Will Ark hit the rocks in Barnet? Join protesters on Wednesday Jan 25th

Residents, parents and teachers are  planning to turn out in force at Barnet Planning Committee  at Barnet Town Hall at  7pm on Wednesday when the Education Funding Agency makes an application LINK for the proposed Ark Pioneer School.  The EFA will to attempt to “solve”problems raised  by residents  regarding traffic congestion, high levels of air pollution, little parking for staff, dense development, 7 days a week schooling, transporting children from the other side of the borough and answer claims that the proposed site is not where new housing calls for a large all -through school such as this. The 4-18 school  in Barnet Lane would commence with 90 children admitted to  Reception and 180 to Year 7.

The EFA are proposing to buy up roads around the school and meet the cost of re-modelling them. Those opposed to the plans are asking whether the money could not be better used on existing schools.

It is not only the planning aspects of the school that concern teachers and parents but the proposed teaching method. It will be called Ark Pioneer because it introduces a new system, unlike those at existing Ark schools in Brent. 'Blended learning' through technology is central  to the plans.

In an extended article on the Local Schools Network website LINK Matthew Bennett traces the origin of the concept back to Rocketship Education in the US:

John Danner’s plan for Rocketship was to ‘make something that’s KIPP-like in terms of results’.  The chain copied many features of the KIPP (US Charter Schools) model:  an extended school day and year, a narrowing of the curriculum in order to focus on literacy and maths, and a ‘data-driven’ approach geared to driving up students’ test scores.  In 2012, the young ‘Rocketeers’ had an 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. day.  This was divided into two 100-minute blocks of literacy instruction, one 100-minute block of maths, and a further 100 minutes in the ‘learning lab’.  There was no provision for art, music or PE.  The current curriculum seems to be slightly broader, including science, social studies and art as well as maths and reading.  But science is ‘embedded’ in maths, and social studies and art are ‘embedded’ in literacy instruction.  50 per cent of teachers’ pay is tied to their students’ scores in maths and reading tests.

But more than that teachers and parents are concerned that this model will be used to have lessons delivered by teaching assistants rather than qualified teachers, with children overseen as they work on ipads.   John Danner made it plain that the method was aimed at saving money:

-->

I do think we’re at a time, as a country, where this stuff really fits pretty well with economic crises … when you’re in a situation when you’re gonna be laying people off anyway, how do you make that as good as possible, and one of the ways is to have more of the work happening somewhere other than a classroom, through technology

John Danner, co-founder of Rocketship Education, 2010 (ibid)

Barnet NUT are holding a meeting on Wednesday but will finish in time to get down to Barnet Town Hall.  Jenny Brown, a teacher, resident and parent, as well as member of the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education (CASE), is urging people to join in the protest at Barnet Town Hall:

I think it is vital that people turn up  on Wednesday to apply pressure as part of the challenge to computer learning replacing  teachers. 

Teaching is based on a  pedagogy not rote content. Our profession is being threatened along with creative thinking, well being and the development of each child, young person and teachers of the future.

Nick Gibb 'wrong' to attribute increase in children in 'good or outstanding schools' to academisation

By Henry Stuart republished from original article on Local Schools Network
This is another really useful article by Nick which shows how the government misleads on the basics.

 Government ministers have repeatedly claimed that one million more children are in "good" or "outstanding" schools, and that this is a direct result of their academies policy. For example Nick Gibb, speaking at the consideration of the Education and Adoption Bill on Friday 11th September, said "there are 1,100 sponsored academies that started life as under-performing schools, which is a colossal achievement that has led directly to over 1 million [more] children being taught in “good” or “outstanding” schools." (col 208)

Analysis of Ofsted Data View does indicate that it is true that one million more pupils are in schools rated "good" or "outstanding" and it is clearly the case that many schools have been converted to academies. But a basic analysis of the data suggests it was not academisation that caused any improvement.

Vast majority of improved primaries are not academies
78% of the increase has been in primary schools, where only a small minority of schools have become academies. Indeed the latest Ofsted dataset indicates that there are 167 sponsored academy primary schools that are currently rated "good" or "outstanding". Assuming these have the same average size as primaries overall (411 pupils), this gives a total of 68,537 children.

Extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" primaries           996,604
Pupils in "good" or "outstanding" sponsored primaries    68,637
% in sponsored academies                                                  7%

So for every 100 extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" primaries, 93 were in schools that were not sponsored academies. The percentage of primary schools that are "good" or "outstanding" has gone from 67% in 2010 to 82% in 2015 but the vast majority of this improvement has been due to improvements in maintained schools, not in sponsored academies. Nick Gibb is entirely wrong to say the improvement results "directly" from the performance of sponsored academies.

Ratings for primaries are improving but more secondaries are being rated "inadequate"
The Ofsted annual report of 2014 made note of the fact that primary schools were continuing to improve but that this was not the case for secondaries (where the majority of schools are not academies). Indeed there is a worrying increase in the number rated "inadequate":

“Children in primary schools have a better chance than ever of attending an effective school. Eighty-two per cent of primary schools are now good or outstanding, which means that 190,000 more pupils are attending good or outstanding primary schools than last year. However, the picture is not as positive for secondary schools: only 71% are good or outstanding, a figure that is no better than last year. Some 170,000 pupils are now in inadequate secondary schools compared with 100,000 two years ago.” (Ofsted annual report 2014 p8)

I have noted here that sponsored secondaries are far more likely to remain or become "inadequate" than similar maintained schools, and here that sponsored academies lead to slower school improvement. The concern is that the direct effect of sponsored academies has actually been this substantial increase in secondaries rated "inadequate".

The data indicates that the Education Bill, in forcing all "inadequate" or "coasting" schools to become sponsored academies, is likely to substantially increase the number of pupils in "inadequate" schools.

Data Notes

Data on pupil numbers come from DfE for 2010 and 2015.

Data on schools overall Ofsted ratings come from Ofsted Data View.

The Ofsted dataset on ratings for all schools (June 2015), from which the numbers of Sponsored academies that are "good" or "outstanding" were calculated can be found here.

My calculations indicate that there are 997,000 more children in "good" or "outstanding" primaries in 2015 than in 2010 and 274,000 in secondaries, giving a total of 1.27 million. However 275,000 of the extra primary pupils are due to the increase in pupil numbers. If we take these out, the total is 999,000 extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" schools, effectively the one milliion that the government claims.

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.

Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.

And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”

Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 

A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).

The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:

Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate

For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.

Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate

For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy

Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding

For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy

These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.

This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.

There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.

Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.

Find out more about Free Schools

Since my post about resisting the seductive elements of free schools there has been widespread interest amongst Green Party activists and others. Here are some links that will be of interest and I publish the NUT's FAQs below.

Parents Alliance for Community Schools LINK which arose out of a campaign against a free school in Hammermith and Fulham
A community campaign in Lambeth ' No to Free Schools'  LINK
The NUT pamphlet on Free Schools LINK
The Local Schools Network supporting a good local community school for every child LINK
The ATL have done some revealing research into the groups behind bids to run academies and free schools. PDF available free LINK

Q: What are free schools?

A: Free schools are a new type of school which the Coalition Government is promoting. The Government’s aim is for the first free schools to open in September 2011.

Free schools will receive state funding but:

·                     are not part of the local authority family of schools and not subject to oversight or inspection by the local authority;

·                     do not have to employ qualified teachers;

·                     do not have to follow the National Curriculum;

·                     can determine their own admissions criteria;

·                     are unlikely to provide the same facilities as other state schools, such as halls, IT suites and outdoor play space because they will be set up in disused buildings such as shops and offices.

·                     can determine their own school day and length of the term and school year;

·                     can set their own pay and conditions for teachers, outside of nationally negotiated agreements.

Q: Who can set up Free Schools?

A: An application to set up a free school can be made by any group of parents, teachers, a not for profit organisation, a charity, faith group, private company or partnership of these.

Q: How are free schools funded?

A: Free schools will be funded directly by central government. Their funding will be based on a per pupil funding level and a pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils. It is obvious that free schools will compete with existing schools for government funding.

Q: How will admissions be organised?

A: Free schools will have to abide by the Admissions Code.  However, research from Sweden shows that more educated parents are most likely to use the free schools as they are based in rich, urban areas.  The West London Free School intends to make Latin compulsory and every child to sit at least eight academic GCSEs or IGCSEs, ensuring there will be a certain amount of self selection. The Battersea and Wandsworth Trade Union Council expressed concern that the free school being set up in Battersea would exclude pupils from the ‘wrong side of the tracks’.  It seems clear that when schools are free from local authority control, admission arrangements can be tweaked to favour more affluent pupils.                                                  

Q: What premises will free schools use?

