Showing posts with label academies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academies. Show all posts

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 

Sunday 13 October 2013

Hunt dashes hopes for clear Labour support for democratically accountable schools

With the last non-faith secondary school in Brent about to be forced to become an academy and four free schools in the pipeline for the borough, many teachers, trade unionists and parents have been looking to Labour to propose an alternative.

They have been disappointed locally by the Labour Council's failure to support the campaign against forced academy status for the popular Gladstone Park Primary School and its sacking of the governing body at Copland High School.

Nationally there was much impatience with Stephen Twigg's failure to take on the Coalition over education with the same energy and commitment as Andy Burnham had done with health. He failed to adopt a clear position on free schools, academies and privatisation and became known on Twitter as the 'Silent Twigg'.

However any hopes that his post-reshuffle successor would be any better have been shattered by Tristram Hunt's statements on free schools over the weekend. He came out in support of free schools with a few caveats, and failed to address the issues of democratic accountability and supporting the role of local authorities..

After his appearance on the Andrew Marr show my Twitter feed was full of disillusioned comments. Here are a few of them:

1h
I read this and despair! Its a free for all! Hunt signals Labour policy shift on free schools

Dear Labour, if I wanted Tory style welfare policies, I'd vote Tory.

2h
Where is the evidence based policy?Why aren't we comparing with other countries? Failure of Free Schools in Sweden and Charter schools in US

So given today's announcements it's a pretty bad day to be on the Labour left. Remind me how the reshuffle was a cull of Blairites?

1h
Seen as Labour are determined to be the same as Gove on education I think it is time to leave the Labour party & join the Greens

How many media interviewers will ask Hunt why he has rejected the democratic model of a 'free school' and adopted a Tory one?

Tories co-opted and distorted democratic localism in schools and turned it into market localism controlled by Sec of State = totalitarianism

I'm 52 a teacher I have only just joined the Labour Party, and now I have to tear up my card, shame on you Hunt

Looks like only party believes local authorities should be in charge of schools now.

what experience of state education have u got? were u state educated? ever taught in a state school?
Not good one of his first comments should be to support Free schools. shame on him!

4h
Very disappointed by Tristram Hunt's "parent-led academy" idea. Local authorities need a stronger role in education, not a weaker one

Don't expect change from Labour- they're keeping free schools and so continuing with destruction of local democracy

Naturally if Tristram Hunt knew anything at all about state education he would know that local authorities haven't "run" schools for years.

Thursday 26 September 2013

The Need for a National Campaign for Education

Writing on Wembley Matters I have repeatedly criticised Michael Gove's neoliberal reforms in education, the privatisation agenda represented by academies and free schools, and the way the emphasis on test results and league tables narrows the very concept of education and deprives children of their childhood.

The Anti-Academies Alliance has recognised the may strands of this battle and I fully support their support for a National Campaign for Education.

In this report Alasdair Smith, National Secretary  of the Anti Academies Alliance, outlines the issues and notes in passing the Green Party's opposition to the neoliberal vision.
Rumour has it that policy wonks in the DfE are hard at work on how to manage “market failures”.
Indeed the number of failing academies is soaring.  But then ‘failure’ is hardwired into a system of rationed exam success, the ever-changing goalpost of OFSTED and unbridled greed of ‘social entrepreneurs’ who now claim they have a special responsibility to transform education. Peter Hyman – pass the sick bucket please.

The wheels of big business intervention are in full motion.  I have looked, to no avail, to find figures on the increase in rate of investment by education businesses over the last 10 years. My guess it is huge. Rupert Murdoch’s re-branded edu-business – Amplify (www.amplify.com ) is clearly backed by huge investment.  Not surprisingly alongside big money, comes a whiff of corruption - nepotism, dishonesty and manipulation swirls around the system – with exam cheating, pilfering public money and appointing family members now part of Gove’s dystopian nightmare.

Revelations that several academies have adopted Section 28 style policy outlawing 'promotion of homosexuality’ come as no surprise. Deregulation and privatisation - what Gove calls 'autonomy' - can be a licence for bigotry. The outcry raised by the British Humanist Association report has forced the government into a review but we will need hard proof that no school has Section 28 style clauses in future.

The scandal of free schools is even worrying the likes of Graham Stuart – the Tory chair of Education Select Committee. The huge costs, obvious lack of value for money and, most disgracefully, the fact that free schools are opening in areas where there is no need for places is causing huge concern.
There is a ticking time bomb over the shortage of school places. Some parts of London now have several 5 form entry primary schools and are considering split shift education provision unless funding is dramatically increased.

Of course Gove will point to the odd ‘success’ in his new world order. But does he ask about the failures? And what will he do about them?

Is resistance to academy conversion futile?

The academy conversion process is now so clinical, so undemocratic and so dishonest that local campaigns rise and fall within weeks. Schools are handed to sponsors on a plate by DfE brokers. As John Harris argued in the Guardian last week there is murky relationship between OFSTED and academisation ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/ofsted-lashing-out-against-primary-schools )

This means there is little chance to build sustained campaign as happened at Downhills. Yet parents are still willing to fight. Neither Gove nor academy conversion is popular. Gove is hated by the profession. There is a profound sense that our communities are being bullied into conversion.

People understand that this policy is the same as policy as the privatising of the NHS. But unfortunately the patterns of resistance are similar to NHS too, although the sporadic protests tend to be even smaller.

One reason for the absence of serious resistance is that Stephen Twigg’s criticism of Gove’s policies has been too muted. Other Labour politicians have offered more - for example Andy Burnham's trenchant defence of comprehensive education. In some areas Labour MPs have worked hard to stem the tide and build alliances with parents and the profession.  But the few national policy announcement’s seems to be little more than ‘Gove lite’.

