You are on record as saying 'good parents' would support the Academy, and would not deny their children the 'good opportunity' of associating with Winchester College. Are parents who oppose the Academy, bad parents in your eyes?
No – that is not my meaning. I cannot see why any parents would want to oppose the level of investment and reinvigoration that this scheme would bring to the local communities. Umm, see all my other comments.
There is no suggestion that opponents may be bad parents. Good.
Friday, 25 April 2008
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Dunn Deal
We are formulating a response to the question and answer session in the Midhurst and Petworth Observer given over to the man who supposedly hasn't made the decision about the academy: Cllr Dunn. Please watch this space- it is very important that we address a number of factual inaccuracies and half-truths, in addition to the fantastic spin he has put on this the re-organisation of our Rother Valley schools, especially the academy issue. He's done a pretty good job there, and may very well convince some people who take him at his word. We know that there is a lot more to the see and we think the public deserve to hear the whole story.
In the meantime, have you read the previous two posts? These were the bases for our press coverage over the past week. However, the story of the surveys came upon us very suddenly (as brought to our attention by concerned parents, some of whom were not NAME members at all). This is what the paper chose to cover. We think it is all important and we'd like to hear your thoughts on any of these issues, so leave a comment on any of our posts.
In the meantime, have you read the previous two posts? These were the bases for our press coverage over the past week. However, the story of the surveys came upon us very suddenly (as brought to our attention by concerned parents, some of whom were not NAME members at all). This is what the paper chose to cover. We think it is all important and we'd like to hear your thoughts on any of these issues, so leave a comment on any of our posts.
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Exit Poll (and enter poll)
Thank you to all of the voters of our on-line poll. The poll ended just after the Local Authority's consultation, and the results of the poll were a shocking indictment of the public's faith in the consultation process. Despite repeated assurances from council representatives that this was a genuine consultation, our blog showed that an overwhelming majority think otherwise. Only 9% of voters agreed that WSCC were conducting a true consultation, whilst a whopping 88% stated for the record that they didn't believe the consultation to be genuine.
The poll has now closed, but don't go away! We've got another poll posted, seeking your opinion on the time-scale offered to the Rother Valley for this academy proposal. Please have a look and vote on that, too. We may put another question up for a vote, but we are running out of room on the sidebar. Watch this space. In the meantime, we'd also be interested to hear why people voted as they did. Why do you think that West Sussex did not hold a true consultation? (Or maybe you're one of the few who have faith in this consultation and would like to let us know why). Leave a comment and tell us what you think.
The poll has now closed, but don't go away! We've got another poll posted, seeking your opinion on the time-scale offered to the Rother Valley for this academy proposal. Please have a look and vote on that, too. We may put another question up for a vote, but we are running out of room on the sidebar. Watch this space. In the meantime, we'd also be interested to hear why people voted as they did. Why do you think that West Sussex did not hold a true consultation? (Or maybe you're one of the few who have faith in this consultation and would like to let us know why). Leave a comment and tell us what you think.
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Consultation ends. Time to think again
This is the press release sent to the local papers on 8th April. We believe that it will be run in the M&P Observer next week, with some follow-up, but thought that you might be interested in the full content following the end of the consultation period.
This week marks the end of West Sussex County Council’s Second Phase Age of Transfer Consultation on Restructuring Rother Valley Schools. NAME campaigners against the proposed Academy are claiming to represent the public opinion which has formed during the consultation period.” We defy anyone to deny that the overwhelming majority at the two public consultation meetings on the Academy (at MIS and Lodsworth Village Hall) were against this privatisation plan” said spokesperson Simon Boxley, “WSCC cannot claim to have won the educational argument. This should not be about politics – it should be about children.” However, he continued,
“We must not be complacent. In other parts of the country Academy consultation results have been swept aside and ignored. In an online poll conducted by NAME during the consultation period, 88% of the nearly 200 respondents voted ‘no’ to the question ‘is West Sussex County Council conducting a true consultation?’ We must hold them to be true to the spirit of dialogue with our community. It’s time for the decision-makers to turn back from this process and consult us with real options.”
