Brent Council did not formally consult with secondary headteachers on alternative free school provision...

...Or that it what an FoI response from Brent Council to the National Education Union (NEU) seems to indicate.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on the free school proposal Gail Tolley, Strategic Director for Children and Young People was asked about consultation with secondary schools about the proposal and whether they were interested in running such provision themselves (extract from Wembley Matters report of the meeting LINK):

Strategic Director of Children and Young People, Gail Tolley, told Cllr Jumbo Chan that she had raised with secondary school heads the possibility of them taking on the alternative provision but they had not been interested. Those recognised by the DfE as able to set up a free school could still apply during the procurement process. Cllr Chan said that an informal discussion was not sufficient and requested evidence of a formal consultation.  Union representatives protested that they had not been consulted as educational professionals on the Council's proposal.

The NEU made the following Freedom of Information request:

We understand that local Headteachers are opposed to a Free School, and that they had initially been approached to take on Roundwood as an extension of their own school. We formally request, under FOI, copies of any correspondence relating to this.

Brent Council responded:

There has been no correspondence between the Local Authority and local Headteachers in relation to whether they had been approached to take on Roundwood as an extension of their own school. This point was confirmed at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9^th May 2019.

 The response is ambiguously worded but suggests that the local authority did not consult on what is a far reaching proposal for both local schools and the young people concerned.

Scrutiny decides NOT to refer Alternative Provision Free School proposal back to Cabinet

Cllr Jumbo Chan presents the reasons for the call-in

There were only two dissenting votes on Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee this evening when the Committee decided not to refer the proposed Alternative Provision Free School back to Cabinet.  This means the Council will go ahead and seek sponsors for the school despite official opposition from the Labour Party to the creation of any more free schools or academies. There may be a little token consultation along the way but this will not be about the principle of free school provision.

It was always going to be a difficult case to argue because of the ramifications of government legislation that (absurdly) prevents local authorities setting up new schools when they are needed. New schools have to be either a free school or an academy - both outside local authority oversight.

There is a possibility of setting provision up as part of a local authority school - rather than a new school, rather as Leopold Primary opened another site in Harlesden. However all secondary schools in Brent are either academies or voluntary aided schools so the only local authority schools left are primary.  The Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ketan Sheth, raised doubts about whether a primary school could cater for older pupils, a point denounced as patronising by Jean Roberts of the NEU when she was eventually allowed to speak having had her hand up for a long time.

Strategic Director of Children and Young People, Gail Tolley, told Cllr Jumbo Chan that she had raised with secondary school heads the possibility of them taking on the alternative provision but they had not been interested. Those recognised by the DfE as able to set up a free school could still apply during the procurement process. Cllr Chan said that an informal discussion was not sufficient and requested evidence of a formal consultation.  Union representatives protested that they had not been consulted as educational professionals on the Council's proposal.

In answer to claims that the secondary schools would welcome such provision Jean Roberts said it was these very schools, academies and free schools in the borough, that were excluding the pupils who will end up in the alternative provision.  There was a discussion among educational professionals after the meeting about the danger that the provision may end up as a 'sin bin' with disproportionate numbers of black pupils as happened with Units for Disruptive Children in the 80s. 

Simone Aspis, (see separate post below) had argued that outcomes of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) and Special Schools were poorer than for similar children integrated with support into mainstream.  There is a concern currently from Ofsted about the 'off-rolling' LINK of pupils by secondary schools. This is done so that the pupils are not counted in examination statistics thereby improving the school's league table position.

Will the existence of this provision mean that secondary schools will be tempted to off-roll or exclude even more children? (Recently a suggestion has been made that excluded pupils should be included in the excluding school's examination results to reduce the incentive to exclude.)

Will the unintended consequence of the Council decision be that a disproportionate number of black pupils will be sent to the provision - there is already a disproportion in those sent outside the borough to alternative provision? How does that sit with the principle of inclusion and Brent Council's current project to improve the educational attainment of Black Caribbean boys?

Cllr Mili Patel, argued that the Council has set out the condition that any provider would have to include a council representative and a secondary school representative on the trustees board.  She claimed it would be more accountable than academy boards who have no local authority representation. Furthermore Gail Tolley argued that because these were vulnerable pupils the authority did have powers to intervene as it had a safeguarding duty for all children in the borough regardless of the type of provision.