Elsewhere the Westminster village is in thrall to Gove. We should not believe for one minute that the Lib Dems are holding back Gove. David Laws has been central to propping up elements of Gove’s agenda such as Schools Direct and privatisation of teacher training.

Apart from the Green Party, a few principled MPs and a handful of commentators, the political class remain wholly committed to this neoliberal vision, or what Finnish educationalist Pasi Salhberg calls GERM – Global Education Reform Movement.

It means we need to think long and hard about our approach to education reform. There have been some bold initiatives. CASE, SEA and others have created Picking up the Pieces. This has identified some key features of what a good education system would look like.  The NUT and Compass have joined together to run an enquiry into future of education. Both initiatives appear to be focused on persuading Labour to change its policy going into the next election.

The viability of that strategy is a matter of some debate. In contrast the AAA has continued to try to mobilise parents and staff in campaign at school level, but with limited success. But it has also argued that we need something more. We need a new vision for education that stimulates a nationwide debate and action on achieving it.

The terrain has changed. We are not fighting a single battle against academies, but a ‘war’ in several different areas of education: curriculum, school places, primary, pre-school, teacher training and so on. The scale and breadth of attacks is unprecedented.

If the terrain changes, the vehicle has to change

From the outset we argued that the academies programme was a ‘Trojan horse’ to help break up state education as part of a much grander design to deregulate and privatise the whole system. That prediction is now becoming a reality. But just opposing academies and free schools does not always offer the best opportunities to fight back against Gove. Increasingly much of the secondary sector is now conditioned to academy status. And although academisation is new to the primary sector, it remains rare that single schools fighting alone stop conversion.

Our arguments about the real nature of the academies programme have stood the test of time, but our ability to halt it remains limited. So for the last couple of years the AAA has argued for a National Campaign for Education (NCE) to unite campaigns to create a greater sense of common purpose and above all to articulate ideas around what sort of education system we want not just what we are against.

There are many other areas of education policy on which Gove is more vulnerable. New campaigns are emerging all the time. The multiplicity of different campaigns working on different projects and timescales continue. Avoiding this sort of duplication of effort is a good argument for an NCE. But here is also another more compelling argument. The historic agreement between the NUT and NASUWT for joint programme of action that began on 27th June and will continue on 1st and 17th October offers new hope of resistance across the profession.

Whatever the success of the joint action there remains a job to be done for an NCE. It needs to keep alive ideas of what it means to have a comprehensive, progressive and democratic education system. It needs to engage in popularising a wholly different vision of education based on key ideas of the Finnish system - equality & ‘less is more’. But crucially this shared theoretical vision needs some genuine prospect of realisation for it to have any meaning. So the NCE needs to have a campaigning edge. It needs to take the debate on the future of education into schools and communities up and down the country.

As was reported at the AGM in March, progress towards an NCE has been slow. Support for it was agreed at NUT and UNISON conferences and a few practical steps have been taken.

The AAA is committed to working towards an NCE, but there remains plenty of work for us to do. Our primary function of supporting local campaign continues.
 

Wednesday 18 September 2013

Brighouse says some of Gove's powers should be taken away from him

Following the failure of my motion at Green Party Conference calling for a review if our education policy in the light of Michael Gove's reforms it is interesting to read today's report by Professor Sir Tim Brighouse for the New Visions for Education Group. The report 'Improved National Decision Making About Policy and Practice for Schools' sets 5 key  test questions for improved decision making in education.

The full report can be found HERE

This key  question is particularly pertinent to what I argued at Conference:


Assuming the context of the desirability of the principle of democratic accountability and subsidiarity, will the proposed change increase or decrease the power of the centre and the Secretary of State?’

We have referred to the fact that the Secretary of State now has many more powers than was once the case.
As we have outlined earlier however there is the need for democratic accountability and originally it was envisaged that much of that could and should be exercised locally. We agree with that starting point not least because we think that local knowledge can be powerful in securing equity for individual pupils and their parents.

Some of the powers which the Secretary of State has acquired should be taken away from him. It is astonishing that a system has been created whereby schools (in the form of Academies and Free Schools) have in effect been nationalised and are subject to private contract law to the Secretary of state who controls them in what they do. It is surprising too that parental complaints should be handled not by local government nor by an ombudsman but by the Secretary of State.

There are some powers of course which are best held centrally- for example securing an adequate supply of suitably qualified teachers and making sure that scarce capital resource is distributed fairly and to minimum acceptable standards. They are functions of planning which is necessary to secure equity. It makes no sense for the Secretary of State to abandon the duty in this respect, as has recently been done, as it will lead to shortages of teachers and schools with inadequate space and facilities. But there are other powers which are best exercised locally. A guiding principle of subsidiarity should start from the assumption that powers are best exercised and held democratically accountable locally.

Sunday 15 September 2013

Where next for Green Party policy on education?

My motion instructing the Green Party Policy Committee to initiate a policy development process in the light of Coalition policies, which would result in a  a redrafted Education Policy being presented to a future  Conference, failed to win a majority today. Part of the process I suggested was  to invite contributions from relevant teacher unions, educators and parent campaign groups to help shape the review.

One of the arguments against was that there had been a full and very thorough review in 2007 and that this should not be thrown away. Instead it was argued that a series of amendments should be tabled at a future Conference. It was also argued that the review would take time and may not be ready for the election period.

I believe something far more fundamental is required as you'll see from my speech notes, particularly as the ful schope of the Tory strategy was not evident at the time. . I wanted a far broader and participatory process but if we are to have a relevant policy in place for local elections in 2014 and the General Election in 2015 we must start thinking about amendments for Spring Conference now. The policy is 15 pages long so it is a substantial task. The current policy can be read HERE

These are the notes of my speech (not all of which may have been delivered as set out because of  the time constraints in a very rushed debate at the en of the morning session).
I want to start by acknowledging the work that went into the current policy and the many good and innovative ideas it contains. Don't blame me for the need for revision - blame Michael Gove!