The NAME campaign has revealed findings that shed light on the Local Authority’s drive towards the Academy proposal. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, and subsequent follow-ups, the picture that emerges of the motives and process behind the decision is at odds with that portrayed by Council representatives, such as Robert Back’s claim of February 5th that the plan had only recently taken shape. When local headteachers met with the Director of Education in November 2006 in order to plan for the future of schooling in the Rother Valley, Robert Back stated “there is no immediate push from us, but we may well respond if there is pressure to push for system change.. Unless there is a clear steer that change is really desired, we would not come to you.”[1] At that stage County claimed that any proposed changes would take three years to implementation[2]. Six months later, an Academy for Midhurst was being discussed by the West Sussex Cabinet[3], and here we are 17 months later with wholesale restructuring planned for September! Pressure has clearly been applied and politically motivated decisions taken. The Department for Children Schools and Families acknowledge meetings between a few key personnel in the West Sussex system and the Minister in charge of Academies, Lord Adonis: “we know that Academy plans were discussed at these meetings, contradicting County’s claim that this was a ‘lucky last minute coincidence’” said NAME campaigner, Lizz Tinder. The DCSF have denied NAME access to minutes of these meetings, saying “The disclosure of early stage discussions [between Adonis and WSCC] is likely to have an impact on the potential Academy projects and so the success of the Academies programme as a whole.”[4] We say, what is there to hide?
With the proposed Academy’s national significance, the stakes are high; but we resist the role of subjects in a political experiment.
[1] Minutes, Rother Valley Schools and CYPS Discussion Meeting, Western Area Professional Centre, Tuesday 28th November, 2006
[2] Minutes, Rother Valley Schools and CYPS Discussion Meeting, Western Area Professional Centre, Tuesday 28th November, 2006
[3] Minutes, WSCC Cabinet, Extract from Action Notes of meeting held on 22nd May, 2007 obtained via Freedom of Information, request, January 3rd, 2008.
[4] DCSF Freedom of Information request response, by e-mail, 28th March, 2008
This week marks the end of West Sussex County Council’s Second Phase Age of Transfer Consultation on Restructuring Rother Valley Schools. NAME campaigners against the proposed Academy are claiming to represent the public opinion which has formed during the consultation period.” We defy anyone to deny that the overwhelming majority at the two public consultation meetings on the Academy (at MIS and Lodsworth Village Hall) were against this privatisation plan” said spokesperson Simon Boxley, “WSCC cannot claim to have won the educational argument. This should not be about politics – it should be about children.” However, he continued,
“We must not be complacent. In other parts of the country Academy consultation results have been swept aside and ignored. In an online poll conducted by NAME during the consultation period, 88% of the nearly 200 respondents voted ‘no’ to the question ‘is West Sussex County Council conducting a true consultation?’ We must hold them to be true to the spirit of dialogue with our community. It’s time for the decision-makers to turn back from this process and consult us with real options.”
The NAME campaign has revealed findings that shed light on the Local Authority’s drive towards the Academy proposal. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, and subsequent follow-ups, the picture that emerges of the motives and process behind the decision is at odds with that portrayed by Council representatives, such as Robert Back’s claim of February 5th that the plan had only recently taken shape. When local headteachers met with the Director of Education in November 2006 in order to plan for the future of schooling in the Rother Valley, Robert Back stated “there is no immediate push from us, but we may well respond if there is pressure to push for system change.. Unless there is a clear steer that change is really desired, we would not come to you.”[1] At that stage County claimed that any proposed changes would take three years to implementation[2]. Six months later, an Academy for Midhurst was being discussed by the West Sussex Cabinet[3], and here we are 17 months later with wholesale restructuring planned for September! Pressure has clearly been applied and politically motivated decisions taken. The Department for Children Schools and Families acknowledge meetings between a few key personnel in the West Sussex system and the Minister in charge of Academies, Lord Adonis: “we know that Academy plans were discussed at these meetings, contradicting County’s claim that this was a ‘lucky last minute coincidence’” said NAME campaigner, Lizz Tinder. The DCSF have denied NAME access to minutes of these meetings, saying “The disclosure of early stage discussions [between Adonis and WSCC] is likely to have an impact on the potential Academy projects and so the success of the Academies programme as a whole.”[4] We say, what is there to hide?
With the proposed Academy’s national significance, the stakes are high; but we resist the role of subjects in a political experiment.
[1] Minutes, Rother Valley Schools and CYPS Discussion Meeting, Western Area Professional Centre, Tuesday 28th November, 2006
[2] Minutes, Rother Valley Schools and CYPS Discussion Meeting, Western Area Professional Centre, Tuesday 28th November, 2006
[3] Minutes, WSCC Cabinet, Extract from Action Notes of meeting held on 22nd May, 2007 obtained via Freedom of Information, request, January 3rd, 2008.
