Russell Education Trust/Russell Group Universities

"as well as following proper procedures when appointments are made and services are procured"

They are following proper procedures, agreed in full consultation with the DfE. I know the sub-trust model for the first two schools was complicated to understand; but that situation has now evolved with the introduction of the multi-academy trust model. It makes the financing and procurement much easier to understand and audit.

^"The service provided would indeed explain ... "

They also provide services to the Welsh Government.

"I expect the fee to RET is explained in the same way"
RET receives Government funding in accordance with its funding agreements, to run its schools.

"I still think it should be accounting publicly for the money ..."
RET are accountable to the public via the DfE, in accordance with their funding agreements (did you read them yet?), just like any other Academy Trust (converter academies, transformational academies etc). They are regulated by the DfE. That is what exempt charity status means.

straggle,

Thank you very much for the page references. I had been looking for references to the original London Challenge, which was from 2003-2008. I believe the later initiative was actually part of City Challenge, which was a different (although obviously related) initiative. The service provided would indeed explain the the £1,015,122.95 fee from the DfE. I expect the fee to RET is explained in the same way, but I still think it should be accounting publicly for the money, as well as following proper procedures when appointments are made and services are procured. Incidentally, the latest company report I found shows that RET is in debt.

Having worked in education for nearly all my adult life, I'm no big fan of the old faceless local authorities. I witnessed too many examples of "I'll scratch your back...", so I'm well aware that public organisations aren't as accountable as one would like. I'm also aware from personal experience (although I'm not going to give details here) that this kind of thing is still going on in the DfE itself and its providers. Unfortunately the DfE is even more remote and inaccessible to most people than local authorities.

daphnedill The references I have found in the City Challenge report are

p.vii, 'In London secondary schools, consultants from Education London were viewed as particularly effective',
p.51 'Education London was awarded the first Challenge Service contract in 2007 to support the London Challenge ... Comments on the questionnaire, and the case study data in several schools showed that support from Education London was seen as the main factor leading to school improvement. They developed strategies for supporting secondary school improvement, including a standards-driven audit and a maths and English project. They worked with headteachers, subject leaders and teachers, and they developed handbooks for subject leaders which were distributed across all three Challenge areas, and received very positive feedback. A key element in the effectiveness of Education London was the experience and expertise of its staff. A testimony to their effectiveness is that many of the KTS schools have continued to use Education London after they have left the Keys to Success programme. '

Could their school improvement consultancy be a reason why they have been paid a large fee by the DfE?

I do think it is right to ask questions. Much of the publicity around free schools has been local not national, yet some local news outlets are little more than ad sheets which do not put questions to free school providers either - so it's left up to blogs. The providers are not answerable to parents and the public in the same way as local democratically accountable council staff and councillors may be, and it is immensely frustrating not to get answers direct. But for some providers (and all the profit-driven businesses) you are not even likely to find many parents admittting support, let alone company directors.

"I'd be interested to see somebody from RET themselves answer some of the questions ....."

One of the first questions I was asked on this thread was "do you work for RET" as if that would de-legitimise everything I said. Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't ..." .

Don't expect them to post to Mumsnet.

"I note that Private Eye has started following the money on some Academy chain schools where the Charity has subcontracted the actual running of the school to a profit making company ...."

RET doesn't fall into that category.

www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/steeringgroup.php

I'd be interested to see somebody from RET themselves answer some of the questions .....

I note that Private Eye has started following the money on some Academy chain schools where the Charity has subcontracted the actual running of the school to a profit making company ....

"My concern is with the lack of openness ("transparency" if you like) ..."

daphnedill, as I said before, I think reasonable answers can be expected to reasonable questions. However, you also need to treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

If your children's school's governors didn't have their profiles published on the internet, or the LA officers who ran your local education system for that matter, would you bombard them with requests for their CV, and write a blog about how their lack of response must mean they have something to hide? Would you proclaim that the fact you don't know exactly which schools they've worked at previously must mean that they have no experience to do the role? No, you'd assume that the people who appointed them had adequately checked their background, unless you had some specific reason to doubt it.