The problem is, as Melissa Benn said at the panel on Friday, we are in a period of profound and unprecedented educational change in terms of both speed and ruthlessness. The post - war  settlement is being bulldozed into oblivion.

This is not just about individual policies but the neoliberal framework - subordination of education to economic aims and accompanying privatisation and profit making and the commodification of childhood.

Michael Gove is stealing our schools, our teachers' professionalism and our children's childhood.

Teachers 'deliver' lessons to deliver higher test results to deliver higher league table position and thus deliver us from Ofsted! (Prayer)

I am involved with many campaigns with parents, governors and teachers and am often  asked, where do you stand, what would you do? I have found the present policy wanting in giving a response.

The foundation of our policy needs to be strengthened - rejecting the Coalition's ideology and linking our approach to alternative views on the economy as well as the aims of education and the defence of childhood.

Although our policies are Green Government 'aspirational' they have to start with present realities and counter them. Don't protest -demand!

Areas for revision:

Local authorities fast disappearing regarding role in education   - academies & free schools and diminishing school improvement services.  We need to think about the 'middle tier' and role of Secretary of State. What democratic structures do we propose beyond the school level. What powers should the Secretary of State have?

We need to sharpen our critique of free schools and academies to stress issues around accountability, reinforcing social divisions and marketisation. Do we propose reintegration into a locally accountable community school system as we do with private schools? Should all schools have the same 'freedoms' as academies and free schools.

Sure Start - reducing and nature of early years education changing. We need more than 'continuing successful schemes such as Sure Start' what is our vision for the early years?

Ofsted - we say 'inspections will be revised' but we need to take account of its increasingly politicised role, the fact that it is privatised (Serco, Tribal) and overlaps with academy chains. What sort of school improvement service do we envisage - role and powers? How does this relate to institutions such as the HMI?

In our policy we say that the Inspectorate and LAs will be involved in the monitoring of governing body accountability structures - revision needed in the light of academies and free schools and decline in role of LA.

Pupil population expansion - because the Government has said any new school should be an academy or free school, LAs are being forced to expand primary schools with some in urban areas having more than 1,000 4-11 year olds and losing play space and additional rooms such as libraries and halls in the process. Again the role of LA in planning and provision has been undermined so we need to reaffirm their right to build new community schools to cope with the rising population.

Teacher education - university level teacher education is rapidly disappearing and being replaced by various 'on the job' training schemes with a neglect (and disparagement) of research, cognitive psychology, philosophy of education etc.   

I hope I have demonstrated sufficient grounds for revision, but more than this I am convinced that with the right policy, actively campaigned for in communities, teacher organisations, parent groups that we have a chance of building massive support and contributing to success in the forthcoming elections as well as having people flocking to support our campaigns. (I mentioned the successful NUT 'It's Time to Stand Up for Education' rallies aimed at parents, governors, teachers and pupils that were held in Brighton, Nottingham and London yesterday)
Declaration of Interests: I am a retired member of the NUT and a retired primary headteacher. I am currently chair of governors of two Brent primary schools and help convene the Brent Governors' Forum.  I am a trustee of the Brent Play Association and run Brent School Without Walls, a voluntary organisation that provides free nature and outdoor activities in Fryent Country Park for primary classes and out of school clubs. 








Greens discuss key issues on academies and free schools

Introducing the Free Schools and Academies Panel at the Green Party Conference, Natalie Bennett said Green Party policy was simple: we don't agree with free schools and academies and are in favour of community comprehensive, and local and democratically controlled schools Dr Susanna Wiborg from the Institute of Education spoke about Swedish Free Schools from which Michael Gove derives his model. They have been established for 20 years and are growing quite quickly. They are not just niche schools but a movement spreading rapidly. Why was a social democratic country establishing profit making schools? It was a right wing government that believed that choice was needed.

In the beginning they were seen as way of getting parents involved but actually there was not much interest from parents and there was a move to private providers for profit. In terms of attainment levels, one large research project said pupils did a little better at lower secondary level but this was cancelled out at higher secondary level. There has been discussion about grade inflation accounting for the achievement levels at the lower secondary level and there was a similar pattern in Denmark and Norway. Evidence on comparative cost is not definitive but in some municipalities there are higher costs because of over supply of places due to the free schools and the authority paying for extra spaces in their schools. 

Looking for positives, some parents were more involved as they had chosen school at the beginning, and some schools initially were more innovative but now more similar to state schools.

 Melissa Benn looked at free schools and academies in broader context of what is happening in English education. It is an exceptional period in terms of the speed and ruthlessness of the 'reform'. The government claimed to be doing it in the name of greater freedom and parents' choice. Free schools get more publicity but academies are more important. Most 'voluntary' conversions were for the additional money not freedoms. Forced academies increasing as a result of the government using the standards agenda for political ends. This produces instability and the government's strategy is changing the life and craft of teachers. They are using the 'enemy of promise' label for an enormous and increasing number of groups including the NAHT, governors and academics. The Canadian ideal is 'reform without rancour. Ours is reform with rancour.

 In the UK we set up a divided system post-war and this led to resistance to comprehensivisation. Labour was divided with Blair and Adonis against comprehensives. Benn said her allies on education were in the Green Party rather than the Labour Party. We need to look at the increased segregation caused by academies and free schools and look over the horizon to what we want: less test based, less rote learning, stronger teacher education system, emphasis on the oral and a return to every school having a balanced intake.

 Commenting on Green Party policy she said there was a contradiction between locally based schools and having a balanced intake. She emphasised the importance of funding as an issue. 