[4] DCSF Freedom of Information request response, by e-mail, 28th March, 2008
Friday, 4 April 2008
“The worst that can happen is that you don’t make the progress you wish”
Paul Thompson was one of the many faces in the crowd at the MIS public meeting last Wednesday. He kindly sent this report to NAME.
The consultation meeting on Wednesday 26th March felt more like a ‘presentation’ than a ‘consultation’. A surprisingly large number of people crammed into the hall at MIS, in fact so unexpected were the numbers that there weren’t enough seats available.
There was an opening statement by Dame Jocelyn Barrow on behalf of the independent consultants. Dame Jocelyn informed us that ‘focus groups’ would be held with current students to determine their preferences with regards to the academy proposal, something which I am surprised hasn’t yet happened considering how far through the process we are!
Robert Back from the LEA was the next to speak. He revealed that the LEA was “completely in favour of an academy”, but agreed that “there are lots of strengths in the three tier system”. It shocked me to see how little knowledge Mr. Back has of the area, as he commented about the difficulties of teachers having to travel between the three current schools, something which doesn’t happen as each school has its own teaching staff. He also said that the academy is “the only way to get a 21st century building”, which isn’t true as there is still the option of the ‘building schools for the future’ (BSF) programme. According to Mr. Back however, the academy will “give the same deal but much sooner” which clearly isn’t true, as having a set of state run schools is slightly different to having an education system run by private sponsors. Interestingly, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) has commented that in order for an area to be considered for the BSF programme, local authorities are forced to consider including an academy proposal as part of the consultation, indicating that this proposal is being pushed through by unknown hands at Westminster who have no knowledge of the local area. Robert Back also encouraged the audience to dispel any opinions of current academies because “what happens to city academies won’t apply here”, although it is still unclear as to what these differences are. There is apparently an alternative being considered, which involves having smaller school ‘units’ on one site, but there is no mention of this in either the WSCC or ULT’s proposal documents. Mr. Back’s local knowledge was called into question when he commented that “a minibus will be provided to take children home” – a minibus? Does he know how many children will require this service?! Another telling comment by Mr. Back was that “academies receive sufficient money over the first few years”, but no comment was made about funding after the initial stages. My personal favourite quote by Robert Back during the evening was, “the worst that can happen is that you don’t make the progress you wish”. This is completely false. Once the land is given over to the ULT, there is no going back. Also, due to the questionable assessments provided by OFSTED in relation to academies, changes would be slow to be implemented so if the academy begins to fail, problems will take a long time to be corrected. But I suppose we won’t necessarily know if it begins to fail will we? If academies are exempt from the freedom of information act, don’t have to release subject specific exam results and are accountable ONLY to the secretary of state, poor results and standards could quite easily be hidden from the public, including parents.
The ULT then made a presentation which felt more like part of an open evening for the proposed academy. The ULT representative, Mr. Baker, said that they will provide a “download service” allowing teaching plans to be accessed by students. This university style education will surely lead to pupils skipping lessons, and seeing as how the exclusion policy is so strict in academies, the students who take advantage of this system will simply be cast away from the education system entirely. Maybe this is what Mark Dunn meant when he said that the academy’s pupils would be better behaved, because the students in the Midhurst area who are apparently “genetically modified” to be badly behaved won’t be accepted by the academy at all. But of course, this isn’t in any way selective is it?! ULT repeatedly referred to what employers want from the education provided by academies, but no mention was made of what universities may require. Universities will surely find it hard to compare students who learn the national curriculum to those who don’t. Will the qualifications offered by the academy even be considered by universities who follow a strict admissions policy? I also find it hard to believe that universities will choose to enrol students from an education system labelled as ‘failing’, which is undoubtedly what the academy will do. This is confirmed by DfES themselves who say that academies are only considered in areas with failing education systems (or in areas where new schools are needed and seeing as how the local schools already accept the entire catchment area, there is no reasoning for this either). In terms of governance at the proposed academy, the ULT representative as good as admitted that only one parent governor will be retained and that the ten additional governors from the local community would be “technically appointed by ULT” (the other four governors being the principal, one teacher, one staff member and one LEA representative). Mr. Baker also commented that “academies are scrutinised and monitored far more than any school”, which I’m sure everyone will agree is absolute nonsense. Finally, the representative said that “the decision will be made from the feasibility stage”, which contradicts the comments made by a WSCC councillor who commented at a recent town council meeting that the decision HAD been made and that the academy WOULD open in name in September this year. She also said that the consultation process had been badly handled by WSCC, and that she would be referring the matter to County Hall. This comment, which I can only describe as damning for WSCC, calls the whole ‘consultation’ process into question.
