Russell Education Trust/Russell Group Universities

the school newsletter on their website stating how being part of a choir can help students get into a RG uni

I assume you mean this extract from the newsletter:

"Russell Group Universities look for a commitment to music when deciding between some of the top students for their universities. Often they will specifically seek out students who are experienced choristers. With this in mind, we are constantly encouraging our students to look at joining a church choir."

I agree with you – it’s a load of rubbish and just shows how little the management at Becket Keys know about getting into Oxbridge or any other Russell Group Uni. I have twice attended talks given by Cambridge admissions tutors to potential applicants. The speakers went to great pains to stress that they take very little notice of extra-curricular activities when considering applications.

The Twitter feed did make me giggle a bit though. There was a tweet about the Year 7 disco...followed by some very devout-looking pupils in a choir! Hmmm...they do live it up at their discos, don’t they?

OP, I find those Becket Keys newsletters a bit offputting too.

"I'm rather worried that you seem to think that its OK that the trust model keeps "evolving""

I didn't particularly say whether I thought it was ok or not, but I am being pragmatic. It's a fact of life. People who want to help set up new schools have to work within the DfE's framework. The alternative is no school.

WrigglingandGiggling
I'm rather worried that you seem to think that its OK that the trust model keeps "evolving"
Once a school has been set up and its trust deed and funding agreement signed, it will not evolve any further from that point.
So if its wrong, it will stay wrong.
The contracts will be written with very little wriggle room and long notice periods.

Straggle, as I said before, the complex sub-trust model (used by BFS and BK) is evolving into a MAT model, in-line with the DfE framework. The MAT model is simpler, so is presumably preferred by those who may need to audit academy trusts. Those of us who have been working to set up the school locally are also very happy with the new model, and have been fully consulted on the change.

The Governing body hasn't yet been appointed, and you don't yet have visibility of the schemes of delegation, so perhaps you can reserve judgement for now.

As I said in my last post, maybe one day there will be a model for running schools that everyone is happy with, but I suspect that day is a long way off.

There are lots of different models for running schools. But it looks like TH as a school or parent group will not be signing its own funding agreement - unlike Bristol Free School where the original parent group is still recognised in its own right as 'Parent Voice' in the governing body. The Bristol parent group may have had some say on recruiting the head but the TH head was already a RET employee (unless his relationship was as a freelance?) and apart from two parents governors, all the other governors are appointed by (and could be dismissed by) RET.

It's a valid concern that RET's directors (which do include a husband and wife team) will have that degree of control over a school that started as a community campaign. It would be reassuring to see other teachers, more parents (or parent council) and perhaps an LA representative on the governing body as for the other sponsored academies in the area.

"It's another thing I hope the public accounts committee looks at."

Well, as I said before, if that evolves, fine. Trusts will evolve along with it. Maybe one day there will be a model for running schools that everyone is happy with, but I suspect that day is a long way off.

'I have heard it speculated that many of the converter academies will be encouraged to consolidate into MATs in the near future'

I hope not. Umbrella trusts or federations perhaps (or whatever new way Labour proposes for creating local oversight boards) but not multi-academy trusts. Converter or standalone academies have their own governing bodies that include a higher proportion of elected parent and teacher governors and even LA representation than academies run by chains.

And governance of a RET school by its own trustees is not analagous to the LA. LAs have not run schools directly since 1989 when local management of schools was brought in. They already had a lot of autonomy and the Academies Commission specifically pointed to the reduced autonomy of schools within chains compared to LA maintained schools. It's pointed out repeatedly on the LSN blog (e.g. here and here).

Of course, sponsors can have an important role in setting up a school or (now that LAs have been weakened by this government's policies) improving it in a time of crisis - the two free school failures so far were standalone. So it's logical that free schools may work with a sponsor. But I'd prefer it if sponsors could be sacked more easily and new legislation brought in to override funding agreements - schools within chains don't actually have a separate legal status. It's another thing I hope the public accounts committee looks at.

"The heads will be DfE (and, in this case, RET) puppets."

No headteacher takes kindly to being called a puppet. If they felt they were being treated like that then they would move on to another school. If they choose to work at an RET school it is because they like that model. (In the same way as a Harris school head would only take on the role if they liked the Harris model, and similarly with a West London Free School Head).

"They won't even have control over choosing the trustees or governors they want"

The RET trustees are responsible for Governance of all of their schools (analagous to the LA) and are accountable to the DfE. They appoint the local governing body. They also formally delegate a range of their governance responsibilities to the local governing bodies and Headteachers. Those schemes of delegation are documented, but not online.

"The original rhetoric about free schools included references to greater autonomy for local groups, whereas the opposite seems to be the case."

There is close partnership working between RET and its local groups. We wouldn't have got this far if that wasn't the case.

We chose RET because we didn't want to use the jigsaw approach of procuring services individually (as groups such as West London Free School have done), and because we also didn't want a "one size fits all" Academy provider.

RET is one of the few trusts that provide a core service that is common to all of its schools, while giving the individual local groups the freedom to define the vision and values. That is why they have a wide range of schools (CE, non-denominational, Greek Orthodox).