 Sue Shanks, Brighton and Hove lead member for Children and Young people said she joined the Green Party because of its education policy. There were no free schools then. She said the problem is that we have a policy against free schools and academies and a Govenment that wants us to have them. She had been accused locally of having principles that get in the way of school place provision. The city had no converter academies and there was no great push from parents for academisation. The DfE were trying to persuade them to have academies and free schools. At present there was no major pressure on school places in comparison with the crisis elsewhere but there were some areas of difficulty. Shanks said there was great concern about the issue in local government. She recognised that the Green Party want more diversity but LA can't decide what free schools to approve. She finished by saying that Brighton and Hove Council were determined to keep the role of the education authority and maintain core services to schools. 

Discussion afterwards included some affecting descriptions of the impact of Gove's policies from education practitioners and parents as well as testimony from a former student of an 'outstanding' school whose personal experience was that it may have done well academically but it cared little for pupils' well being.

 Contributions were made about the problems faced by pupils with special needs under the current regime as well as some parents rejecting state schools for their children because of the testing regime and narrow curriculum. One core issue was that we have never had fully comprehensive education in this country and another that some schools managed to be creative with a broad curriculum despite the current setup.

 I asked what sort of structures we wanted to ensure democratic accountability in the light of increasing numbers of academies and shrinking of local authorities.

Disappointingly, Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT was unable to join the panel.

Friday 28 June 2013

Christine Gilbert to head up Brent Education Commission as school improvement changes take place

Last week I briefly attended the farewell party for eighteen or so people who are leaving Brent's School Improvement Service, including Faira Ellks who has led the service for many years. Some had accepted early retirement, others redundancy, some have set up a consultancy and a few had been employed by Brent schools who will sell their expertise, such as Reading Recovery,  to other schools..

As I looked on I reflected on the years of experience and expertise in the group that has done so much to improve Brent schools, that will be lost as a consequence of this cull. Yes, a core service will remain but its quality is uncertain and yes, Brent headteachers have formed a Brent Schools a Brent Schools Partnership to support each other, but its quality is untested.

Interestingly these concerns were echoed by Rebecca Matthews, the new interim head of School Improvement, at the Brent Governors Conference this week. She said that the BSP raised issues that include:
  • lack of clarity on aspects such as accountability and leadership
  • the capacity among senior leaders of schools to undertake the tasks involved
  • the threat to a school's own standards when its senior leaders are engaged on collaborative activities with other schools
  • measuring and evaluating the impact of such interventions
  • engaging all schools so that they looked beyond themselves
As someone said at the farewell party, 'Schools won't know what they are missing until it is gone'.

Matthews also outlined the challenge of Ofsted's new emphasis on all schools being rated Good or Outstanding and the potential of a sudden drop in the rating of schools rated 'Good' under the old Ofsted criteria when inspected under the new framework, particularly if they had been coasting or facing new pressures since the previous Ofsted.

The authority itself faces the challenge of diminishing resources both human and financial which means a reduced core School Improvement team and the challenge of dealing with the mixed economy of school categories - maintained, academy, free - with lack of powers over the latter.

Rebecca Matthews said that as a consequence of diminishing resources a new core offer to schools would be made which would include:
  • A closer focus on 'need' rather than a universal offer
  • A lighter touch with 'secure' schools with the bulk of support going to schools in need of improvement
  • Brokering school to school support arrangements
  • Regular meetings to judge and recognise progress rather than once a year meeting
  • An emphasis on the speed of improvement
To address the wider challenge facing the authority a short-term Education Commission for Brent would be set up. Interestingly in the light of the appointment of Sara Williams as acting director of Children and Families, this will be headed up not by her but by the council's Interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert (former head of Ofsted) and Robert Hill from the University of London Institute of Education. They would look at the context of the performance of Brent schools, examine inspection evidence, visit schools and take evidence from stakeholders, including governors. They would identify the 'scope for innovative support for improvement' and work with the BSP and Teaching Schools on a sustainable shared model.

The Commission will report in November 2013.

In a way this can be interpreted as the authority attempting to claw back responsibility for  school improvement from the group that set up the BSP. With Ofsted and the DfE focusing on the role of local authority's when their area's schools are under-performing the LA has to demonstrate that it is proactive.

Cllr Michael Pavey, lead member for Children and Families, had a Q&A session,  in a candid reply to a question from me why Camden had managed to keep the maintained sector intact but Brent hadn't, said that the authority had 'allowed the best schools to walk away' and now faced losing 'our failing schools because of government legislation'.  He repeated his belief that the imposition of an Interim Excutive Board and academisation was the only viable solution for Copland High School because it was failing its pupils and the local authority did not have the resources to support it.. When asked about how Copland had been allowed by the local authority to get into that state he said, 'I can't say. That was before my remit'.

Unfortunately the situation at Copland, and precisely that last question, is likely to put Brent Council's school improvement arrangements under the Ofsted and DfE microscope. However, it also raises questions about the government policy where foundation schools, academies and free schools have autonomy with reduced powers of direct intervention by the LA whilst that at the same time they have an overall responsibility for the education and well-being of children in the borough.

Pavey agreed with a governor who said that governors had not been involved in the development of the Brent Schools Partnership despite having a strategic responsibility for school improvement, and should be better represented on the Brent Schools Partnership.  Only one place on the headteacher dominated management committee has been allocated to governors.

Interestingly,in his workshop, Luca Salice, Vice Chair of Camden Schools Forum, discussed the imposition of  IEBs by the local authority, not as a way of bringing about academisation, as in the Copland case, but as a way of the LA preventing a school academising against the wishes of teachers and parents.


Sunday 9 June 2013

Professor: academies are failing black students

An interesting article from Voice on Line LINK which gives pause for thought as the academisation of Brent secondary school nears completion:

A LEADING academic has said that black pupils achieve worse GCSE results in academies than in local authority schools with a similar intake.