Twice during the evening, Robert Back referred to the academy as “the only show in town”. He agreed that “schools like MGS should never have been in special measures and the LEA should have spotted this”. This comment is of course true, but why does WSCC want to label the area as ‘failing’ by putting an academy in the Rother Valley, if we all agree that the education system in the area only went through a glitch and was never really failing? Yet again during the evening the “strong public support for change” was justified by the number of parents wanting a “change towards a two tier system”. Unless I’m very much mistaken, the word ‘academy’ doesn’t feature in the initial consultation, so why is this being used as justification for an academy in Midhurst?
During the question and answer session at the end of the evening, there were only a select few people who spoke out in favour of the academy, with the large majority of those present airing their disapproval of the proposal. There were several excellent questions put to the panel, including very passionate comments by two sixth-formers and one current MGS student. The applause for audience members who spoke out against the proposal was deafening, showing once again that the majority of the local community are not in favour of the academy.
Robert Back agreed that the timescale of the consultation “militates” against students, but that the academy is required to replace the “crumbling edifice” that is the MGS site. Again, I would refer people to the BSF programme which will provide the option of new buildings in a few years. Surely waiting a few more years for nicer buildings is better than being stuck with a sub-standard education provided by unaccountable, private sponsors for decades in the future.
By Paul Thompson (Former pupil of MGS and university graduate)
The consultation meeting on Wednesday 26th March felt more like a ‘presentation’ than a ‘consultation’. A surprisingly large number of people crammed into the hall at MIS, in fact so unexpected were the numbers that there weren’t enough seats available.
There was an opening statement by Dame Jocelyn Barrow on behalf of the independent consultants. Dame Jocelyn informed us that ‘focus groups’ would be held with current students to determine their preferences with regards to the academy proposal, something which I am surprised hasn’t yet happened considering how far through the process we are!
Robert Back from the LEA was the next to speak. He revealed that the LEA was “completely in favour of an academy”, but agreed that “there are lots of strengths in the three tier system”. It shocked me to see how little knowledge Mr. Back has of the area, as he commented about the difficulties of teachers having to travel between the three current schools, something which doesn’t happen as each school has its own teaching staff. He also said that the academy is “the only way to get a 21st century building”, which isn’t true as there is still the option of the ‘building schools for the future’ (BSF) programme. According to Mr. Back however, the academy will “give the same deal but much sooner” which clearly isn’t true, as having a set of state run schools is slightly different to having an education system run by private sponsors. Interestingly, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) has commented that in order for an area to be considered for the BSF programme, local authorities are forced to consider including an academy proposal as part of the consultation, indicating that this proposal is being pushed through by unknown hands at Westminster who have no knowledge of the local area. Robert Back also encouraged the audience to dispel any opinions of current academies because “what happens to city academies won’t apply here”, although it is still unclear as to what these differences are. There is apparently an alternative being considered, which involves having smaller school ‘units’ on one site, but there is no mention of this in either the WSCC or ULT’s proposal documents. Mr. Back’s local knowledge was called into question when he commented that “a minibus will be provided to take children home” – a minibus? Does he know how many children will require this service?! Another telling comment by Mr. Back was that “academies receive sufficient money over the first few years”, but no comment was made about funding after the initial stages. My personal favourite quote by Robert Back during the evening was, “the worst that can happen is that you don’t make the progress you wish”. This is completely false. Once the land is given over to the ULT, there is no going back. Also, due to the questionable assessments provided by OFSTED in relation to academies, changes would be slow to be implemented so if the academy begins to fail, problems will take a long time to be corrected. But I suppose we won’t necessarily know if it begins to fail will we? If academies are exempt from the freedom of information act, don’t have to release subject specific exam results and are accountable ONLY to the secretary of state, poor results and standards could quite easily be hidden from the public, including parents.
