michael Gove's obsessive drive to academise all schools nationwide. 

When Ofsted comes and finds weaknesses, the DfE has a single solution to insist on a 'management change' which Gove equates with status change and imposing a sponsoring academy. This is regardless of the school's track record, the improvement plans or the parents' views.
We have a major responsibility to represent our parents and pupils to ensure high standards. We have written to the Secretary of State to ask him to accept the school improvement plan that would be most effectively delivered with the support of a local school partnership that is both knowledgeable and experienced in our children's needs.

The Academy Commission Report pointed out that academy status alone is not a panacea for improvement - some academies are good, some can turn round schools and others are failing or have weaknesses. As the Gladstone plan is declared fit for purpose and the school is keen to deliver with early signs of raised achievement already, it is more sensible to concentrate on this rather than disrupt the structure and disadvantage the pupils and teachers.

Our schools must not have inadequate standards or under perform but we know in Brent, based on sound evidence, that local federation and partnership is the best solution
Cllr Mary Arnold is the lead member for Children & Families at Brent Council


Wednesday 13 March 2013

Bullying DfE Brokers - key points from yesterday's debate

Yesterday's Westminster Hall debate brought the attention of the Government to the many complaints about the forced academy process. Here are some key extracts:


John Pugh (Lib Dem Southport) Throughout the land, brokers are appearing in schools when the opportunity arises to hasten things on and ensure that the targets are met. They show up when a school suffers even a temporary decline in standards. A recent article in The Guardian by George Monbiot—not a man I ordinarily agree or see eye to eye with—compared them to mediaeval tax collectors. I happen to think that mediaeval tax collectors performed an important social function; I do not necessarily feel the same way about brokers.

Brokers appear to come to governing bodies with threats and an academy contract in hand. The threats are, “Sign the contract, or you, the governors, and possibly the head teacher, will be replaced”, or “Choose a sponsor, or if you don’t we’ll choose one for you, which we may do anyway.”

Bill Esterson (Labour,  Sefton Central)

To add to the hon. Gentleman’s examples, a Department for Education adviser said to a school in my constituency, “You lost your autonomy when you went into an Ofsted category. Either you sign the papers to become an academy, or we will put in another interim executive board to do it for you.” I wonder whether he has had similar experiences.

John Pugh

I have had very similar experiences, but they are not just my experiences. Reports are coming in from up and down the land, and there is a kind of similarity that makes them wholly plausible.

There is a hurry to get on with things. Schools are basically told, “Get on with academisation now, or we will do it for you anyway.” They are also told—this surprises me—“Don’t tell the parents or the staff until it actually happens. Consult with them afterwards.” To sweeten the pill, cash is sometimes promised, in the form of a changeover fund to accommodate change. Relief from inspection or the school’s current status is also promised: whatever pressure Ofsted or the LEA apply will disappear when academy status is established. More worryingly, I have evidence that sponsors have been recommended, particularly school chains, with whom individual brokers have prior connections.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield, Labour)

Can I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he said before? I have had a number of schools that have received not only that suggestion, but the message, “Don’t talk to the parents before everything is signed, sealed and delivered.” Is it not also strange that ministerial policy is that Members of Parliament should be told about academisation only after the funding agreement has been signed, thereby removing any chance for democratically elected Members of Parliament to advise, consult with the school or have any say in what is about to happen?

John Pugh

Yes, that is distressing. The hon. Gentleman is a witness to the fact that we have moved from a situation in which parents were allowed a vote to one in which parents do not have a voice.

I would like to draw attention to the well documented fact that some of the brokers’ behaviour is markedly aggressive. One governor of fairly robust temperament described a broker as “seriously scary”. I find the process appalling. Regardless of what one feels about the academy programme, I find it distressing that people who have the interests of children and their schools at heart feel that they have been put in that situation. It strikes me that it is bullying. The intention is to close the contract and sign it there and then, which is the worst kind of sharp salesmanship, if I can put it like that. It is obviously wide open to corruption; it is about making offers that people cannot refuse, straight out of the Vito Corleone textbook. I see absolutely no reason why we who wish to stop bullying in schools allow the bullying of schools.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)

Fortunately, we have the Minister with responsibility for bullying here, so she can deal with any accusations of bullying.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is being completely unfair to the Government. Did he read the article by Warwick Mansell in The Guardian yesterday? It quoted Tim Crumpton, a councillor in Dudley, who said that after he made accusations of bullying, he received a letter from the Department saying:

“We carried out a thorough investigation and found no basis in the claims.”


