Parents and children take on DfE bullies

Parents and children from schools threatened with being forced to become academies joined teachers today in a march to the DfE to protest against Coalition education policies. Marching to chants of 'Whose Schools? Our Schools!', 'No forced academies! Save Our Schools', 'Michael, we want you: OUT!' and 'No more bullying!' they braved wind, rain and snow to make their point.

Michael Gove should be warned; these are determined people who won't give in easily.

Kids defy Michael Gove

'Michael Gove' turned up at today's demonstration against Coalition education policies and told the children that he wanted their schools. This is their reaction.

Bullying DfE Brokers - key points from yesterday's debate

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

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

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

Bill Esterson (Labour,  Sefton Central)

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

John Pugh

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

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

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield, Labour)

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

John Pugh

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

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

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)

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

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

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

John Pugh

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

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

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

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

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

Rose Cooper, (West Lancashire,  Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour)

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

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

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

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

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teather cancels her meeting with Gladstone Park parents

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

She said:

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

My offer to meet separately with the parents action group as originally agreed remains open.

I understand that the parents will still meet tonight to discuss the campaign against forced academisation. 6pm Pakistan Coommunity Centre, Marley Walk, Station Road next to Willesden Green station.

Parents unite against Michael Gove's bullying

"If every school did the same as us...." another step forward

Parents have called  for a public enquiry into bullying behaviour endemic in forced academisation of school. They state that that parents from schools that have experienced bullying from the DfE are fighting back and launching a new campaign group - Parents Against Forced Academies (PAFA). This arose from the frustration parents feel at not being listened to on key decisions about the handing of our schools by rich businessmen running academy chains.

PAFA was born at a half term meeting by parents at several primary schools across London, where they decided to join forces in condemning what they perceive as extreme bullying tactics by Michael Gove and his academy brokers.

Governors and head teachers who resist forced academy are routinely threatened with the sack and in some cases this has been carried through Interim Executive Boards with no previous knowledge of the school or the community   Fake consultations with parents are being run after decisions have already been made and controlled by the academy chains who stand to gain most. The conflict of interest could not be clearer. In the case of Downhills Primary School in Haringey 94% of those taking part in the consultation did not want the school to become an academy sponsored by the Harris Federation. On the same day the consultation was published and available to parents the Secretary of State handed the school over to the Harris Federation. The DfE had funded the consultation to the tune of £50,000 of public money.

Parents are repeatedly being met with rude, abrupt, dismissive and patronising responses from DfE officials when they make a reasoned case for proper consultation and genuine choice over their school’s future. The behaviour of the DfE contravenes key principles set out in the government’s own legal advice and other government agendas such as localism, Big Society and community rights. When making a decision that will impact on the general public, Civil Service Departments are required to meet a series of tests in measuring the lawfulness of an exercise of public law, PAFA believes that Michael Gove is ignoring these basic rules of public life. It is more like dictatorship than democracy.

Parents from schools facing forced academy conversion are joining forces to call for a public enquiry into the decisions made about our schools behind closed doors and the privatisation of our education system by stealth. ‘We know that we are not alone in resisting the forcible academisation of our school,’ says Maria Bache, 40, an HR manager for a media group who has two children at Gladstone Primary in NW London. ‘We stand united with other schools across the country in publicising the unfair treatment we are being subjected to by the DfE.’

Another Gladstone parent, Zaman Wong, said : ‘The decision by the DfE to impose academy status on Gladstone Park Primary is a grossly disproportionate course of action, ignoring the many strengths of our school identified by Ofsted, the indisputable achievements of our pupils and the wishes of the parents. The entire process has been unjustified and artificially rushed, with a complete lack of transparency or any consultation with parents and governors’ The father of two children at the school, one in Reception, concluded: ‘Even a Year 3 child will tell you a choice with one option is no choice at all. ‘ 

PAFA is protesting against these illegal tactics. Key members along with Gladstone Park include protesting parents from high profile schools: Roke Primary in Croydon, and Downhills in Haringey. Other schools protesting schools include Calder High in Hebden Bridge and Thomas Gamuels in Walthamstow.

Angeline Hind of Roke Primary said: “We expect more and more parents and schools to join us as with Ofsted shifting the goalposts once again, there will soon be a torrent of schools subjected to the bullying and underhand methods we have experienced. At times it feels surreal like we are living in Communist China. Our schools are at the tip of a tidal wave to come as more and more schools are forced to convert. This is not about standards but political ideology and privatisation by stealth.”