Asked what would happen if the authority was not satisfied with the performance of the provider Cllr Patel said that the contract could be terminated. One councillor rightly asked, 'what will happen to the children in the event of termination?'

One feature of the hearing was that three out of the six representations made at Committee were from the Young Brent Foundation, a registered charity LINK that claims to support 122 Brent young people's projects. They were led by their new CEO Chris Murray, who called on the committee to 'force through' the Cabinet's proposal.  The YBF was set up by Brent Council after they closed the Youth Service. They help voluntary organisation find funding as a replacement for council funded youth provision. It is largely funded itself through the John Lyon's Trust, the charity arm of Harrow public school. LINK

When it was set up it was emphasised that the Foundation itself would not directly provide youth services but would help others to do so.

Their contributions focused on the benefits of the wrap around youth provision proposed for Roundwood now that the free school will pick up the bill for the maintenance of the site itself via a separate funding stream. They  paid little attention to the reason for the call-in, which was not to oppose youth provision, but to ensure the quality and accountability of the alternative provision.

CONSULTATION

I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Brent Council regarding consultation on the proposal for Roundwood Centre and am still awaiting a response:

The Cabinet is making a decision on the future use of the Roundwood Centre at its meeting on April 15th including alternative provision via a free school sponsor and youth work.

The Cabinet paper lists the followign consultations:

"9.1 The council has consulted with young people at Roundwood Youth Centre (including young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities), council staff and other stakeholders on the proposed Alternative Provision schools and Youth Offer. See time-line below:
 Youth Offer consultation with Brent Youth Parliament, January 2018;
 Youth Offer consultation with Youth Offending Service, February 2018;
 Design of the Youth Offer site (Hackathon), March 2018;
 Consultation with Roundwood Youth Centre (RYC) staff about budget
proposals and changes to delivery at RYC, October 2018;
 Feedback on Youth Offer final design, October 2018;
 Children’s Commissioner takeover day (re Youth Offer), November 2018.
 Consultation with RYC service users, January 2019;
 Consultation with RYC service providers, January 2019;

Young people’s views have been sought from the Roundwood Youth Centre as well as from Brent Youth Parliament, Care in Action / Care Leavers in Action and other young people’s focus groups (as above). Young people were also previously consulted as part of the Council’s Outcome Based Reviews related to Gangs and Children on the Edge of Care, which have fed into proposals."

However there is no report on the outcomes of these consultations. Please supply all available reports/minutes on the above consultations before the Cabinet meeting.

UPDATE: PROPOSED ‘FREE’ SCHOOL CALLED IN BY BRENT COUNCILLORS - BRENT NEU 'APPALLED BY PROPOSED PRIVATISATION'

From the Brent branch of the National Education Union (NEU)

UPDATE: The Call-In will be heard by the Scrutiny Committee on Thursday May 9th 

Brent NEU Officers have written in the strongest terms to Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, after the Labour Cabinet voted to support a ‘Free’ School on the Roundwood Youth Centre site. ‘Free’ schools are academies and part of this Government’s privatisation of state education programme.

Brent NEU had been repeatedly assured that there were no plans for any more ‘Free’ Schools. Cllr Butt had also publicly assured the local Labour Party of this when the idea was first mooted. Yet that is exactly what is happening – with Brent actually being the ‘sponsor’. It is to be run by Brent Special Academies Trust. 

Now the decision has been called in by a group of councillors led by Cllr Jumbo Chan stating that the Cabinet has not fully explored options for a Local Authority controlled school to provide alternative provision at the site of the Roundwood Centre or other potential school sites in the borough such as the Roe Green Strathcona site.

Brent NEU understands that local Headteachers are opposed to a ‘Free’ School, and that some of them had initially been approached to take on Roundwood as an extension of their own school. We have been told that these approaches had not been taken up. We have formally requested, under FoI, copies of any correspondence relating to this as we do not believe this was fully pursued by the Local Authority.