John Pugh

I am sure that the Department took the broker’s word for it. What I am describing has been told to me by people I have known for some time, who have no axe to grind and whom I trust.

I feel particularly aggrieved about my area. Under previous regimes, not a single school in Sefton ever opted out. We had two ballots, both of which were lost. There were good reasons. Sefton was one of the first LEAs to give schools true financial independence to pioneer; in fact, I was on the local authority at the time. It has kept its central costs low. It has always prioritised education and schools. It stands favourable comparison with other LEAs. Its schools are good and, better still, there are good relations between the LEA and the schools, which themselves cluster together harmoniously and supportively. There is a genuine communitarian spirit, accompanied by good results. To make things more acutely painful, Sefton has a good record, praised by the Schools Minister, for improving its schools; it is in the top five of LEAs.

One—I think that is all right—might suppose that what is crucial to the success of education is the independence of the school. That is an understandable view. It is a simplistic and probably wrong view, but I can understand people taking it and it providing them with the motive for feeling that academies are an all-sufficient solution.

Another interpretation might be that there is an unstated plot to reorganise schools into private chains rather than in LEAs; if so, we could legitimately debate that at some point. It is likely that many primary schools, if they become academies, will form part of chains. There is nothing particularly wrong with chains, and there have been great ones in the past: Blue Coat schools, Merchant Taylors’ schools, the Woodard foundation, Haberdashers’ Aske’s schools and so on; and, in the state system, organisations such as the Christian Brothers, or the Salesian or Notre Dame schools. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with chains; they are often founded for the poor but usually end up serving the rich. The model is particularly in favour with the Minister responsible for academies, Lord Nash, who I understand supports a chain of some sorts himself.
In the past, however, huge gains to the educational system were not achieved by virtue of the state handing people 125-year leases; normally, it was done by philanthropists digging deep into their pockets. If there is a real agenda, and such motivations are genuinely behind the strange set of phenomena we are seeing at the moment, I am happy to debate that. Let us not, however, have this forced choice, with underhand persuasion and inducement.

In my years as a teacher, the worst sort of bullying was not the stuff that one saw and could stop but the stuff that was not seen and took place away from view. If nothing else, through this debate I hope to bring the bullying of schools, rather than in schools, to people’s attention.

Rose Cooper, (West Lancashire,  Labour)

All the evidence points to a Department that is ideologically wedded to the promotion of academies for all, rather than the best education for all. In our education system, only 10% of all state schools are academies and free schools, and the figure for primary schools is only 5.3%. Yet one third of Department for Education staff are assigned to the academies and free schools programme, which accounts for 18% of the Department’s revenue and capital budget—a level completely disproportionate to the size of the programme. 

Then we come to the £1 billion overspend. No doubt that money is being taken from the budgets for non-academy schools, many of which most need that investment.

The whole situation is compounded by the Gove army of brokers. Given that they earn up to £700 a day, some might suggest they are more like mercenaries. I would suggest they are conflicted mercenaries, because many are alleged to have connections to academy chains. These conflicted mercenaries—these brokers—are running round the country offering inducements of £40,000, plus£25,000 for legal costs. That approach to academisation is deplorable, and it is all being done because of the ideological war being waged by the Education Secretary. 

Our ambition and aspiration should always be to ensure that our children have access to the best possible standards of education from the start to the end of their school life. Simply forcing schools to become academies is not the solution. We know that one-size-fits-all policy making does not work. In our schools, we need good, strong leadership from the head teacher and governing bodies, with investment in schools buildings and school resources, irrespective of whether the school is LEA controlled or an academy. There should be a consensus among parents, teachers, governors and the community about the type of school they want; that decision should not be forced on the community.

I agree that we need to ensure that all schools reach the required standards. However, we should do so based on the needs of the individual school and its children, not on the imposition of a one-size-fits-all model driven by ideology. I am sure the Minister has come here today replete with the usual lines about school improvement, education for the 21st century and investment, but I remind her that we are talking about the forced conversion of schools into academies.

My message to the Minister is this: nobody believes you. As each day passes, fewer and fewer people believe you.