The ULT then made a presentation which felt more like part of an open evening for the proposed academy. The ULT representative, Mr. Baker, said that they will provide a “download service” allowing teaching plans to be accessed by students. This university style education will surely lead to pupils skipping lessons, and seeing as how the exclusion policy is so strict in academies, the students who take advantage of this system will simply be cast away from the education system entirely. Maybe this is what Mark Dunn meant when he said that the academy’s pupils would be better behaved, because the students in the Midhurst area who are apparently “genetically modified” to be badly behaved won’t be accepted by the academy at all. But of course, this isn’t in any way selective is it?! ULT repeatedly referred to what employers want from the education provided by academies, but no mention was made of what universities may require. Universities will surely find it hard to compare students who learn the national curriculum to those who don’t. Will the qualifications offered by the academy even be considered by universities who follow a strict admissions policy? I also find it hard to believe that universities will choose to enrol students from an education system labelled as ‘failing’, which is undoubtedly what the academy will do. This is confirmed by DfES themselves who say that academies are only considered in areas with failing education systems (or in areas where new schools are needed and seeing as how the local schools already accept the entire catchment area, there is no reasoning for this either). In terms of governance at the proposed academy, the ULT representative as good as admitted that only one parent governor will be retained and that the ten additional governors from the local community would be “technically appointed by ULT” (the other four governors being the principal, one teacher, one staff member and one LEA representative). Mr. Baker also commented that “academies are scrutinised and monitored far more than any school”, which I’m sure everyone will agree is absolute nonsense. Finally, the representative said that “the decision will be made from the feasibility stage”, which contradicts the comments made by a WSCC councillor who commented at a recent town council meeting that the decision HAD been made and that the academy WOULD open in name in September this year. She also said that the consultation process had been badly handled by WSCC, and that she would be referring the matter to County Hall. This comment, which I can only describe as damning for WSCC, calls the whole ‘consultation’ process into question.
Twice during the evening, Robert Back referred to the academy as “the only show in town”. He agreed that “schools like MGS should never have been in special measures and the LEA should have spotted this”. This comment is of course true, but why does WSCC want to label the area as ‘failing’ by putting an academy in the Rother Valley, if we all agree that the education system in the area only went through a glitch and was never really failing? Yet again during the evening the “strong public support for change” was justified by the number of parents wanting a “change towards a two tier system”. Unless I’m very much mistaken, the word ‘academy’ doesn’t feature in the initial consultation, so why is this being used as justification for an academy in Midhurst?
During the question and answer session at the end of the evening, there were only a select few people who spoke out in favour of the academy, with the large majority of those present airing their disapproval of the proposal. There were several excellent questions put to the panel, including very passionate comments by two sixth-formers and one current MGS student. The applause for audience members who spoke out against the proposal was deafening, showing once again that the majority of the local community are not in favour of the academy.
Robert Back agreed that the timescale of the consultation “militates” against students, but that the academy is required to replace the “crumbling edifice” that is the MGS site. Again, I would refer people to the BSF programme which will provide the option of new buildings in a few years. Surely waiting a few more years for nicer buildings is better than being stuck with a sub-standard education provided by unaccountable, private sponsors for decades in the future.
By Paul Thompson (Former pupil of MGS and university graduate)
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Investment in our community schools; no to an Academy
The following blog entry represents our response to a set of questions addressed to us this week by the local press.
Our evidence is drawn from a range of reliable sources including peer-reviewed academic research papers by Farnsworth (2006), Hatcher (2006), Wrigley (2007) and Titcombe (2008) and books by Ball (2007, 2008); the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (2007) and the MPs’ Committee of Enquiry into Academies & Trust Schools (2007); the 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers Academies Report commissioned by the Government.
Investment in our community schools; no to an Academy
Academies are schools runs by sponsors on the basis of a ‘funding agreement’ – a kind of contract – drawn up with the government. They are outside local authority control. The sponsors have control of the governing body, and some freedom to shape the curriculum. They do not have to comply with national pay and conditions regulations over how and whom they employ. This first rural Academy may seem like a ‘bold experiment’, but it is not in the best long term interests of its guinea pigs – our children.
The Academies programme remains untested, but such official evaluations as there are, such as the National Audit Office and House of Commons Public Accounts Committee reports cast serious doubt on Academies’ success in achieving results, the role of sponsors and Academies’ cost effectiveness.
1. Are Academies selective in their admissions?
There has been lots of evidence to MPs about Academies’ overt and covert admissions and exclusions practices which have enabled them to skew their intakes in favour of those from higher-achieving backgrounds. Much of the evidence in this area emerges over the longer term: those Academies which have been in existence longest have the most unrepresentative admissions. Many Academies have a significantly lower proportion of children receiving free school meals than their predecessor schools.
2. Are they accountable?
Only eight inspectors lead OfSTED inspections for all Academies. Under a 2004 protocol, OfSTED have a more supportive role for Academies than for other schools, compromising their independence. Academies do not have to publish their results by subject. They are answerable only to Secretary of State, not local communities, and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and, whilst we can choose not to elect councillors with whom we disagree, we’re stuck with the sponsors indefinitely.