Brent NEU fully understand and support the need for more provision for students who are temporarily excluded from school, but strongly maintain that such provision should be under LA control and not as a ‘Free’ School run by a Labour council and an academy trust. 
It has been national Labour Party policy since last year not to support any new academies or ‘Free’ Schools and, when in power, to allow academies to return to the Local Authority. Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, reinforced this message when he spoke to the NEU annual conference in Liverpool on 16^th April. A motion was also passed at the Brent 
Central Labour Party meeting on 18^tht April condemning this latest move by Brent Council. 

Hank Roberts, Brent NEU President and National Executive member said:

Has no-one at the top of the Council watched the Panorama programmes exposing the iniquitous practices of academies? I am sure they have, yet Cllr Butt and Cllr Sandra Kabir, who led the privatisation of The Village school, continue to support the privatisation of our schools supported by Gail Tolley, Strategic Director, Children and Young People. Instead they should follow the lead of other Labour Councils who are promoting the party line such as Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Camden and Redbridge to name but a few.

Editor’s Note: At the last Cabinet meeting when the free school proposal was approved local Labour Party member Graham Durham interrupted the proceedings to condemn the Labour Council’s move to invite potential sponsors to set up an alternative provision free school at the Roundwood Centre:

-->

Row looms over Brent Council's proposals for an 'Alternative Provision' free school

The proposal to set up a free school at the £5m Roundwood Centre has surfaced again to be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.  This time it is called ‘Alternative Provision Free School with Integrated Youth Offer from the Roundwood Youth Centre’ shortened to Alternative Provision School.

I covered the proposal that followed Brent Council cutting youth provision even more severely in its proposed budget  than hitherto, leaving Roundwood free standing with few direct services. Roundwood Centre’s funding source via the Big Lottery MyPlace scheme meant that it could not be closed by Brent Council without penalty.

On January 17^th I drew attention to the proposal for a free school/academy on the site LINK:

In addition the council proposes that a PRU (Pupil Referral Unit) be set up in the Centre. This would provide for pupils temporarily excluded from school. It would be classified as a new school and as such would have to be a free school or part of a multi-academy trust. It is proposed that it be run by Brent Special Academies Trust (currently consisting of Manor and the Avenue special schools).

Given Labour’s policy of not creating any new free schools and academies this is controversial within the local Labour Party. This is not only about the issue of lack of public democratic accountability of academies but also the very ad hoc way special needs provision is being developed in Brent and the backdoor privatisation of most of the borough’s non-mainstream special needs provision. A practical issue is whether the BSAT has any relevant experience in running a PRU -  a different kettle of fish from managing special schools.

The Budget Scrutiny Task Force recognised this dilemma stating:

It is far from ideal in our opinion, that this new school would be a free school, but unfortunately the law ensures that new schools opening are always outside of local education authority control. Perhaps a change of central government policy [a Corbyn government?] in future may allow the school to one day become part of the Brent family.

The arrangement is also not perfect for Brent because the asset would transfer to Brent Academies Trust meaning any additional income they derive from hiring out other rooms on site would not be retained by the council, However we will retain some oversite (sic) of the organisations as a senior officer will sit on the Trust’s board.

Later on the evening that this post was published Brent Counci leader Muhammed Butt was asked about it at a Brent Labour Party meeting and I published a follow up on Saturday January 19^th LINK:

According to several sources at the Labour Party meeting on Thursday evening Cllr Muhammed Butt said that the PRU (Alternative Provision) would be run by the Local Authority and was not suitable for a school.  He then muddied the waters by vaguely commenting that the authority was part of a consortium looking to set up a free school.

I sought clarification from Muhammed Butt asking:

I’ve heard that you told LP meeting last night that PRU at Roundwood Centre will be run by the LA and not a MAT. Is that correct? If so does Roundwood remain the property of Brent Council? I’d like to put the record straight if the Budget Scrutiny Report was wrong.

Butt replied, somewhat unhelpfully, that he never discussed Labour Party matters externally.

I also asked Brent Council Press Office for a comment but they did not respond.

The proposal now is not that the Brent Special Academies Trust runs the free school/Pupil Referral Unit but that Brent Council seeks a sponsor via the ‘Free School Presumption route.’:

The Free School presumption route whereby the council would advertise a proposal to establish a new school and invite DfE approved academy sponsors to apply to run the school. The council is responsible for providing a site and buildings.