 David Ward   (Lib Dem, Bradford East)
 
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend John Pugh for initiating the debate.
It is not too much of a secret, certainly in some quarters, that I am not a great fan of academies. I opposed them under the previous Government, and I oppose the academy regime under this Government. Within a few months of coming into the House of Commons, I voted against the Academies Bill. That was for a couple of reasons. First, many supporters of academies, who want to push for academy status, are seeking to control admissions. For them, it is about who goes into the school, not what goes on in the school.

In a private meeting with the Secretary of State, I said, “You should be far more radical and make every school an academy in terms of some of the freedoms that are proposed.” However, for those who support
academies, and who are pushing for them, that would not really work, because the secret of academies is that some schools are academies and some are not. Alongside freedoms in relation to conditions of service and so on, there would need to be some control over admissions, which would defeat the purpose of going to academy status for many sponsors, and the same applies to free schools.

I am opposed to the academies also because there is an overemphasis on the impact that the structure will have on raising achievement and attainment in schools. It is interesting that many of the new academies have not taken up some of the new freedoms: they have taken the money and stayed, rather than taking the money and running with the new freedoms. Another reason for my opposition is that I always want, as Stephen Covey said, to“Begin with the end in mind.”

If something works, generally speaking it is okay. I do not feel that there are too many strong, politically different issues or matters of principle. Most of them are about what works in a situation, with some fundamental underpinning of values. I am not clear where the evidence is for academies. In a sitting of the Education Committee a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State whether he believed in evidence-based policy and he said that he very much does, but I do not see any evidence for that.

The success of the academies project seems—my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred to this—to be judged by how many academies there are. That has almost become an end in itself. There has been much talk about needing to convert. A school is in a particular situation, and the idea of need is always introduced; but it does not mean the school will benefit from a conversion. The evidence base is not there. The idea is that the school needs to convert because it meets the criteria; but it is the Secretary of State who sets the criteria. It is like saying, “I will decide when it is raining, and I will decide what to wear in the rain.”

He is doing the same, because he is saying, “I will decide the criteria and whether they have been met.” That is the same idea as, “There is a need to put on a coat when it is raining; it is raining so we need to put a coat on.” The false logic behind the whole academies programme is: “An intervention is needed and an academy is an intervention, so you need an academy.” It is all false logic. Using a coat when it rains is an intervention, but it is not the only form of intervention and there is no evidence that that intervention is the one that would work.

There are all sorts of interventions, which could include setting up an academy—but where is the evidence? Local authority support would be a possibility: many authorities are not, as has been suggested, dreadful, and are effective at providing support. The intervention may be a new head for the existing school. It may be an integrated post-inspection plan, or an interim executive board to turn the school around. There is evidence to show that all those interventions work in certain circumstances. They all have an evidence base, but there is no evidence that the academy structure works. It is false logic.

In my constituency in Bradford, there are two schools that are going through intervention academy conversions. My two sons went to one of those schools many years ago. If someone went to a local estate agency 10 or 15 years ago, the window would have adverts stating that properties were close to the school.

The school was one of the largest and most successful in the Bradford district and it was why people moved into that area, but it has had a difficult time. It was not so long ago that the head teacher of that school, before retirement, was the executive head of another school that was failing and has now become successful. I was chair of governors at a school that was in special measures, and it became the first secondary school in Bradford to be rated as outstanding. All that was done without academy status and on the basis of interventions by an extremely good head teacher, who was able, through a new management team, to turn the school around.

In Bradford, a secondary partnership has been established. The whole principle behind it has been to offer support to other schools and negate the need for academy conversions. The partnership was formed about 18 months ago and all 28 secondary schools from the district are involved and pay an annual subscription to join. It involves developing a rigorous system of performance review. It will provide effective school-to-school support and deliver school-led professional development. Those schools do not need to be academies. There are other ways forward that do not require a change to a school’s structure.

Ideology has been mentioned a few times, but I do not think that is the issue. It is about ego. All schools can be improved, but it takes time and requires hard work. It is not glamorous and a slog is involved. It takes 18 months to two years to get the right people in place to turn a school around, but where is the glamour in that for a Secretary of State who needs to be seen to do dramatic things? Where is the glamour in that hard graft that happens day in, day out up and down the country in turning around schools that need to improve?