3.Are they democratic? ie Is the community represented on the governing body and do communities get a say in the decision to set them up?
By law, the sponsor must have a majority holding on the governing body. For this new school of 1500, we would have only one teacher, one support staffmember and one parent who would not be ULT appointees. Those ‘community-members’ appointed by ULT are unlikely to represent parents’ and staff’s views. The community neither elected ULT nor invited them to take control of our school.
4. How do Academies perform in league tables?
Government claims that Academies raise standards are unproven, because their full exam data is kept secret. NAO reports and academic research often point to faster improvement under LA management before sell-off. Where Academies show marginal success, this is mostly for the higher-achieving children and can be partly accounted for by changes in pupil intake and the skewing of the curriculum. The use of vocational qualifications which count for four GCSEs has increased 12-fold in Academies, artificially boosting results in the short term.
5. What about exclusion policies?
Some Academies exclude children at up to ten times the National average rate. Children excluded from the proposed Midhurst Academy would have to travel some considerable distance to a local authority school. When Academies expel pupils, the local authority is left to pick up the bill for educating them – the Academy keeps the money. Proposed Midhurst Academy sponsor board-member, Richard Tice, favours removing parents’ right to appeal such decisions.
6. The setting up of Academies has been described as the privitisation of state edcuation, what is your view?
Privatisation ain’t what it used to be! Most commentators agree that new forms of privatisation blur the public-private boundry, and open the door for ‘flexibilisation’, ‘branding’ cost-cutting and competition now, and, sub-contracting, profit-making and buy-outs at a later date. Academies mark the first stage in a process of marketisation which may be completed by future governments. Make no mistake, you’re being sold the ULT brand! Hard-sell is not what schooling should be all about.
7. It has been said that local authorities are being 'bullied into accepting Academies to get money', is this true?
Many Academy ‘consultations’, including our own, are rushed and flawed and have no regard for the long term impact of school closure and relocation on communities. ‘Stakeholders’ often feel blackmailed into accepting an Academy, with little time to think through their own priorities for their communities: “no Academy, no investment!” WSCC said in November 2006 that it would not change education in the Rother valley unless under external pressure. Both the pressure and decision are highly political.
8. Are Academies fair on existing and new staff?
The MPs’ Committee of Enquiry documents Academies’ high staff turn-over rate and discriminatory employment practices. Support staff in Academies have seen their conditions worsen, and new teachers recruited to ULT Academies have been employed on contracts far less favourable than those transferred from local authority employment. Employees’ maternity rights have been eroded. Unqualified staff have often taken on teaching roles and the new Principal need not be a qualified teacher.
A positive future
What can ULT give us that a good community school cannot? It is children’s interests which should come first, not sponsors’. We believe in a positive future for Rother Valley community schools, retaining our influence over the use of our taxes, and upholding the rights of parents and children to a broad, rich curriculum. We do need investment in our schools, and we want to work with the Local Authority and governors rather than against them to ensure this investment is delivered. The rules for Midhurst’s Academy would be drawn up in a funding agreement between sponsor and government, and until we have seen it, we cannot know what we are being consulted upon. We reject the spin presented by sponsors and glossy ‘consultation’ exercises which are no more than advertising opportunities. However, we urge Rother Valley residents to complete the questionnaire (online at http://wsgfl.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/community-projects/aot--pfi/rother-valley/response-form-age-of-transfer-consultation.en;jsessionid=awKNDaseJOHf ) and let councillors know what you think. It’s just like voting: if you don’t vote, you can’t moan about the government you get. If you don’t respond now, you cannot complain when you look back on the year the educational heart was torn from our community.