Professor David Gillborn, director of the centre for research in race and education based at the University of Birmingham, pointed to the Government’s data which revealed that while other ethnicities performed better, attainment among black pupils leaves much to be desired.

According to the Department for Education’s Equalities Impact Assessment: Academies Bill published in 2010, 37.1 per cent of black children enrolled at academies achieved five top GCSEs including maths and English.

But in local authority-run schools with similar characteristics, that figure was 41 per cent among children of African and Caribbean heritage.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “These are not the most up-to-date figures. In fact, results in sponsored academies are improving at a faster rate than in other state-funded schools. Analysis published by the department last year shows that, in 2011, the proportion of black pupils achieving five good GCSEs including English and mathematics was 2.5 percentage points higher in sponsored academies than in similar council-run schools.”

For other ethnic groups including white and Asian, this pattern was in reverse with both groups performing slightly better.

Academies tend to have a higher proportion of black pupils than other ethnic groups. Gillborn, a guest speaker at the annual London Schools and the Black Child conference, said: “The Government claims that academies are going raise standards for everyone but, actually, its own data suggests academies are bad news for black students.

“When compared with similar local authority schools they do worse...this has not stopped the policy being rolled out across the country. [The Government] has taken no steps whatsoever to identify where this problem might be arising from, let alone taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen in every single new academy.”

Sunday 21 April 2013

Green perspective on fragmentation of education through academies and free schools

For the record and for the wider audience beyond Brent interested in academies and free schools here is the letter I had published in the Brent and Kilburn Times two weeks ago:

Mary Arnold (Labour, lead member for children and families) claims  that Brent schools are 'far from fragmentation' and accuses me of 'distorted views'. In June 2011 the then Brent Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel warned against fragmentation of the education service when he spoke at the Brent Governors' Conference. In a reference to academies and free schools he said that it was crucial to keep Brent's 'family of schools' together.  He stressed the vital  role of the local authority when things go wrong in individual schools

At the same conference Krutika Pau, Director of Children and Families,  urged governors to keep their eyes on the long-term and reflect on the permanent damage that would be caused by a fragmented school system.

In May 2012 Mary Arnold herself wrote to Queens Park Secondary Community School which was considering academy conversion and said:

'It is vitally important to maintain high levels of collaboration across Brent’s education community and avoid the risks of fragmentation from academy conversions.

The government’s school reform legislation, the huge reduction in capital spending just at a time when population increases demand school expansion in Brent (and London-wide) and the diversion of funding away from local authorities towards academies is changing the education landscape and putting significant pressure on local authorities.'
Now In April 2013 we only have one non-academy non-faith secondary school left in Brent: Copland High School, which may well come under pressure after its recent Ofsted report.  In the primary sector Sudbury has converted to academy status, Salusbury converted to academy status with the Park Federation after Ofsted put it into Special Measures and Kensal Rise last week announced it was being taken over by Ark Schools. Academies are answerable to Michael Gove and not the local authority.

Gladstone Park Primary is under enormous pressure from Department for Education brokers to convert to academy status after just one poor Ofsted Report and despite its above average results.

Despite this escalation of the situation since the earlier warnings Mary Arnold now seeks to downplay the danger, She
prefers to see this as a 'mixed economy' of schools rather than fragmentation and appears ready for this continue with the added ingredient of free schools over which the local authority has no control. Brent Labour Party appears to have given up the fight against Michael Gove's policies and instead seeks to work with them. An early promise to write to the DfE stating that the local authority thought that Gladstone Park had the capacity to improve with local authority support has not been fulfilled. Parents have been left on their own to challenge DfE bullying.

I understand that the argument within the council is that if they were to make a stand against the DfE and challenge forced academies it would bring the wrath of the DfE and Ofsted down on the council and local schools and make matters worse. An alternative view is that if the local authority acquiesces so easily the DfE will see easy pickings in Brent  and move to force more primary schools to become academies. The council's policy gives in to bullying and leaves parents and residents who want to support their local school and the benefits of the local authority school system out on a limb.

I spoke at the recent Brent General Purposes Committee calling for strong leadership in education that would champion the role of the local authority  in school improvement, in ensuring equality of access to schools, and in making schools democratically accountable to the local community. I too am proud of what Brent schools have achieved and want to ensure that this is not undermined by Michael Gove's ill-thought out reforms. I think this is best down by challenging forced academies, free schools and the privatisation of education  while Mary Arnold thinks  a softly, softly approach of collaboration which retains an arms length role for the local authority will succeed.



Martin Francis
Brent Green Party spokesperson on children and families

Saturday 23 March 2013

Barnet springs to the defence of local services despite rain, sleet and snow

Despite battling with wind, rain, sleet and snow,the indefatigable campaigners of Barnet marched to tell their Tory Council and the Coalition government  that they must go.

Barnet Council, as Cameron's flagship borough, is attempting the out-sourcing of most of its services on long-term contracts. Campaigners see this as the death of local democracy and the handing over of local assets to private profiteers.
march, recognising that if the Tories succeed in Barnet the 'Barnet strategy' will be implemented in other towns and cities. Brent Fightback were there as were the Whittington and Lewisham hospital campaigns. A speaker from the Anti Academies Alliance drew attention to the privatisation of local authority schools.
Fittingly the march finished at the occupied Friern Barnet library where one of the library campaigners made it clear that volunteer run libraries are not the answer. She told the people crowding into the library that the demand should be no closures and no cuts and for properly resourced local services.




Thursday 7 March 2013

Roke parents get DfE and Harris 'flustered' on forced academies as they take legal action


The Save Roke parent group, along with school governor, Malcolm Farquharson have instructed a lawyer specialising in academy law to prepare a legal challenge to the plans of Michael Gove to hand their primary school over to a private academy.