Notes

The test measuring lawfulness of exercise of public law:

• Legality -  Departments must act within the scope of any powers and for a proper purpose; not  acting in a hasty and disproportionate fashion.
• Procedural fairness – for example giving the individual or individuals an opportunity to be heard.
• Reasonableness or rationality: including the principles of proportionality and the ‘Wednesbury principle’ (when making a reasonable and rational decision all relevant factors must be taken into account and all irrelevant factors omitted). Compatibility with the Human Rights Convention rights and EU law.

·        Parents from Downhills School were involved in working with filmmaker Rhonda Evans in a film about forced academies available online http://www.academiesandlies.org.uk/

These principles are all described in the Judge Over Your Shoulder (JOYS) document issued by the Treasury Solicitor: http://www.tsol.gov.uk/Publications/Scheme_Publications/judge.pdf)

Government moves goal posts to force more primary academies

David Laws today increases the primary floor target in KS2 SATS English and Maths for 2014 from 60% to 65% of Year 6 pupils achieving Level 4.  Failure to meet these targets will result in the schools being forced to become sponsored academies.

Moving the goal posts in this way will be another step in the Coalition's aim of increasing the number of schools converting to academy status to meet their aim of making academies 'the norm'.

476 primary schools are below the current floor target of 60% but this increases to  866 with the 65% target.

The Coalition argue that this number will reduce as schools 'up their game' but this will of course lead to more stress for children, teachers and headteachers and a narrow test-centred curriculum  for pupils in their last year of primary school.

Some commentators also expect that the policy may lead to some schools 'voluntarily' converting  to academy status, choosing their own sponsor, rather than face the risk of having one imposed on them at a later date. There is an added incentive for headteachers because they are usually removed by the sponsor when a school is forced to become an academy.

Clearly Gove is taking no notice of the current resistance to forced academies and is tightening the screw  on schools. He is hoping that under the guise of raising standards and making children 'secondary school ready' he will be able to escalate the privatisation of the school system.

In turn we must up our resistance  with a united campaign of teachers, governors and parents to the forced academy strategy.

The story behind Harris's academy aspirations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The letter written by Caroline Cane of the Brokerage and School Underperformance Division (now there's a friendly child-centred name for you) is notable for taking a swipe at the National Governors Association:

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that the National Governors’ Association (NGA) guidance mentioned in your letter is not statutory

As an independent body, the NGA’s views and advice do not necessarily reflect the Department’s position on how Academy sponsorship is brokered

So it is not only the governors at individual schools that are ignored but also their National Association. Remember, these are unpaid volunteers who give up hours of their time and despite the DfE's disdain are held accountable for the strategic and financial management of their schools with an ever-increasing workload. It is hard to discern any respect for this in Ms Cane's missive.

She goes on later in her letter:

With regards to your final point on consultation, the Department’s view on when this is most meaningful was set out in my letter of 24 January.  The legislative position on Academy consultation is defined in the Academies Act 2010, not guidance produced by the NGA.  The legislation states that ‘the consultation may take place before or after an Academy order, or an application for an Academy order, has been made in respect of the school.”

That is a wonderful definition of consultation. If it applied to the NHS the surgeon  could 'consult' with you about amputation after she had removed your leg!

It is clear the Big Sister always knows best:

Where a school is underperforming and eligible for intervention, it is not the case that schools are usually given a choice of sponsors. The Department leads on identifying potential sponsors as we have the complete view on individual sponsor's capacity and capability to deliver.

On the possibility of an arrangement with Queens Park Community School via the Cooperative College her remarks have a sting in the tail:

The Co-operative College is not an approved Academy sponsor and our records show we have not received an application from Queen’s Park School .  As a secondary school wanting to sponsor, its GCSE performance and Ofsted judgement would be taken into consideration.  It would also need to demonstrate that it has experience and a proven track record in working with and improving primary schools.  I note that in 2012 the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C GCSE’s including English and maths at Queen’s Park was 53%.  This is a drop of 9% percentage points compared to 2011 and means it is currently performing below the national average, so this school faces a number of challenges of its own

Greens backs campaigns against forced primary academies

The Green Party Spring Conference yesterday suspended Standing Orders to take the following motion which was passed with no votes against:

Conference recognises that Michael Gove has recently escalated his policy of forcing primary schools to become academies so that now only one poor Ofsted report is required to trigger such a move. This has currently resulted  in several strong parent-led campaigns in defence of  community schools.