A: Free schools can set up in any type of building such as disused shops and offices.  The Government has ordered a relaxation of planning laws and building regulations and local planning authorities have been asked to adopt a “positive and constructive” approach towards applications to create new schools. Partnership for Schools, the quango that used to administer the Building Schools for the Future funds to refurbish or rebuild existing state schools, which has been abolished by the coalition Government,  is now helping free school groups identify and buy premises using state funds.

Q: Will free schools have qualified teachers?

A: The Government has said that free schools do not have to employ teachers with Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), apart from the school’s Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator and the member of staff responsible for looked after children (these two positions could be filled by the same person). Even the Head Teacher in a free school does not need to be qualified!  How will free schools raise standards if they do not have to employ teachers who have been properly trained and qualified?

Q: Will ‘Free Schools’ have to follow Teacher’s National Pay and Conditions?

A: No.  Free schools, like academies, can set their own pay and conditions for staff.  It is clear that the Government wants flexibility on staff pay and are encouraging free school heads to pay what they want.  If free schools don’t provide nationally agreed pay and conditions for teachers they won’t be able to attract the best staff.

Q: Will free schools have the same school day and school terms?

A: Free schools can decide on the length of their terms and the school day. So parents with children in different schools may find their school hours and school terms are different. Teachers will be expected to work flexibly. The Chair of the Stour Valley Educational Trust, the first community-led group in England to get formal approval for plans to open a new free school, has said: “People are going to have to teach two subjects and bring something else as well, whether it’s the Duke of Edinburgh award or playing the piano. We’re pushing the boundaries in terms of what teachers are asked to do.”  So not only will free schools be unlikely to have qualified teachers some will also not have subject specialists. This is hardly a recipe for good teaching and learning.

Q: What accountability measures are there?

A: The Government says that all free schools will be accountable via inspections and tests and will be inspected by Ofsted.

However, it is not entirely clear what would happen if a free school was “failing” despite the Government stating that they will not “prop up” failing schools, even free schools.

Free schools are an untried and untested experiment. Do you want the government experimenting on our children?

Q: Are free schools part of the local family of schools?

A: No. free schools are stand alone independent schools. They are not accountable to the local authority even though they receive public money.  Free schools can be set up without the involvement or support of the local authority which makes their role in planning school provision locally more difficult.

Q: Will free schools damage other local schools?

A: Unless free schools are in an area of growing demographic demand they could lead to the closure of existing maintained schools. Even if a local school only loses a small percentage of its students, that could have a damaging effect on its ability to provide a quality education. The ability for local authorities to plan for school places becomes impossible and it is possible that schools may have to close.

   

Funds for free schools are available because other schemes such as BSF (Building Schools for the Future) and the Harnessing Technology Fund (intended to upgrade classroom technology) have been severely cut or scrapped.  Free schools will also be given a share of the funding the local authority retains to spend on all schools.

Therefore, many services to schools will suffer or no longer be available.

Q: The government says more choice and competition will raise standards – isn’t this true?

A: England already has a diverse schools system. There is no evidence that introducing further choice and diversity will raise standards. It is now almost universally agreed that Finland has the best education in Europe. Its school system reaches the ideal by producing both the highest standards and the best equity. There is no competition at all within the Finnish school system.  Research shows that the priority for policy makers should be improving the quality of teaching. Research also shows that that the choice and diversity agenda exacerbates already existing educational inequalities.

Q: Why do some people say Free Schools could lead to privatisation of education?

A: Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, has said that he has “no ideological objection” to private companies seeking profits from running academies and free schools.  In Sweden, three quarters of free schools are run by profit-making companies. Chains are bidding to run free schools and are lobbying the government to allow them to do so on a profit making basis.

     

The NUT, the largest teachers’ union, believes the free school policy could mark the end of locally planned and democratically accountable comprehensive education, undermining all the gains made since the 1944 Education Act in widening access for all children to high-quality education.

Q: What does the international evidence on free schools show?

A: The idea of free schools has been borrowed from Sweden which first introduced free schools in the 1990s and the USA which has similar charter schools.