The problem is that that egocentric project comes with a cost. The House of Commons Library briefing shows the actual cost involved in investing in the schools and bribing them to take up academy status, as well as the opportunity cost of the money that is not available for other schools. It is frankly sickening to see schools in Bradford unable to afford basic repairs while a bottomless pit of money appears to be available to support the free schools and academies programme. That programme is a costly distraction—devoid of evidence—from the principal concern of an authority, which is to raise educational achievement and attainment through the well-established methods that already exist for turning schools around and providing the quality education that pupils need and deserve.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour)

We had a £33 million investment programme—at the moment, that is quite a big programme—over two years for primary schools, yet all that money was directed to voluntary-aided schools, free schools or academies, for new build, refurbishment, conversion or expansion as may be, despite the fact that very successful community schools also wish to expand and see investment put into them. I object to those double standards and to not having a level playing field. I have to ask who the ideologues are in this case, and I am afraid that they are particularly centred around the Secretary of State for Education.

None of that would matter if there were no adverse consequences, but let me explain some of the consequences. First, there will be a perception—it may be a reality, but it is certainly a perception—that we are creating a two-tier system in education, in which academies are the preferred type of schools. Parents will therefore gravitate, reasonably and understandably, towards those schools, because they believe that the schools will be preferred—with money, resources or simply the attention that they receive from local education authorities and the DFE. That then leads to a form of separate development. A number of academies are now for pupils aged three to 18, and they therefore monopolise children within an area. 

Equally, I have noticed a trend whereby secondary academies will select—particularly if they are in the same group—from their primary feeder schools, so it may be that there is no longer an interchange between primary schools in that way. I am beginning to get a lot of complaints from parents of children in community primary schools who might want to send their children to secondary academies, and they find that they are refused or are a long way down the waiting list.

I also fear that there is a possibility of politicisation of the academy system down the road. There is a strong association between the academy system and not only Conservative local authorities, but Conservative funders, peers and so on. Lord Nash has been mentioned. Lord Fink, who I think is still the Tory party treasurer, was the chairman of ARK, and he is the chairman of one of the schools in my constituency. Both of those gentlemen are very substantial funders of the Conservative party. One of them, Lord Nash—or rather, his wife, Lady Nash—was the principal funder of my opponent at the last election. It is a free country. Anyone can do as they wish, but the association of particular schools, chains of schools and individuals with a particular political party is not healthy in education. I see that as another branch of the politicisation and there is the real prospect of our moving—with every pronouncement that comes out of Government or those close to Government—to profit-making schools. If another Conservative Government were elected, we would see that trend continue, and I think that would be extremely regrettable.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)

Last year I visited a group of schools that had formed an education improvement partnership. One of the primary school head teachers in it was desperate to tell me about her experience with what some people locally have described as gauleiters being sent out by the Department for Education. What she told me made my jaw drop. She told me that when the adviser from the Department turned up, she was told that she had to meet them and that no one else was to be present. When she objected to that, she was told that perhaps at a stretch she might be allowed to have the chair of governors present with her for part of the meeting. She wanted to have, and in the end she insisted on having, the head teacher of the local secondary school, which was part of the education improvement partnership, with her for the debate, but she told me several stories about how she was leaned on—that is the only way it can be described—and told that there was no alternative to her school becoming an academy, despite the fact that the governors did not want that, the parents did not want it and it was clearly an improving school. In the end, having taken legal advice, they were able to fend off the adviser who had come from the Government, using those bullying tactics, but I am told that as she left she said, “I’ll be back”, Arnold Schwarzenegger-style—no doubt after further efforts have been made to undermine the efforts being made by the school to operate as part of an education improvement partnership to raise standards in the school. That is happening around the country. I have also been told that in the same area, one head teacher has seen a gagging clause put into their contract, having been forced out of a school as part of this process. 

It is all very well, under the cloak of standards, to go around to schools and offer them an opportunity to consider academisation—the sponsored academy approach. That can be entirely appropriate on many occasions, but the bullying behaviour—we are hearing, and I am receiving, more and more accounts of it—is very worrying. I therefore want the Minister to answer a few questions about that. How many schools does she know of that have successfully resisted forced academisation procedures? How are the academy advisers recruited? How are they rewarded? Is it true that they are on a payment-by-results regime? I hope that the Minister will answer this question particularly. Is there any code of conduct for those people as to how they should behave? As the Minister with responsibility for the issue of bullying, will she give us an absolute assurance that if there is one, she will publish it, and that if there is not one currently, she will ensure that one is available? I ask that because some of the behaviour that is being described—

Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk, Conservative)  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (education and childcare)

We are encouraging all schools to convert to academy status, so that good and outstanding schools can use the autonomy that the status provides to drive up standards. Where schools are underperforming and leadership and management need improvement, however, we cannot just stand by and allow that to continue. The cases that hon. Members have raised in the debate are about schools in which performance is not good enough. We are not talking about schools in which performance is already good. There are good schools under local authority auspices and there are good academies, but we are talking about underperforming schools. We look for two indicators of underperformance to determine which schools we should approach and work with to deliver sustained improvement: low achievement over time and whether the school is in Ofsted category 4. 