The Green Party believes forced academisation:

• Undermines the role of local authorities and school governing bodies in school improvement
• Undermines local democratic accountability of schools
• Ignores the wishes of major stakeholders including governors and parents
• Hands over local assets to an external provider without recompense
• Opens the school to eventually being run on a profit-making basis

Conference therefore instructs the GPEX campaigns coordinator to facilitate a campaign against this policy at national level over the next 6 months and calls on  local parties to take up the issue where appropriate.

Brent Council Executive member backs Gladstone Park parents

Cllr Krupesh Hirani, lead member for Adults and Health, has become the second Dudden Hill councillor to back the Parents Action Group at Gladstone Park Primary.

In a meeting with representatives from the campaign he stated that 'enforced academy is wrong' and 'we think Gladstone Parl doesn't need to become an academy'.

He agreed to write a letter in support of the Save Gladstone Park Primary School campaign for dessmination and he also signed the parents, carers and friends petition.

Parents finally requested that Cllr Hirani ask Cllr Muhammed Butt (leader of Brent Council) to instruct  Christine Gilbert (Brent Chief Executive) or any other relevant Brent officer to write to DfE stating (a) that DfE’s is in breach of Civil service Codes of Conduct and acceptable behaviour in making decisions that impact on the general public and (b) that Brent is confident in GP leadership successfully seeing through improvement action plan in response to Ofsted report, without change in governance status. In this regard, Ofsted Principal Officer Deana Holdaway’s response to Sarah Cox was quoted: ‘The judgement that leadership and management are not inadequate is an important one; it shows that staff have the capacity to continue the school’s improvement’.   

In response Cllr Hirani said there was a distinction between Council and councillors and he would seek advice before making such a request.

Mary Seacole win was based on People Power - let's use it on forced academies

Readers may have missed another concession by Michael Gove this week.I wrote a piece a few weeks ago  LINK supporting Operation Black Vote's campaign to retain the study of Mary Seacole in the National Curriculum. The campaign succeeded to the extent that Mary Seacole is now in the main curriculum rather than just an option. This is a victory for the thousands who supported the campaign but we now need to turn our attention to other fundamentally problematic issues in Michael Gove's history proposals

Operation Black Vote wrote:

We’ve won ! - Mary Seacole, Olaudah Equiano

Thanks to nearly 36,000 signatories, letters to the Secretary of State for education, politicians, unions, writers and activist, today we celebrate the fact that our children and the next generation of children will be taught about the great exploits of both Mary Seacole and Olaudah Equiano. Furthermore, the importance of diversity within our education system, particularly in history will now be greatly valued.

Back in December a leaked document suggested that Equiano and Seacole be scrapped from the Curriculum.

Simon Woolley stated:

This is a great day for education, but also a great day for the Black community and many others who demanded greater racial justice within our education system. There are too many people to thank personally but, The Voice, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, and Change.org all threw their considerable weight behind this campaign. Seacole and Equiano would both be saying our spirits fantastically live on with today's activist.  

Michael Gove wrote personally to OBV in response to the campaign:

We are lucky to be heirs to a very rich mix of exceptional thinkers, bold reformers and courageous political activists. I agree that is important that our children learn about difference that these figures have made, and it is right that we do more, not less to make subjects relevant to the lives of our children.

 Professor Elizabeth Anionwu, Emeritus Professor of Nursing, said:

Thanks to all 36,000 people who signed the Operation Black Vote Petition. Mary Seacole AND Olaudah Equiano & Florence Nightingale are all cited in Key Stage 3 of the proposed national curriculum. Brilliant, just brilliant!

Zita Holbourne of BARAC stated: 

This campaign just goes to show that if we stand our ground, stick together and assert our collective 'People Power' we succeed.

Let's now use People Power to defeat Michael Gove over forced academies. Yesterday's demonstration outside Gladstone Park Primary School was a great start.

Coming Soon- Academies and Lies!

Support the parents, teachers and children of Downshill Primary

Parents of children attending Downhills Primary School  in Haringey, which Michael Gove is trying to force to become an academy are organising a fun event in support of striking teachers on Tuesday May 22nd.

Click here for more information about the campaign in Downhills

The parents at Downhills are continuing their brilliant campaign to stop their school becoming an academy. You can follow them on facebook and their website is www.savedownhills.org

Please rush messages of support to the strike:
Haringey NUT – secretary@haringey.nut.org.uk
Phil Brett NUT rep at Downhills - philbrett@msn.com

'The Mouse that Roared' 3 - Can Gove be beaten?