Perhaps what you're missing here is the fact that the free school approval process does include rigorous checks of capacity, capability and suitability. I'm not saying the DfE always get it right - there have obviously been some high profile mistakes on that front - but that doesn't mean that all free school trustees should be viewed with suspicion until you have personally vetted them. I'm sure there have been some dodgy goings-on at LA-run schools in the past, but the vast majority of those are left to get on with things without too much finger-pointing.

I'm happy to answer your questions, because I think it's important to set the record straight. However I can also understand why others have ended up closing the door on groups that have taken up a considerable amount of their time with questions that would more appropriately be directed at the DfE. After all, groups are simply trying to work within the framework that the DfE sets out; a framework that is constantly evolving. Sometimes it evolves in response to feedback from the groups themselves, because they don't always see things working properly either. I think everybody just wants education policy to be as free from politics as possible, to be able to get on with creating great schools and not be bogged down by nasty accusations from people who either don't understand, or don't like, the latest policy initiative.

Why should I be bitter? I don't live anywhere near Richmond, my youngest DC has almost finished school and I have no personal interest at all. I had a free place at a GDST school, my father went to Tiffins and my grandfather to Habs. My own DCs were the first in my family to go to a state comp and have done very well, but I made absolutely sure that I lived in the catchment area of an excellent school. I am 100% behind any initiative to ensure that pupils have a first class education, wherever they live.

I have a great deal of empathy with people in areas where school places are a nightmare and I have no doubt at all that the sponsors have worked extremely hard and sincerely to achieve what they have. I am not even totally opposed to the idea of free schools, especially those providing services to replace special schools and EOTAS provision.

My concern is with the lack of openness ("transparency" if you like) surrounding RET and some of the people connected with it. Over the last three years RET has received at least £788,970.60 from the DfE and Education London has received £1,015,122.95. (It could be more, but only individual payments over £25,000 are listed.) It would appear that the individual schools have received additional grants. This is public money and I, along with every other taxpayer, has a right to know that is not being siphoned off to individual directors and cronies, as happened with a4e and other outsourcing companies. I know for a fact that this has happened within the health service and some vocational training providers, so I can perhaps be excused for being somewhat cynical about education. If I were Margaret Hodge, I would definitely have some questions I would like to ask RET.

PS. I must have too much time on my hands, because I've searched for information about Education London's role in the London Challenge and I still haven't been able to find anything.

Daphne I share some of your cynicism about the Free School Strategy. I worry about the opaqueness and some of the players but if you are trying to make your points via the example of Turing House you are completely barking up the wrong tree. This is a school born out of deep dissatisfaction amongst parents with the Local Authorities handling of it's school place strategy, which leaves many parents without school places at primary level and with it being common for parents to feel forced to move or go private, if they can afford it at 11. There are nearly 5000 posts on the subject on the local site if you want some measure of the strong feelings, and the issues. Turing House has come into being because a group of parents, many already heavily involved in the local education scene, as governors, sitting on Council Committees etc. got together and decided to do something about meeting the parental need for an inclusive coed comprehensive school modelled on the local outstanding comprehensive schools (one of which incidentally is at the centre of the area of the borough with one of the highest rates of social deprivation so let's unhook the outstanding = middle class perception, post London challenge that is increasingly irrelevant, in London at least ) at a time when we are facing a huge bulge in pupil numbers. Turing Houses catchment was pinpointed on the area of greatest need, as agreed by the Council, an emerging black hole of provision, and socially pretty much representative of the borough as a whole rather than the pockets of middle class affluence. Parents in this borough are only too familiar with the loss of community when a black hole of school provision forces parents to move away (and I speak as one who was in that situation at primary level). Though it may be hard for you to believe, this is a Free School proposal Bourne out of genuine need and the local parents are deeply grateful to the parents and governors who have worked hard and sacrificed their time to make this much needed and wanted school a reality, with no other less than altruistic motives than to have a school place for their own children. As a local parent I have taken a deep interest and I know that RET ( who incidentally it never occurred to me were remotely connected to the Russell Group ) were selected as the provider of support and expertise that were the best fit with the group's aspirations.