Anti-Academies Alliance (2007) Report on the MPs Committee of Enquiry into Academies and Trust Schools, London: AAA
Ball, S. (2007) Education plc. Understanding private sector participation in public sector education, London: Routledge
Ball. S. (2008) The Education Debate, Bristol: The Policy Press
Farnsworth, K. (2006) ‘Business in education: a reassessment of the contribution of outsourcing to LEA performance’, Journal of Education Policy 21 (4) 485-496
Gorard, S. (2005) ‘Academies as “The Future of Schooling”: Is This an Evidence-Based Policy?’ The Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3)
Hatcher, R. (2006) ‘Privatization and sponsorship: the re-agenting of the school system in England’, The Journal of Education Policy, 21 (5) 599-619
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007) The Academies Programme: Fifty-second Report of Session 2006-07, London: TSO
National Audit Office (2007) The Academies Programme: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, London: The Stationary Office
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (2006) Academies Evaluation: Third Annual Report, Nottingham: DfES Publications
Titcombe, R. (2008) ‘How Academies Threaten the Comprehensive Curriculum’, Forum, 50 (1)
Wrigley, T. (2007) Report on academic success of the Academies programme, http://www.antiAcademies.org.uk/content/view/217/30/
Our evidence is drawn from a range of reliable sources including peer-reviewed academic research papers by Farnsworth (2006), Hatcher (2006), Wrigley (2007) and Titcombe (2008) and books by Ball (2007, 2008); the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (2007) and the MPs’ Committee of Enquiry into Academies & Trust Schools (2007); the 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers Academies Report commissioned by the Government.
Investment in our community schools; no to an Academy
Academies are schools runs by sponsors on the basis of a ‘funding agreement’ – a kind of contract – drawn up with the government. They are outside local authority control. The sponsors have control of the governing body, and some freedom to shape the curriculum. They do not have to comply with national pay and conditions regulations over how and whom they employ. This first rural Academy may seem like a ‘bold experiment’, but it is not in the best long term interests of its guinea pigs – our children.
The Academies programme remains untested, but such official evaluations as there are, such as the National Audit Office and House of Commons Public Accounts Committee reports cast serious doubt on Academies’ success in achieving results, the role of sponsors and Academies’ cost effectiveness.
1. Are Academies selective in their admissions?
There has been lots of evidence to MPs about Academies’ overt and covert admissions and exclusions practices which have enabled them to skew their intakes in favour of those from higher-achieving backgrounds. Much of the evidence in this area emerges over the longer term: those Academies which have been in existence longest have the most unrepresentative admissions. Many Academies have a significantly lower proportion of children receiving free school meals than their predecessor schools.
2. Are they accountable?
Only eight inspectors lead OfSTED inspections for all Academies. Under a 2004 protocol, OfSTED have a more supportive role for Academies than for other schools, compromising their independence. Academies do not have to publish their results by subject. They are answerable only to Secretary of State, not local communities, and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and, whilst we can choose not to elect councillors with whom we disagree, we’re stuck with the sponsors indefinitely.
3.Are they democratic? ie Is the community represented on the governing body and do communities get a say in the decision to set them up?
By law, the sponsor must have a majority holding on the governing body. For this new school of 1500, we would have only one teacher, one support staffmember and one parent who would not be ULT appointees. Those ‘community-members’ appointed by ULT are unlikely to represent parents’ and staff’s views. The community neither elected ULT nor invited them to take control of our school.
4. How do Academies perform in league tables?
Government claims that Academies raise standards are unproven, because their full exam data is kept secret. NAO reports and academic research often point to faster improvement under LA management before sell-off. Where Academies show marginal success, this is mostly for the higher-achieving children and can be partly accounted for by changes in pupil intake and the skewing of the curriculum. The use of vocational qualifications which count for four GCSEs has increased 12-fold in Academies, artificially boosting results in the short term.
5. What about exclusion policies?
Some Academies exclude children at up to ten times the National average rate. Children excluded from the proposed Midhurst Academy would have to travel some considerable distance to a local authority school. When Academies expel pupils, the local authority is left to pick up the bill for educating them – the Academy keeps the money. Proposed Midhurst Academy sponsor board-member, Richard Tice, favours removing parents’ right to appeal such decisions.
6. The setting up of Academies has been described as the privitisation of state edcuation, what is your view?
Privatisation ain’t what it used to be! Most commentators agree that new forms of privatisation blur the public-private boundry, and open the door for ‘flexibilisation’, ‘branding’ cost-cutting and competition now, and, sub-contracting, profit-making and buy-outs at a later date. Academies mark the first stage in a process of marketisation which may be completed by future governments. Make no mistake, you’re being sold the ULT brand! Hard-sell is not what schooling should be all about.
7. It has been said that local authorities are being 'bullied into accepting Academies to get money', is this true?
Many Academy ‘consultations’, including our own, are rushed and flawed and have no regard for the long term impact of school closure and relocation on communities. ‘Stakeholders’ often feel blackmailed into accepting an Academy, with little time to think through their own priorities for their communities: “no Academy, no investment!” WSCC said in November 2006 that it would not change education in the Rother valley unless under external pressure. Both the pressure and decision are highly political.