The Secretary of State would make the final decision on a sponsor.

The Council often refers to the Brent ‘family of schools’ to include local authority schools,  academies and free schools, but only local authority schools are under direct Brent Council oversight and democratic accountability and funded via the Council’s distribution of the Direct Schools Grant . Academies and free schools are directly funded by the government.

The Cabinet report notes:

Once open the council would commission places from the Alternative Provision School, funded from the High Needs block of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Currently, the council commissions alternative provision places from within the borough at Brent River College and from external providers. The Alternative Provision School would allow an increased proportion of pupils to be placed in Brent. The procurement process should therefore consider the rates the provider would charge the council and secondary schools for commissioning places, as this will have an impact on the DSG, and there is potential to achieve better value for money for High Needs Block.

-->

On the Budget Scrutiny’s concern over the transfer of the asset the Cabinet report states:

The intention is for one single overall provider working with relevant partners to deliver the Alternative Provision School combined with the integrated youth/community offer. The Council would retain the freehold for Roundwood Youth Centre but the deed of designation would transfer to the new provider, who would take on responsibility for maintenance of the building.

Clearly the ‘deed of designation’ needs careful scrutiny if Brent is not to lose another of its assets, albeit one protected by MyPlace restrictions. The association of the proposal with budget cuts is made clear in the Financial Implications section of the Cabinet Report:

The budget for the Roundwood Centre and the associated MyPlace budget totalled £360k before a reduction of £250k is applied, as per the youth service saving (ref no. CYP005) approved as part of the 2019/20 budget setting process in February 2019. The saving to the General Fund is to be achieved by ending Council run and directly funded youth services from the site creating savings on premises costs, and creating a different model of community and voluntary provision. This model would come into effect when the Alternative Provision School plans to open in January 2020, so the running costs of the Roundwood centre and cost of any operational activity up until this date would need to be 
contained within the residual £110k budget, or alternative in-year savings would need to be found across the Inclusion service.

It is proposed that the Alternative Provision School would be based at the Roundwood Centre. As mentioned in paragraph 5.1, the Roundwood Centre is subject to a Big Lottery Fund MyPlace grant agreement which is protected by a restriction on the council title at the Land Registry and therefore the form of lease would be subject to the approval of the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 


The Council claim that they have sought and received agreement in principle from the DCMS for the proposed use of this MyPlace funded site. 

Following on from the controversy over the  Village School academisation and the suggestion from Labour Party members  that Brent Council, and especially its leader Muhammed Butt, were not following Labour Party policy on academies and free schools, this proposal is likely to be seen as another move to privatise education.  Following on from the almost total (apart from The Phoenix) academisation of SEND education, provision for vulnerable pupils is also being removed from Brent Council responsibility and accountability.

The Cabinet report gives a long list of consultations but nowhere is there a report on the outcome of the consultations. We are expected to presume that that the consultees were in favour. I have submitted an FoI request asking for any reports/minutes on the outcome of the consultations. LINK

Confusion over alternative education provision at Roundwood Centre

On Thursday I published an article on the Counci's plans for the Roundwood Centre which, according to the Budget Scrutiny Panel  included the building accommodating a Pupil Referral Unit  to be run by the Brent Special Academy Trust LINK.  This would mean handing over the £5m asset to the Trust. The Panel must have got this information from somewhere because the original budget documentation merely said:

Site to be used for an Alternative Provision educational setting with evening and weekend activities being provided by the voluntary sector. 

There could be community concerns about the future arrangements. However the transformation of the Roundwood site to an educational setting with a wrap-around activity offer will mitigate community concerns.

According to several sources at the Labour Party meeting on Thursday evening Cllr Muhammed Butt said that the PRU (Alternative Provision) would be run by the Local Authority and was not suitable for a school.  He then muddied the waters by vaguely commenting that the authority was part of a consortium looking to set up a free school.