In the context of what I Know locally your posts are coming over as unnecessarily cynical and bitter. I totally agree that we need to be questioning some of the processes and players involved in the current setting up of Free Schools. But Turing is an example of where it is actually meeting the needs of a community where the LA had let them down for decades.

daphnedill: "except to ask again why the would-be head ... was taken along to the DfE interview"

Perhaps you'd better explain why you think that's an issue?

He is a member of the steering group and made significant contributions to the proposal. From the interview guidance, the following should attend:

"The member of the group responsible for putting together your financial plans;"
"The member of the group responsible for putting together the educational plan (if this is more than one individual, then the key contributors should attend"

He wasn't principle designate at the time. That appointment process happened later, in full consultation with the DfE.

"As a matter of interest, do you know why notices appeared in the London Gazette on 24th December for voluntary strike-off of:RET King's Church of England School Brighton Trust, RET St Andrew the Apostle Greek Orthodox School Trust, RET Twickenham Trust"

Yes, I do. In 2013 the DfE introduced a new kind of free school funding agreement aimed at multi-academy trusts. Previously there was only one type of funding agreement, for single-academy trusts. Both funding agreements are explained here.

As stated here, "RET established its first two free schools using the Single Academy Trust model. It formed two sub-trusts, the Bristol Free School Trust and the Becket Keys CofE Free School Trust, which each signed free school funding agreements with the Secretary of State."

They were planning to use the same model for subsequent schools (hence the creation of the three trusts you listed). However, the introduction of the MAT model meant they could use that instead. It's much simpler (which is presumably why the DfE introduced it). Therefore the three sub-trusts for the new schools are no longer needed.

Errmm...I'm not clutching at straws!

YOU were the one who stated that Becket Keys has a high pupil-teacher ratio - it doesn't! The national average figure I quoted is from the DfE - ask them if you think it's wrong.

I'm working with somebody else on questions to the other questions I asked, so not giving any more details just yet, except to ask again why the would-be head of Turing House School was taken along to the DfE interview www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/dfeinterview2013.php

I know more about this process than I'm going to give away here and part of it is knowing the right answers and knowing the right people.

You're probably aware that the Commons Select Committee launched an inquiry into Academies and Free Schools, the deadline for which has passed. The terms of reference include procurement and recruitment. It will be interesting to see the results.

Ignore my comment in the last paragraph. It refers to another post. The query about dissolving the trusts still stands. What's going on?

As a matter of interest, do you know why notices appeared in the London Gazette on 24th December for voluntary strike-off of:

RET King's Church of England School Brighton Trust
RET St Andrew the Apostle Greek Orthodox School
RET Twickenham Trust

"Thank God I didn't believe the Ofsted reports."

Yep, well it's only one tool for judging a school. Most people use more than that. But it can be helpful, even if you just "read through the lines" rather than look at the headline judgement.

parents are starting to see schools they might not previously have considered being awarded an Outstanding grade instead.

One local comp: Outstanding to special measures in five years, as it turned out that they were fiddling their results with a massive dose of early entry, retakes, multiple entry, "equivalent" qualifications and so on. They went from Good to special measures in ten months, as the new framework revealed just how bad things had become.

I nearly sent my children there, so would have had a Y11 and a Y13 child at a school in special measures. Thank God I didn't believe the Ofsted reports.

"It's much easier to teach children who are with you for seven years and whose parents are supportive of education ..."

That's also why I mentioned the point that parents are starting to see schools they might not previously have considered being awarded an Outstanding grade instead. If that starts to reverse the flow of middle-class families from community schools to faith schools by even just a small amount, then it could potentially become self-enforcing, creating a positive feedback loop.

"the "can sometimes be just as difficult with high attaining children (as with) low-attaining children" argument is only true up to a point"

Yes, agreed. That's why the other two points are important. But it all helps.