The group started fund raising on Tuesday and they received their target amount within 24 hours.

Roke campaigners believe that they may have a case in law to challenge the Secretary of State’s actions, which they believe have gone beyond his powers by referring the state primary school in Kenley to the
Harris Federation when the school is not a “failing” school and also on issues surrounding the legality of the consultation process.

Roke parents joined forced with parents from other protesting schools yesterday and issued a statement  in which they announced a new campaign organisation 'Parents Against Forced Academisation'. They called for an immediate public enquiry into bullying behaviour and fake consultations endemic in forced academisation of schools.

Yesterday evening, Roke parents received the first of several what they termed 'sham consultation' meetings run by the preferred academy sponsor the Harris Federation at the school. Parents received no representation from any other party and Lord Nash has already declared the decision irreversible.

The campaigners said:
After we announced our plans for legal action on our facebook group and the Save Roke website, and after the DfE received had complaints from Roke parents about the legality of the consultation process and the fact that parents had not even been asked if they wanted to become an academy on the official consultation questionnaire, the DfE and Harris last night moved pre-emptively, and issued a new consultation questionnaire with the question added. This suggests that the initial consultation document was not indeed not legal, and that we had got them flustered enough to move very quickly to close this legal loophole. This demonstrates that legal process has not been followed with due diligence by the DfE or Harris.

Wednesday 13 February 2013

Acad£mies and Lies - lessons from the movies




As the struggle of Gladstone Park Primary parents against a forced academy hots up and attention also turns to Kensal Rise Primary, this film shows how a community rose up in defence of its schools. The bullying of the DfE is challenged by parents and school staff. With more attempts at forced academies provoking revolt across London the Guardian, Independent and the Evening Standard (see below) have woken up to what is happening. LINK to coverage in yesterday's Evening Standard.

 As with the closure of Central Middlesex Hospital, Brent Labour councillors have been slow to react. As representatives of local residents who have shown such passionate support for their local school and commitment to the role of the local authority, surely they must state loudly and clearly that they oppose forced academisation and are confident (as Ofsted said - see below) in the capacity of the present leadership and management to improve the school and deal with the weaknesses revealed by the recent inspection.

Sunday 10 February 2013

Whose schools? OUR schools!

Children grasp the key question and answer outside Gladstone Park on Friday
Today's news in the Independent LINK that Michael Gove is looking to privatise academies and free schools, and thus open them up to profit-making comes as no surprise. It would also decouple them from Whitehall removing any semblance of democratic accountability which has  of course already been lost at the local level.

Anti-academy campaigners have always thought this was the long-term intention. Why else would carpet millionaires and hedge fund speculators be interested in running schools? Cleverly getting their foot in the door at an early stage,  academy chains will be in a position to harvest the profits from seizing community assets.

She knew what Gove was up to
It is not just the bricks and mortars and land, paid for by taxpayers over many years, sometimes going back to the introduction of universal elementary education in 1870, that is important. It is also schools as a site for community solidarity and values beyond those of individualism and private profit that is being destroyed,. In essence it is another battle in the war against social solidarity and the welfare state, the post-World War 2 settlement, that is taking place.  It is an ideological attack where the proponents will accuse opponents of being ideological. George Orwell would recognise the technique.

In 1986 Michael Joseph and then then Department of Education focused on the individual aspirations of parents for their children. They promoted what could be seen as the 'ideal' parent and argued that establishing a market in education would benefit individual parents as consumers. Back then phrases such as 'wanting what any decent parent would want for their children' , 'hardworking motivated families' were used to try and recruit parents as ideological partners in pursuit of free market solutions to what was percieved as the education crisis.

Their plans were challenged at a practical level when parents at Drummond Middle School in Bradofrd organised a campaign against the alleged racism of headtecher Ray Honeyford. Margaret Thatcher showed where she stood by inviting Honeyford to an education seminar at Dowing Street. Drummond Parents Action Group took to the streets  to protest. The Tory subtext was that the 'ideal parent' did not include ethnic minorities. 'Parent Power' was only for those who accepted the Government agenda? Does this soubnd familiar?

Another comment may also sound familiar. The All London Parents Action Group (ALPAG) said:
But be warned - for a Government that is so keen to encourage parental participation in education, he (Sir Keith Joseph,  Gove's equivalent at the time) is remarkably reluctant to answer parents' letters.
The Inner London Education Authority election of 1986 was unique because the Greater London Council having been abolished by Thatcher it was an election ONLY about education.  Several activists from the parents' movement stood as Labour Party candidates with experience in the Camapign for the Advancement of State Education (CASE), National Association of  Governors and Managers (NAGM), Save ILEA Campaign, Wandsworth Association of School Parents as well as local Parents Advisory Committees.

The Tories used the election to put forward their right-wing, privatisation ideas as a rehearsal for the next General Election. The result was a thrashing. On a relatively high turn-out, considering this was a direct election only about education in a city with many non-parents, of 44%, Labour achieved 46,8% (45 seats), Conservative 30.2% (11) and SDP-Liberals 21.2% (2).  Thatcher then punished the voters by abolishing the ILEA and handing education over to the boroughs, However the election result contributed to the  Tories moving to the centre ground in education. Michael Joseph was replaced by Kenneth Baker.

Gove's policies on privatisation, academies and free schools represent a move back to the days of Thatcher, Tebbit and Joseph (known by some as the 'Mad Monk') and we need to mount a similar challenge against his ideas and policies.

Is there a potential for a 21st century version of the All London Parents Action Group?

A diverse community sharing common values
 In the building of such a group the slogan Whose Schools? OUR Schools  should be central. We are not talking only about the selling off of public assets but of them being given away to the private sector. It is our taxes and council taxes that have funded our schools, but even more fundamentally the investment of the time and effort of generations of unpaid governors and parents that have made them the successful inclusive institutions that they are.