I sought clarification from Muhammed Butt asking:

I've heard that you told LP meeting last night that PRU at Roundwood Centre will be run by the LA and not a MAT. Is that correct? If so does Roundwood remain the property of Brent Council? I'd like to put the record straight if the Budget Scrutiny Report was wrong.

Butt replied, somewhat unhelpfully, that he never discussed Labour Party matters externally.

I have requested clarification from Brent Council's Press Office.

Gibb offers Labour MPs & Bob Blackman help in setting up a Hindu Free School to replace Swaminarayan

In a debate yesterday Nick Gibb (Minister of State for School Standards) offered two Labour MPs, Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) and Stephen Pound (Ealing North) help with setting up a Hindu free school to replace the private, fee-paying Hindu Swaminarayan which is to close by 2020.  He advised them to seek help from the New Schools Network and once the proposal was in play promised he would allocate an officer from the DfE to help the proposal reach fruition. He offered to meet the two MPs and Bob Blackman, Conservative MP for Harrow East, to discuss particular proposals. Full Hansard report HERE.

During the debate Sharma praised Blackman for securing the site for the school when he was leader of Brent Council and claimed that Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent Central) was a 'fervent' supporter of the school and that Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)  had been working with the community to try and find a solution.

The intervention by the Labour MPs is particularly interesting because of the current debate within the Labour Party about its attitude to free schools and academies and whether policy should be to reintegrate them into the local authority, as well as its policy on religious schools. The alternative view is a reiteration of the Blairite line 'standards not structures.'

Blackman took a swipe at Sladebrook High School, a local authority school that had previously occupied the site, describing it as 'notorious' and before closure having more teachers than children. Despite assurances from the Swaminarayan Hindu Mission that they did not want to profit from the site he asked the Minister what protections could be offered for the site which has been 'a school site forever' having been built at the same time as the Stonebridge Estate. Blackman made a vague reference to a possible site for a Hindu free school in Northwick Park.  One of the options for the One Public Estate redevelopment of Northwick Park included a secondary school but this was not the preferred option. There is also a proposal on the table for a North Brent Secondary School.

Gibb replied:

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is, of course, right that the Government’s academies and free schools programme has enabled a number of Hindu faith schools to be established in the state sector for the first time, as free schools set up by organisations such as the Avanti Schools Trust. He pointed to a new school opening this September under the free schools programme. There is also the Avanti House Primary School in Harrow and the Avanti House Secondary School, which were opened under the free school programme—the secondary was rated good by Ofsted in May 2018. There is the Krishna Avanti Primary School in Croydon and the Krishna Avanti Primary School in Leicester, again set up under the free school programme.

There are more than 2,300 independent schools in England, and between them they provide an enormous variety of educational experiences for our young people. Around 7% of children are educated in the independent sector, which is a significant contribution to our education system. Some schools in the independent sector will close and some will open. The independent sector also has a number of faith schools, which bring their own distinctive flavour. Schools with a religious character also play a strong and positive role in the state-funded sector, making up a third of all schools. They are some of our highest performing schools and are often popular with parents, giving them greater choice and the opportunity to pass on their ethos to their children.

Although the independent school sector as a whole is flourishing, with broadly constant numbers of schools and pupils over the past few years, it is inevitable that there will be changes. Every year, a number of independent schools close—usually about 70 or 80. Other schools open their doors in broadly the same numbers, but the profile of the sector tends to change over time in response to a number of factors, including market pressures. We should not forget that independent schools, whether run by charities or as businesses, operate in the marketplace. The decision to close an independent school is a matter for the owner or proprietor alone, except for the small number of cases when the Government seek to close a school because of a serious and extended failure to meet the independent school standards; that has not been the case for the Swaminarayan School.

Unlike state-funded schools, independent schools do not have to go through an approval process before they close. Although the owner or proprietor is asked as a matter of courtesy to inform the Department for Education that the school can be removed from the register of independent schools, there is no obligation to give the Department any details of the reason for closure. The Department passes what it knows to the relevant local authority, in case the closure results in demand for state-funded school places.

It is, of course, always a priority, whenever an independent or state school closes, to ensure that alternative schools are found for the pupils. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is absolutely right to raise that important issue. It can be a very difficult time for families, and sometimes there are added time pressures. Families were told about the closure of the Swaminarayan School well in advance. That is not often the case, and it will assist parents who are currently sending their children to the school.