Many schools agree to become sponsored academies, because they know that academies are achieving dramatic improvements in results, particularly where new sponsors have taken on formerly underperforming schools, as I have seen that in my county of Norfolk. Sponsors bring outside influence and a wealth of experience. They challenge traditional thinking and have no truck with a culture of low expectations.

…...We should bear it in mind that intervention takes place where schools are underperforming—where there is a problem. At meetings with governing bodies, where schools are in Ofsted categories of concern, a broker discusses sponsorship options and aims to agree a schedule of actions. As is necessarily the case in an underperforming school, that can sometimes appear challenging—of course, it can. We are saying that what is happening at that school is not delivering for the children. It is important that they receive the best possible education.

Tuesday 12 March 2013

Teather cancels her meeting with Gladstone Park parents

Sarah Teather has cancelled her appearance at tonight's meeting with Gladstone Park Primary's Parents Action Group on the grounds that the meeting had been advertised to a wider audience and might raise the temperature when calm was required to maintain a dialogue between the DfE and the school.

She said:
I have spoken to the Secretary of State about Gladstone Park school and will continue to push the Department for Education to work with and not against the school. I am hopeful that a constructive solution is possible here.

My offer to meet separately with the parents action group as originally agreed remains open.
I understand that the parents will still meet tonight to discuss the campaign against forced academisation. 6pm Pakistan Coommunity Centre, Marley Walk, Station Road next to Willesden Green station.

Monday 11 March 2013

DfE's 'bullying brokers' must be brought to book

More from the Guardian on DfE bullying and the tremendous campaign by parents against forced academies by Warwick Mansell and Geraldine Hackett LINK

With Gove due to reappear before the education select committee this week to answer questions about what he knew about bullying allegations within the Department for Education, news reaches us of an official complaint that has been made about "intimidation" by one of that department's academy "brokers".
The complaint came in a letter sent by Tim Crumpton, a Labour councillor in Dudley, West Midlands, to the office of Gove's schools commissioner, Elizabeth Sidwell, last November. Crumpton, the council's cabinet member for children's services, asked the office to investigate "bullying" by the broker.

As reported in this column, these DfE brokers are seeking to push many schools towards academy status. Crumpton said he had accompanied the senior official on three visits to schools in Dudley. "On each occasion, [her] behaviour has been intimidating and bullying towards governors, headteachers and local authority staff," he wrote.

The broker had provided no agenda or subsequent notes of the meetings at schools under pressure to become academies, while, said Crumpton's letter, on each occasion she had said: "The minister will make you become an academy, and will intervene both in the school and in the local authority if they do not support this action."

Crumpton told his local paper, the Stourbridge News, he had received an unhelpful response to the letter from the DfE.

The DfE said: "We carried out a thorough investigation and found no basis in the claims."

Meanwhile, campaign groups associated with at least four schools that are under sustained DfE pressure to convert to sponsored academy status have joined together to set up an organisation called Parents Against Forced Academies. The group has a proposal on the 38degrees campaigning website which, with approaching 2,000 supporters, was top of a list of "hot" issues on the site as of last week.

Parents at Roke primary school in Kenley, Surrey, have now said they intend to launch a legal challenge against the DfE's move to enforce academy sponsorship under the Harris chain.


Tuesday 5 March 2013

The story behind Harris's academy aspirations

George Monbiot has given national prominence to the forced academy issue LINK which has attracted many comments on the Guardian website.

This comment sums up the issues very well:
 
Our local secondary schools were taken over by Harris, essentially forcibly. It's no coincidence that Harris is a donor to the Tory Party, and the Tory party are now repaying him. There's no clear information on how much money is now being channelled through Harris for these schools, but if you take an average secondary school budget of £3m-£4m depending upon numbers, you can start to see what big business this is. Harris is fast approaching £100m of taxpayers' cash.