"it seems the new schools will have very little autonomy"

It is not currently possible for you to see how much autonomy they have because the schemes of delegation aren't online. They may be online in the future, but don't expect it to happen over the Christmas holidays.

"This company was selected before the Twickenham school was given approval, so the head will be tied into a contract he might not want even before he starts."

If there are issues with it then the Heads of the schools will feed that back to the RET board and the problems will be dealt with appropriately.

It is arguably more efficient than each school running its own separate IT procurement process or having its own network manager.

"As you claim to be one of the local people involved in setting up the school, how come you have first hand knowledge of the procurement process involved in this case?"

Because we work in partnership with RET and discuss things like this all the time.

The original sub-trust model was one way of formalising that partnership. The MAT model, with its schemes of delegation is another way of formalising it.

As I said before, academy trusts are trying to operate within a framework that has been set out by the DfE. The framework is constantly evolving, and trusts are evolving in line with it.

If you think the framework is a 'smokescreen' you should feed that back to the DfE.

Yes, and they have been selected through a thorough procurement process.

As you claim to be one of the local people involved in setting up the school, how come you have first hand knowledge of the procurement process involved in this case?

This company was selected before the Twickenham school was given approval, so the head will be tied into a contract he might not want even before he starts. Your point about MATs is a smokescreen. Many secondary schools don't even outsource this kind of service, because they manage it inhouse more efficiently by employing a network manager. The point I'm making is that it seems the new schools will have very little autonomy. They won't even have control over choosing the trustees or governors they want. I'm not doubting the legitimacy of this IT company, so the point about being approved/audited by the DfE is another smokescreen. The original rhetoric about free schools included references to greater autonomy for local groups, whereas the opposite seems to be the case. The heads will be DfE (and, in this case, RET) puppets.

"it's like going back to the old days when local authorities decided on its schools' suppliers (with all the "funny" handshakes)."

All Academy Trusts (including converter academies) are regulated by the DfE, who are in turn answerable to the Audit Commission for the proper use of public money.

I will leave it to others to give opinions on whether it is easier for the Audit Commission to keep an eye on thousands of individual academy trusts in comparison to a smaller number of multi-academy trusts. However, I have heard it speculated that many of the converter academies will be encouraged to consolidate into MATs in the near future, to make them easier to audit.

"Are you happy that RET is deciding who supplies IT support for seven years?"

Yes, and they have been selected through a thorough procurement process.

In the MAT model there are clear schemes of delegation between the MAT (which signs the funding agreement with the DfE, and so has overall responsibility for governance of the schools) and the local Governing bodies. Those schemes of delegation aren't currently online for you to look at.

Are you happy that RET is deciding who supplies IT support for seven years?

www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news/2171078/joskos-wins-schools-ict-deal

For all I know this company is brilliant, but it's like going back to the old days when local authorities decided on its schools' suppliers (with all the "funny" handshakes).

So now who's suggesting conspiracies?!

Anyway, I'm going to leave this debate now, because it's strayed, but it's been interesting and enlightening.

I still feel that RET would benefit from greater transparency and fewer suggestions of cronyism, so you can pass that on next time you see them, if you like. I realise that EL is a business and will go where the money is.

I hope it works out well for everybody concerned.

Ah yes. The school that she was offered down the road from the address the Councillor pays Council Tax on is the difficult to access one they offer parents who don't get any of their preferences from a large radius. It is a good school though, but with a diverse catchment. The one that she is appealing against has a tiny catchment of £m houses and 17 years ago siblings were being brought in by drivers in people carriers from Chiswick and even Chelsea. Funny that. Obviously we don't know the full facts of the case but I obviously hope they are not going to leave the door open again to people renting etc. and then moving back to their main address. There is a certain irony though given she was responsible for the policy that leaves many parents who live much further away with no choice but the former school.

Another judicial review here but I hope the council wins that one!

And it wasn't by the way the only issue on which the community felt their interests were being neglected by the Council leadership, there was another Judicial Review at the time. I could link you to a website that would provide similar evidence of community activism but on a Planning Issue. One might be an accident but two a tad careless

I think Batley was struggling in all senses for quite a while whilst BGGS had actually maintained it's academic reputation and numbers until fairly recently. I am sure it could have consolidated with BGS in a similar way to GSAL but it has something of a campaigning blue stocking tradition and the members of the Governing Body, mainly Old Girls, felt it was more in keeping with the founding ethos for it to continue to serve the girls of Bradford, in fact more in keeping with the founding tradition than independent status. Anyway I am sure that dealing with mixed ability and the requirements of OFSTED will present new challenges, I would have thought the school in a better position than Batley to meet them but surely it would be common sense to seek the benefit of any expertise within the LA / other state schools. And however you look at it, however long it takes an existing school and it's staff to adapt to their new educational environment a school building with state of the art sports, sixth form, IT facilities would be welcome in any area with rising school numbers.

Anyway as I say it demonstrates the diversity in Free Schools and that it is simplistic to assume it is all a feeding frenzy by aggressively profit driven operators.

What our situation demonstrates here is that LAs can be every bit as politically motivated and guided by vested interests, in contrast to the Turing proposers who have been careful to stay independent from the Catholic School debate and focus on meeting the community need that appeared to be being neglected in favour of a legacy project.