​

I turn to the closure. Although the school is not in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, it is likely that many children from families in his constituency attend it. Naturally, those families will have found the announcement of the closure disappointing. It is a reasonably sized school: in January 2018, it had 420 pupils, although only 377 are expected to be there this September, and it caters for an age range of between two and 18 years. When it was inspected in 2014, the Independent Schools Inspectorate found that the provision was excellent. The October 2014 report says the school:

“enables pupils to obtain excellent standards in their work and to develop outstanding qualities as young people”.

It also says:

“Both at GCSE and in the sixth form, pupils benefit from first class curricular arrangements, and from a wide-ranging programme of activities”.

That reflects what the hon. Gentleman said. As I said, there is no requirement to give the Department specific reasons for closure, but our understanding from statements supplied by the trustees is that the reasons are primarily financial, and that falling pupil numbers are the driver. The closure of all parts of the school is now planned to take place in 2020, to give parents the maximum amount of time to find alternative schools.

The school has a designation as a school of religious character and a declared religious ethos of Hinduism, although not all the pupils who attend are of that religion. It is right to acknowledge that the closure of a school with a specifically Hindu ethos is a matter of regret, simply because at present there are relatively few other schools of that nature in England. There are two primary academies, four free schools and an independent school. Most Hindu children attend schools in the state or independent sectors.

As I have suggested, there is nothing the Government can do to stop the closure now that the trustees have taken the decision. We do not fund independent schools, and nor do we come to arrangements that are designed to help them overcome financial difficulties. That is ​what being independent is about; it is not just about giving schools greater freedom to operate in the way they want.

I am sure the school will work closely with the local authority and parents to ensure that alternative schools can be found for the children who are still at the school in 2020. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the site. If it had been a state school, there are particular provisions to ensure that the first option is for it to open as a free school. As it is an independent school, I will write to my hon. Friend in technical terms about whether there are provisions in statute that can enable the site to continue to be used for educational purposes, or whether it is free for the owners to dispose of as they wish. I will write to him to confirm that position.

I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said. The priority over the next two years must be to ensure that the pupils who would have been at the school in 2020, had it remained open, are found alternative places.

We give a lot of help to groups that wish to set up free schools. The New Schools Network is the starting point of that help; once a proposal is in play, we will allocate an official in the Department to help it come forth. A number of Hindu free schools have already been established through that process, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), if they want to meet to discuss particular proposals for a Hindu free school to replace the Swaminarayan School.

Gladstone Free School throws in the towel having spent thousands without educating a single pupil

Gladstone School, initially a secondary free school planned for the Gladstone Park area in Brent, has thrown in the towel having again failing to find a site and having to tell children expecting to attend in September that they will have to find another school.

On the 'school's' website today (I put 'school' in quotation marks because it has never educated a single child)

It is with great regret that we must announce the end of the Gladstone School project, due entirely to a failure to find a suitable site.

As many of Brent’s parents already know, a change in government policy in 2014 blocked the school’s plans to open in a temporary site at the last minute, forcing us to defer opening. A site was identified for a 2015 opening, but in February last year negotiations with the site owner collapsed, along with our chances of opening that year. Since then, no further site has been found, despite the full support of Brent Council who have long recognised the need for more secondary school places.

Since we first floated the vision of a parent and community led school, we have been met with enthusiasm, interest and support – locally, nationally and indeed internationally. The depth of that support has kept us fighting for a new school for so long. However, faced with the continued absence of a possible site, the decision has been made to cancel the project altogether.

We are very sad that we will be disappointing the many parents and young people who responded so warmly to our ideas, and would like to thank you for all your support over the last four years.  

Maria Evans 

Chair of Governors

Putting aside the issue of the plans for the school, which have not been put to the test, questions have to be asked about government  free school policy when the Education Funding Agency and DfE are unable to find a site for a school but continue funding it.

Brent schools could have used the money well for actual children rather than the cash going down the drain on something that is not much more than a website, illustrated with stock photos of uniformed child models, and a salaried Principal who has no building, no staff and no pupils.

Background from a previous blog HERE