Fund-raising at Spring, Summer and Winter Fairs, volunteering in the classroom, accompanying classes on trips, regular contact with the class teacher are all ways that parents make it 'Our school'.  It is this closeness and identification with the school that make parents, grandparents and carers a potentially formidable campaigning force.

More and more is expected of the governing body who are expected to oversee the financial management of the school, set targets for school improvement and performance manage the headteacher. They are expected to go on training, attend conferences, and visit the school regulalrly to see it in action.


Michael Gove's forced acdemisation tramples over the efforts of parents and governors, devalues the contribution that they have made, and through his threat of replacing non-compliant governing bodies with Interim Executive Boards flies in the face of democracy.

Make no mistake we are in a fight for control of our schools,  for the future of our children's education and well-being, and for an ethos that values social inclusion, equality of opportunity and democratic accountability.

Let the battle commence to reclaim OUR Schools!


Monday 21 January 2013

A video for all teachers suffering under government education policies

Don't watch this if you are offended by the F word and other obscenities. Do watch if you feel current education policy justifies such language use. The video pre-dates the Coalition and so applies to the target culture of the three main parties.


Saturday 19 January 2013

Taking the Michael reaches new heights

By some means not yet revealed,  Michael Rosen's satirical letter to Michael Gove has appeared on a semi-official website which specialises in government contracts LINK

In case it disappears I reproduce Michael's advice below:

For the start of the year, I’m sending you some helpful ideas, from how to keep student numbers down to keeping teachers in check.

I thought I would try to be positive and lay out a set of modest proposals for you to consider in 2013.

1 Universities
It’s imperative to keep down the number of students. “Graduate” is really another name for people who think they’re entitled to be paid well. We are in an era when we must all pull together to ensure that workers work more and earn less (or as employers call it, “keeping labour costs down”) and large numbers of graduates swimming around the economy are an impediment to this. What’s more, three years of independent living and discussion have the potential to turn many of these young people into dissenters and trouble-makers. There is an argument for saying that it is the job of government to enable a population to increase its cultural capital, raising the level of education of as many people as possible. You must portray this sentiment as a utopian fantasy of a long-lost past.

So, let’s put into practice a set of clear policies:
a) You and your colleagues (and Eric Pickles) need to put a lot of effort into mocking and rubbishing university courses. Don’t worry about consistency here: pick on both vocational courses and seemingly obscure academic ones: “A degree in leisure management, ha ha ha”; ‘A degree in medieval German literature, ha ha ha”.
b) Suggest at every opportunity that academics and students are spongers and skivers. Contrast their use of public money, long holidays and low hours of work with MPs’ honesty, diligence and industriousness.
c) Make a big deal out of things like the “knowledge economy”, “what Britain does best”, “centres of excellence” and “world-class universities”. Rely on journalists to put this inflated waffle (which you don’t believe in anyway) on their front pages while relegating the cuts to a one-inch column on page 11.
d) It is absolutely vital to boast about making it possible for the “disadvantaged” to go to university while making it harder for them to do so. Fees of £9,000 a year are already much too low and some students from poorer families are slipping through the net and going to university. We must discourage them from doing so. I suggest fees in the region of £20,000 a year. One scholarship a year per university would serve the purpose of looking as if you’re being “fair”.
I am so glad that your colleague David Willetts has highlighted the problems of white working-class boys going to university. Given your party’s electoral precariousness at the moment, it is vital that you and your colleagues present a narrative which suggests that Britain today is a place where white people can’t get on and black people are given incredible advantages.

2 Ebacc
There is a real danger that you’re about to be stabbed in the back by your predecessor Kenneth Baker. He has come up with a plan to abolish exams at 16, create higher schools and training places for 14- to 18-year-olds. With utmost urgency, you must dig up anything you can on Baker to suggest that he is either an out-of-touch old backwoodsman fart and/or he is in thrall to Trotskyists.
For you to be able to push through what is fast becoming an exam that will be a major impediment for most young people to develop as learners, you must:
a) ignore all evidence on adolescents and learning;
b) make misleading comparisons with the old O-levels;
c) keep talking about “rigour” without explaining what you mean by that word;
d) rubbish teachers by saying that, unlike MPs, they are lazy and misuse public money.

3 Primary school exams
The phonics screening check and the spelling, punctuation and grammar – Spag – test.
You must resist all demands to provide evidence that these tests will improve reading and writing, as there is none. Avoid public debate about this. Potential problems coming up are:
a) that many more children failed the phonics test than learn how to read using the old mixed methods;
b) many good readers failed the phonics test;
c) some children are being told they have “failed” and so can’t proceed to “real” books.

Rely on ill-informed newspaper editors to keep these stories off the front pages. When it comes to the grammar test, I predict that there will be real problems, with teachers not knowing how to teach for it and hardly any children understanding what is being tested. Therefore you must keep up the campaign of rubbishing teachers, showing how, unlike MPs, they are lazy and misuse public money.
In a key speech, make the suggestion that most British children are ignorant, illiterate, stupid and badly behaved.

4 Academies programme
Stop trying to be nice. Step in now, and make every state school in England an academy. Hail this termination of public accountability as a triumph of “freedom from control”. Make sure that your own burgeoning powers of control over the nation’s teachers and young people is never mentioned. It is crucial that whenever an academy fails an inspection, you must rubbish the teachers, showing how, unlike MPs, they are lazy and misuse public money.

It is highly unlikely that you will be able to keep tabs on all the academies, so I suggest that you create a set of regional committees to manage them. These must not be called “local” in case people compare them to local authorities and the management committees must not be elected, but made up of people appointed by you.

