Apparently there were only about 40 people at the Michaela Free School meeting today and this included the Michaela representatives and parents with their children and members of a church group. Some were from outside of Brent, including Harrow and Islington.
Katharine Birbalsingh made a short presentation, comparing her school with Eton (!), and to people's then moved away without any Q&A session.
Cllr Michael Pavey, lead member for children and families on the Brent Council Executive, has expressed opposition to the Michaela Academy.
The Brent teacher unions have made the following statement about the Michaela proposal:
As
you know the education unions as a whole are against the 'free'
school movement as they are designed to take money away from local
schools and local authorities so leading to the break up of state
education. There are clear proposals by this Government that such
schools will be run for profit as the Breckland 'free' school already
is.
We
are also concerned that 'free' schools open the way for charitable
foundations to profit by stealth through the payment of inflated
salaries and bonuses to these who control those foundations.
The
money already spent on Ms
Birbalsingh's unsuccessful 'free' school proposals for south London
are being kept from the public despite requests under FoI. Further
public money is now being spent in Brent, again with no
accountability. It is our understanding that in January 2012 a
Freedom of Information request was made to the Department of
Education about how long approval for the school was to be held open.
The response was that normally, following approval, it would be
expected that the school would open within a year i.e. January 2013
at the latest. So we do not understand how this new proposal can be
linked to the first and question the propriety of the DfE and others
in this case.
The
details of the proposed school are still vague and contradictory and
this makes it difficult to make specific responses. You have had a
couple of years to put in the detail. In particular there is nothing
in the information that gives us any reason to believe that you have
in reality signed up to the partnership values of the Council despite
saying that you have.
However, what we can say is that we are
very concerned that another secondary school in this area will have a
potentially detrimental effect on the local secondary schools,
including the ARK academy which is just over the road from the
proposed free school. There is currently, enough and in fact spare,
secondary capacity. Your argument is that that is the only available
building. This confirms that you are just aiming to set up a school
wherever you can and have not taken into consideration the local
needs. Not what we would call a 'community' decision.
The
ethos of the 'private school' is not one of inclusion and is
selective in its very nature. For the Michaela school to just
concentrate on the purely academic is to narrow the education of
children and means they will be learning through rote and over
learning. It cannot call itself a community school when it will
obviously only cater for one type of learner. One
concern was that we were told that science would be taught in
classrooms and no mention was made of laboratories which means
scientific learning will be through books not practical and
experimental.
Jenny
Cooper, NUT Health and Safety Officer and a member of the Brent
Health and Safety committees, has written to you about areas of
concern which we are restating here. Regarding SEN, she makes the
point that no that you will welcome applications from all persons
regardless or background and ability. Oxford University also welcome
these applications. It does not, of course, mean that these people
get a place. Your response to with regards the curriculum was that it
will be inclusive in order to suit children with SEN.
However,
your website says, “traditional
academic subjects .......Pupils will be required to study the
five academic subjects that form the English Baccalaureate: English,
Maths, Science, History/Geography and a foreign language.....In
addition to these mandatory subjects, pupils will be able to choose
from a range of options, including Art, Music and Drama......We
believe knowledge is a prerequisite of skills development....Sport
will be competitive and pupils will take Games for one afternoon per
week”.
Jenny
Cooper is an SEN specialist, and we agree with her that we cannot see
how your proposed curriculum can be described as inclusive. Most
teachers who have worked with SEN children (and indeed many parents)
would agree that to be overloaded with academic subjects and to leave
the creative subjects as non-mandatory, to focus on knowledge
acquisition not skills development and to restrict physical education
to solely competitive games occurring only once a week is a recipe
for disaster.
Are
you aware that Hirsch's theories on education, which you refer to in
your curriculum information, were highly contentious in 1960s-70s
America because of the very fact that they were considered
non-inclusive? It was thought that he did not acknowledge differences
in learning styles. And also, interestingly for the Brent community,
he was criticised for not including the contributions of African
Americans to society in the body of knowledge and culture that he
decided should be taught. This attitude is simply not welcome in
Brent. Brent teachers and parents are proud of our diverse community
and we/they will not tolerate this kind of prejudiced narrow
mindedness amongst us.
Regarding
Health & Safety, Brent's policy on asbestos goes beyond that of
the statutory requirements. All Brent schools are scheduled to have
asbestos removed within the next few years on a rolling programme. It
is no longer the policy simply to manage and cover up. The reason
Brent have gone this step further is following poor management of
asbestos which led to improvement notices being served after pupils
and teachers were exposed. If this occurred in your school, you would
be responsible for the insurance money available to pay compensation,
as Brent are having to do for their ex-pupils. We noticed a van from
an asbestos firm at the proposed site and would hope that their
findings would be made known.
We
all raised the question of lack of play area which was agreed to be
inadequate. Children will be expected to study all day and then do
sport but at the moment there is no agreed place for this to happen.
Will parents be expected to pay for sports facilities at another
school or sports centre? How else will the school afford this or is
this in fact something that will either not happen or the parents
will pay. All educationalist know that exercise is very important for
children particularly in the teenage years yet there is to be one
sports session a week. Playtime will also be very limited.
The
emphasis on discipline – straight lines, standing up straight in
assemblies – and the lack of creativity and exploration in the
curriculum are all reminders of a Victorian system.
The
admissions policy is all about taking tests and banding leaving
admissions open to take just the most able pupils. 'Free' schools are
able to do this as they face less scrutiny.
We
are further concerned about the governors which we have been told
have been self appointed. Parent governors will be 'recruited' rather
than elected.
In
conclusion
We
think that the planning for school places has to be done in
collaboration with the local community. Putting this school in the
north of the borough of Brent will directly compete with our existing
local schools and is not where the school place shortages are.
We
believe
that the evidence from ‘free’ schools has shown that they lead to
increased social segregation, lower attainment and have been run for
profit. Brent schools are in the top 10% of schools in the country so
have a proven track record improving attainment for all children
ensuring equal opportunities for pupils from all backgrounds.
We
believe that all children need decent school buildings, investment in
their schools and smaller class sizes. Free schools have been funded
by cutting two desperately needed grants, including the BSF (Building
Schools for the Future) money promised to our existing local schools.
We know that the cuts to education and public services and the
raising of tuition fees will harm our communities. The free school
movement is Michael Gove's experimental pet project and is part of
the plan to privatise our services and will worsen education for all.