According to the 2009 international education survey, PISA: “Countries that create a more competitive environment in which many schools compete for students do not systematically produce better results.”

The latest edition of Research in Public Policy reviews the evidence on free schools in Sweden and concludes that, “it has not transformed the academic achievement of the country’s pupils.”

Sweden’s decline in educational attainment has been well documented since the educational reforms which introduced free schools.

The Swedish National Agency for Education (equivalent to Ofsted) found that educational attainment showed increasing differences in children’s grades linked to their parents’ educational background.

The CREDO report (Center for Research on Educational Outcomes) published by Stanford University in June 2009 is the first detailed national assessment of US charter school impacts. It covered 16 States and more than 70 per cent of the nation’s students attending charter schools. The research gauged whether students who attended charter schools fared better than if they would have attended a traditional public (state) school.

One of the conclusions was that “there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools, with, in aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.”

Over a third of charter schools (37%) showed academic gains that were worse than their traditional public schools counterparts.  Forty-six per cent of charter schools showed no significant difference.

There are also cases of charter schools operating fraudulently.  A member of the Ohio General Assembly said “As lawmakers we were told that these charter schools would rescue central city children.  Instead these scams diverted scarce public school dollars while leaving almost all urban children behind.”

Brent as a Self-Harming Black Knight

The Green Party strongly supports the role of Local Authorities in ensuring adequate and effective educational provision including that for children with special educational needs and disabilities, with fair admissions procedures and support for schools in difficulties.

Unfortunately the cuts and charges being implemented by Brent Council as a result of the Coalition Government's reduction in grant have the effect of the council actually reducing its own role and may eventually lead to its demise as an education authority. It is as if the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail cut his own limbs off!

In addition to the cuts outlined in previous posts the Brent School Improvement Service based at the Centre for Staff Development in Brentfield Road near the Swaminarayan Temple  faces cuts of  nearly £500,000. The staff there provide support services for schools across the borough in terms of management, curriculum development and pedagogy training teachers and support staff as well as school improvement advisors. The Centre has itself come under threat in previous rounds of cuts.  The training and support provided has contributed to the great improvement in the quality of education in Brent over the last few years with local schools out-performing similar schools in other boroughs. It also provides a forum for staff from different schools to learn from each and collaborate with successful programmes such as the Learning Project which also involves the London Institute of Education.  Training in Reading Recovery and other intervention projects  all contribute to support for children who are falling behind their peers.

This reduction in central support will mean that schools will now need to buy-in these services from private companies or consultants adding to the pressure on their budgets. Where central services still continue but with reduced staffing they are likely to become less efficient and headteachers may choose to buy-in educational psychologists and other advisory staff. Inevitably this will lead to a spiral of decline in the central support services leading to further cuts in staffing. This spiral is already evident in some departments after last year's staffing cuts.

The budget proposals already include an increase in charges to schools for the Brent Music Service of £50,000. The  BMS provides singing and instrumental tuition in schools and coordinates the amazing annual  Brent Schools Concert at the Wembley Arena. Follow this link to see the 2010 I Have A Song To Sing event: LINK  I challenge you to watch it and not be moved.

Just as the council has had to make decisions on what to cut governing bodies of schools will be faced with choices of what to buy in. If services do not attract enough support from schools their future will be put in doubt.

The real danger is that as support from the local authority is reduced or becomes inadequate,  schools will be tempted to go it alone and opt for academy status as the advantages of being an LA school become less evident. There are already rumours that secondary headteachers have informally agreed that if they decide to  opt  for academy status that they will do so as a group, rather than individually. The Brent NUT and ATL have already intervened at Claremont to ensure that this isn't a headteacher's decision but one for the whole school community. As schools become academies the amount of money available to the local authority is reduced.  Academies and free schools will erode local democratic accountability despite being funded by our taxes: taxation without representation.

The Local Schools Network recognises these issues LINK and deserves wider support. Their basic principles are:

1. Every child has a right to go to an excellent local state school, enabling every child to achieve their full potential.
2. Every state school should have a fair admissions procedure.
3. Every local school should be responsive to their parents and pupils’ needs and wishes and be accountable to the local community.
4. That local schools in difficulties should be supported to improve, not attacked and  demoralised.