5 Teachers
Abolish all teacher training. In a key speech, try to whip up people’s bad memories of individual teachers (who were usually just people trying to implement what governments made them do) by saying how “we all hate teachers”. Play to people’s feelings that it is always other people’s children who are “bad influences” on their own, and what is needed is a “firm hand”. This should enable you to usher in the replacement of teachers by ex-military personnel who can do the job of patrolling past the computer terminals (equipped with News Corporation syllabuses), which all children will be looking at all day in the exciting schools of the future.

6 History
You must work even harder on the history curriculum, ensuring that all our children in England are proud of our country’s history. I’m not absolutely sure what this means if Scotland becomes independent, but I’m sure you’ve figured out what “our country” means better than me. Meanwhile, can we make sure that dead white men are celebrated the most? All attempts to show either that some dead white men did bad things, or that there are some important things done by dead white women, dead black men and even dead black women, must be eradicated. We need to have our classrooms filled with pride. After all, thanks to your government, more and more children are arriving at school with empty bellies, so at least let’s fill them with pride, eh?

7 Business
All schools must be turned into limited companies. Headteachers should be employers (“school company directors”) while compulsorily non-unionised teachers and pupils are the workers. Schools should be required to make goods and sell services for money and become places that offer car-cleaning, photocopying, fruit-picking, biscuit-making and the like at highly competitive rates.

8 Your job
The moment it looks as if staying in your job is an impediment to your long-term objectives of becoming leader of the Conservative party, make it clear to David Cameron that you’ve never been very interested in education and you have outlived your usefulness.

I hope that these proposals will be of use to you throughout the year.

Sunday 6 January 2013

Brent's headaches as it tries to expand secondary school places

Brent Council is faced with increasing demand for secondary school places as the increase in primary numbers moves through the system. Unfortunately, although charged with an overall responsibility to provide school places, to a large extent it exercises 'responsibility without power' as so many Brent secondary schools have become academies or are voluntarily aided and sources of finance are not directly under the Council's control.

An extensive study has led to a report going before the Executive on January 14th which recommends expansion in some schools (subject to governing body approval) and the use of the Gwenneth Rickus Building (Centre for Staff Development) in Brentfield Road as a six forms of entry secondary school. This building which was formerly part of Sladebrook High School, is next to the Swaminarayan Independent School, and is now surplus to requirements with the facility moving to the Civic Centre in the summer.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that three secondary schools, due to parental preference, are currently operating below capacity. These are Copland, following the financial mismanagement allegations; Crest Academy Boys and Newman College. The report states that the first priority is to bring these schools up to scratch so that all their places are used.

Wembley High is ruled out of expansion because it is proposed to make this an all-through school providing places for primary as well as secondary children in line with Ark and Preston Manor. The governing body of Preston Manor have recently decided to become a Cooperative Academy although this is likely to be strongly contested by education unions. The Copland and Alperton expansions are subject to rebuilds under the government's Priority School Buildings Programme.

If this wasn't enough Gove's reforms have thrown another wild card into the game with the report stating that there are three secondary  free school proposals:

In the event that government’s grant application for 2013-14 and following years is inadequate to meet the Council’s entire demand for funding new provision, we are considering the following options:
 Free Schools: The Executive noted that the demand for new school places cannot be met only through the expansion of existing schools due to the limited availability of funding; the Council is required to promote additional ways of creating school places by pursuing the current government agenda on free schools and academies. The latest round of free school applications is being considered by the Department for Education (DfE) in the new year with an opening date of September 2014. Given that the Council is not looking to open a new secondary school at this date, it has not collaborated with any potential providers at this point. There are likely applications submitted for Brent, however. These include:
• an independent school group looking to open an 11 to 18 school in Wembley – of approximately 4 forms of entry, planning to provide Year 10 places immediately as well as Year 7.
• a parent led school in Cricklewood to address perceived lack of choice for parents in that area (6FE).
4.5 In addition an already approved free school has been looking to acquire a site in Brent and open a 6FE secondary school in September 2013.
4.6 All three of the above have said in discussion that they would aim to meet the Partnership Criteria agreed by the Executive in August 2012 but it is clear that two of them would be likely to use the freedoms available to free schools in respect of staffing and the curriculum
Note that although the Council says it has not 'collaborated with any potential providers' they appear, as oen would expect,  to have had discussions with them. The council cannot really take these into account in its present planning as decision making is with the DfE and even when some free school applications have been approved they have failed to materialise.

Clearly the arguments made against academies and free schools on the grounds that they undermine the local authority's  capacity to make clear and rational plans to meet pupil demand gain traction based on these difficulties.  Most of the proposals are given a Medium Risk category in the report with the Gwenneth Rickus proposal deemed High Risk because of potential planning issues.

The Kingsbury High proposal would result in an extremely large school with 435 pupils in each year group based on a class size of 30.

Summary of the proposals:

School
Status
Current Forms of Entry
Proposed Addition Forms of Entry
Delivery of additional forms of entry
Alperton
Academy
7.3
1
2017/18-2019/20 (PFI)
Ark
Academy
6
0

Capital City
Academy
6.5
0

Claremont
Academy
8.4
0

Convent Jesus and Mary
VA Academy
6
0

Copland
Foundation
8
1
2017/18-2019/20 (PFI)
JFS
VA
10
0

Kingsbury
Academy
10.5
4.5
2015/16-2016/17
Newman Catholic
VA Trust
5
0

Preston Manor
Foundation Trust (pending Academy)
8.4
0

Queens Park
Academy
6.7
2
2014/15
St Gregory’s RC
VA
5.9
0

The Crest Boys
Academy
4
1
September 2014
The Crest Girls
Academy
5
1
September 2014
Wembley High
Academy (proposed All-Through)
7
0

Gwenneth Rickus Building
Possible satellite of existing school
0
6
2015/16-2016/17