Of course, much of this goes to the schools. But Harris also has set up two profit-making companies which he can instruct his schools to use for provision such as buildings and maintenance. I'm sure that there are also "preferred suppliers" for other services. In addition, Harris provide some services centrally - of course they would claim not to make a profit, but in 2011, the average cost of each member of the Harris Federation staff was over £80,000. His chief executive, and pet Gove advisor, Daniel Moynihan, paid himself a quarter of a million pounds. This came from school budgets. That's the salary of 3 headteachers, or nearly 10 new teachers.

This is just one academy chain. Dig into the others and you will find some equally odious developments.
We need to recognise what this is. Under the guise of Gove and Wilshaw's blatant lies about "falling standards", "dumbing down" and "failing schools", and aided and abetted by a mendacious Tory press happy to repeat obvious nonsense about academy status granting "freedom from LEA control" in areas in which the LEA never had any control, we are witnessing the outright privatisation of our education system.

Our schools are being handed on a plate to rapacious businessmen under the guise of school improvement, yet the real agenda is to marketise the system, remove schools from any local accountability, and allow businesses to reap huge profits from siphoning off money which we paid in taxes for our children's education. Gove and the Tories know this would never obtain public approval, so the lie is pushed again and again that this is a benign process to raise standards, but the events at Roke, at Downhills, at Kelsey Park and Cator Park, to name but a few, give the lie to this. This is a sell-off.

Labour have cowered on this issue because it was them who started this nonsense about academy status being the universal panacea, to cover up what they were really doing, which was rebranding difficult "sink" schools to try and change the intake. That policy worked up to a point as long as the intake changed. But it was always a nonsense to suggest that there was any connection between academy status and results - plenty of academic studies have now demonstrated this link is simply bogus. They are now facing the result of their own propaganda, and to stop this sell-off, they will need to face up to their own lies and mistakes, and admit that this is never what academies were about. Can you hear Twigg saying that ? No, I didn't think so.

Michael Rosen has also commented on the forced academies issue in his latest 'Dear Mr Gove' letter LINK

Friday 1 March 2013

Battle against forced academisation is a fight for democracy - Roke parents


With Gladstone Park Primary parents continuing their campaign against the school being forced to become an academy and suggestions that this might happen to other Brent primary schools, it is worth hearing about the experience of parents in other parts of London. Roke Primary in Croydon has also experienced the bullying nature of the DfE's  'brokerage' department and the parents' campaign has written to the local paper about the experience: LINK
Parents recently received a copy of a letter about forced academy at Roke Primary school from Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Schools to Richard Ottaway, our Conservative MP for South Croydon.
Lord Nash's letter casts Roke Primary as an 'underperforming' school, yet our school is not underperforming under any possible definition of the word and certainly not over a 'long time', which is specified in DfE's own guidance for forced academies. The latest SAT results are above the national average and place the school in the top 20% of Croydon schools. Teaching is regarded by Ofsted, the Local Authority and parents as at least good. Let's be clear forced academy at Roke is NOT about substandard education at Roke.

The reason the school is being forced to academy is that it was placed in an Ofsted category of 'Notice to Improve', mainly due to a lack of data caused by computer problems and leadership/management issues. The Ofsted report was published in mid June 2012. Areas for improvement were outlined and the school, LA and Riddlesdown (as partnering
school) sprung into action and made positive changes very quickly. Yet only 3 months later, in September the DfE informed the head governor that Roke would become an academy.

Factoring in the school summer holiday, the school was given less than 6 weeks to improve. There was no return visit by Ofsted to check on the improvements made and no chance to prove that they could be sustained. This action defeats the purpose of giving a school 'Notice to improve', if they are then denied the chance to demonstrate improvements made.

Lord Nash states that improvement is required in relation to leadership and management. This could happen without removing the school from Local Authority control. It does not need such drastic action as being forced, against the wishes of parents, governors and local community, to become an academy and to be sponsored by Harris.

It would be far more cost effective to simply replace the leadership. Let's make no mistake this is about political ideology not standards.

Lord Nash omits the fact that the Ofsted monitoring visit happened in January 2013, the day after parents launched their campaign and a damning article appeared in The Guardian, stating that Oftsed had not visited before the decision was made. He also omits to make it clear that this was not a full Ofsted inspection and therefore it did not matter what rating for improvement was received it would not lift Roke out of the 'Notice to Improve' category. His letter reads like Roke somehow failed to improved enough to be reclassified which is untrue.