8. Are Academies fair on existing and new staff?
The MPs’ Committee of Enquiry documents Academies’ high staff turn-over rate and discriminatory employment practices. Support staff in Academies have seen their conditions worsen, and new teachers recruited to ULT Academies have been employed on contracts far less favourable than those transferred from local authority employment. Employees’ maternity rights have been eroded. Unqualified staff have often taken on teaching roles and the new Principal need not be a qualified teacher.
A positive future
What can ULT give us that a good community school cannot? It is children’s interests which should come first, not sponsors’. We believe in a positive future for Rother Valley community schools, retaining our influence over the use of our taxes, and upholding the rights of parents and children to a broad, rich curriculum. We do need investment in our schools, and we want to work with the Local Authority and governors rather than against them to ensure this investment is delivered. The rules for Midhurst’s Academy would be drawn up in a funding agreement between sponsor and government, and until we have seen it, we cannot know what we are being consulted upon. We reject the spin presented by sponsors and glossy ‘consultation’ exercises which are no more than advertising opportunities. However, we urge Rother Valley residents to complete the questionnaire (online at http://wsgfl.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/community-projects/aot--pfi/rother-valley/response-form-age-of-transfer-consultation.en;jsessionid=awKNDaseJOHf ) and let councillors know what you think. It’s just like voting: if you don’t vote, you can’t moan about the government you get. If you don’t respond now, you cannot complain when you look back on the year the educational heart was torn from our community.
Anti-Academies Alliance (2007) Report on the MPs Committee of Enquiry into Academies and Trust Schools, London: AAA
Ball, S. (2007) Education plc. Understanding private sector participation in public sector education, London: Routledge
Ball. S. (2008) The Education Debate, Bristol: The Policy Press
Farnsworth, K. (2006) ‘Business in education: a reassessment of the contribution of outsourcing to LEA performance’, Journal of Education Policy 21 (4) 485-496
Gorard, S. (2005) ‘Academies as “The Future of Schooling”: Is This an Evidence-Based Policy?’ The Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3)
Hatcher, R. (2006) ‘Privatization and sponsorship: the re-agenting of the school system in England’, The Journal of Education Policy, 21 (5) 599-619
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007) The Academies Programme: Fifty-second Report of Session 2006-07, London: TSO
National Audit Office (2007) The Academies Programme: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, London: The Stationary Office
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (2006) Academies Evaluation: Third Annual Report, Nottingham: DfES Publications
Titcombe, R. (2008) ‘How Academies Threaten the Comprehensive Curriculum’, Forum, 50 (1)
Wrigley, T. (2007) Report on academic success of the Academies programme, http://www.antiAcademies.org.uk/content/view/217/30/
Archived Material
It's the start of April and the end of the WSCC consultation phase. We're receiving a high volume of hits and there seem to be many new people checking the blog. So if you are a virtual new visitor, welcome. And also, do check, if you have time, some of our older posts to see how the campaign and opinions have evolved over these few short weeks. Futhermore, people are still commenting on older posts, and it's worth checking out what others have to say, too. (not everyone who comments is a fan of NAME!)
At the moment, the best way to see archived material is to click on whichever month you want to look at first, which will take you to a new page with that month's blog posts. You can find this under "Blog Archive" on the navigation bar on the left of the main web page. To see the comments, or to leave one, click on the heading of the entry which will take you to a separate page showing the blog entry, followed by the comments and an option to click at the bottom to post comments. Alternatively, you can just click on the yellow writing at the bottom of any entry which states the number of comments which will take you to a page specifically for posting a comment.
I am trying to find a way to make easy hyperlinks within this blog without messing up things I've already done. I'm not good with HTML at the moment and am very swamped with things. As soon as I can, I will try to give you an easy list of linked posts with in one post.
At the moment, the best way to see archived material is to click on whichever month you want to look at first, which will take you to a new page with that month's blog posts. You can find this under "Blog Archive" on the navigation bar on the left of the main web page. To see the comments, or to leave one, click on the heading of the entry which will take you to a separate page showing the blog entry, followed by the comments and an option to click at the bottom to post comments. Alternatively, you can just click on the yellow writing at the bottom of any entry which states the number of comments which will take you to a page specifically for posting a comment.
I am trying to find a way to make easy hyperlinks within this blog without messing up things I've already done. I'm not good with HTML at the moment and am very swamped with things. As soon as I can, I will try to give you an easy list of linked posts with in one post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)