Furthermore, we have been told that the Ofsted inspector said on arrival before the monitoring inspection took place, that Roke would not get a rating better than 'satisfactory' because there was insufficient time between inspections to prove that improvements had been embedded or were sustainable. This is the real reason which, as Lord Nash writes, there is 'limited evidence that (improvements) are secure and sustainable'. It has little to do with the school's efforts but rather with the government failing to give the school enough time to achieve this within its' own inspection frameworks, before rushing to turn the school to an academy.

Lord Nash says, 'Harris has confirmed that it wishes to support notice to improve and bring about the improvement needed' at Roke. Therein lies the crux of the matter. It is highly likely, if a full inspection was to take place today that the school would perform much better, and would come out of 'Notice to Improve' or its new equivalent category.

As it stands, Harris will simply come in and take all the credit for improvements that have already taken place. We believe that Roke may have been targeted as a school where, a relatively small nudge is needed to return us to our previous 'outstanding' status. This will give Harris and academy policy false credibility.

Lord Nash says that the government recognises the 'importance of formal local consultation' and that it is 'a legal requirement before any school can open as an academy'. We suggest that his definition of 'consultation' is different to everyone else. His letter makes it clear that all decisions about Roke, its future as an academy and its sponsor have already been made. To suggest that consultation takes place after the fact is ludicrous. Moreover, to suggest that the consultation is most meaningful when it is run by the preferred Sponsor, in this case Harris, is also ludicrous and bordering on corrupt.

The consultation must be operated legally, and cannot be a presentation or a deliverance of a decision already made - it must be legally meaningful. It must be an actual consultation - you consult and decide as a result, not in advance.

As it stands key decisions about our school have been made behind closed doors before consultation has taken place. The DfE is withholding crucial information about the decision making process, as evidence by failure to disclose information requested by parents under the Freedom of Information act. The DfE has also flouted its own rules regarding forcing a school that is not actually failing. The DfE is not operating by the Principles set down by the Committee of Standards in Public Life (1985) particularly the principles of accountability, openness or honesty.

Put simply, our own British government is breaking all the democratic values that this country holds dear.
The Save Roke Campaign Committee

Monday 25 February 2013

The DfE's 'Big Sister' sends another disdainful missive to Gladstone Park


The lofty, superior and high-handed attitude of 'Big Sister' at the DfE can be seen in her latest letter to the Gladstone Park Primary Chair of Governors.

The letter written by Caroline Cane of the Brokerage and School Underperformance Division (now there's a friendly child-centred name for you) is notable for taking a swipe at the National Governors Association:
Firstly, I would like to make it clear that the National Governors’ Association (NGA) guidance mentioned in your letter is not statutory
As an independent body, the NGA’s views and advice do not necessarily reflect the Department’s position on how Academy sponsorship is brokered
So it is not only the governors at individual schools that are ignored but also their National Association. Remember, these are unpaid volunteers who give up hours of their time and despite the DfE's disdain are held accountable for the strategic and financial management of their schools with an ever-increasing workload. It is hard to discern any respect for this in Ms Cane's missive.

She goes on later in her letter:
With regards to your final point on consultation, the Department’s view on when this is most meaningful was set out in my letter of 24 January.  The legislative position on Academy consultation is defined in the Academies Act 2010, not guidance produced by the NGA.  The legislation states that ‘the consultation may take place before or after an Academy order, or an application for an Academy order, has been made in respect of the school.”
That is a wonderful definition of consultation. If it applied to the NHS the surgeon  could 'consult' with you about amputation after she had removed your leg!

It is clear the Big Sister always knows best:
Where a school is underperforming and eligible for intervention, it is not the case that schools are usually given a choice of sponsors. The Department leads on identifying potential sponsors as we have the complete view on individual sponsor's capacity and capability to deliver.
On the possibility of an arrangement with Queens Park Community School via the Cooperative College her remarks have a sting in the tail:
The Co-operative College is not an approved Academy sponsor and our records show we have not received an application from Queen’s Park School .  As a secondary school wanting to sponsor, its GCSE performance and Ofsted judgement would be taken into consideration.  It would also need to demonstrate that it has experience and a proven track record in working with and improving primary schools.  I note that in 2012 the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C GCSE’s including English and maths at Queen’s Park was 53%.  This is a drop of 9% percentage points compared to 2011 and means it is currently performing below the national average, so this school faces a number of challenges of its own