Yes, pupil premium and a focus on progress is acting as a sharp wakeup to schools that have been coasting. However, the "can sometimes be just as difficult with high attaining children (as with) low-attaining children" argument is only true up to a point. It's much easier to teach children who are with you for seven years and whose parents are supportive of education, than it is to teach a mobile population whose parents are unsupportive. Schools with entrance criteria that are more complex than "turn up and ask for a place" will have more of the former and fewer of the latter.

"There's a simple reason why faith schools, particularly over-subscribed faith schools, will do better ..."

Yes, agreed in the "exam performance" sense in recent year. And that is what has driven the quality perception. However, there have been some fundamental changes recently, that will help to redress that:

1. Ofsted's criteria now measure performance using a value-added measure, rather than absolute results. In order to receive the top judgement of "outstanding" you have to show that your pupils are making outstanding progress, and that can sometimes be just as difficult with high attaining children than low-attaining children. As a consequence, many schools that are currently judged as outstanding will be downgraded at their next inspection, and parents are starting to see schools they might not previously have considered being awarded an Outstanding grade instead.

1. The pupil premium (provided it is used wisely) should help to address inequality. I think some faith schools may be struggling with finances because they don't have enough FSM children to be able to access additional funding.

1. The London Challenge, and its successors, have proved that with the right level of financial and management of support you can significantly turn around a school's performance, however disadvantaged its intake.

I would expect them all to do equally well, because of good management, and committed parents, rather than because they are one or the other.

There's a simple reason why faith schools, particularly over-subscribed faith schools, will do better: they're selective. Not on ability per se, but on stable families who can plan in advance. That makes schools' lives immeasurably easier.

Consider your local CofE primary. You're pretty much assured a place if you plan a couple of years in advance and turn up dutifully at the associated church. That means you are people who plan education two years in advance, and are living in the area semi-permanently. Oh look: the middle classes. You're only slightly less assured a place if you plan a couple of years in advance and turn up dutifully at some other church (older, more complicated admission requirements had a "that does not have its own associated school" clause, but that's much less common now). That means who are people who plan education two years in advance and are living in an area semi-permanently. Oh look: the middle classes.

That's why CofE schools have, compared to their neighbouring community schools, lower levels of FSM, EAL, SEN: they select for people who can and will plan in advance and navigate the system. The middle classes.

If a school set its admission requirement as "you must turn up to four meetings out of six over the preceding two years and write a 100 words on the subject of your choice" they would get the same effect.

"it doesn't justify more of them in general"

I agree. I think in some cases the parental demand for them has been generated by the perception (talked up by some politicians, and the churches themselves) that a faith school is automatically a good school. If you live in an area where local schools aren't performing well, then it's probably easier to say "we want a faith school because we don't have one and other areas do", and be listened to, than it is to say "we think local schools are badly managed and we can do better".

RET are helping to establish both faith and non-faith schools. I would expect them all to do equally well, because of good management, and committed parents, rather than because they are one or the other.

I"d question any free school that has CofE admissions criteria though, so I can see why Becket Keys was controversial. We have too many faith schools as it is. The Catholic Church has decided not to have further involvement in free schools now that it is sure it can continue to open voluntary aided schools. While there is a separate argument about whether faith schools should be opened up more with a fixed proportion of community places, it doesn't justify more of them in general. Or even 'Christian ethos' schools like ones run by Oasis or Chapel St - seems very nineteenth century to me.

Parents complain of lack of choice, imbalance, or unequal opportunity, e.g. where there are faith schools or single sex schools and their children do not fit the criteria. That may drive some to the private sector. The only new schools that have been created in the last decade have been more faith schools or sponsored academies which have usually replaced other schools - sometimes several in one area managed by the same sponsor. This feels like an even more reduced choice. So it is interesting where parents have demanded an alternative that resembles a conventional LA comprehensive school.

The problem with opening too many new mainstream fully comprehensive schools is that it creates surplus, with a bang. If it creates surplus in sponsored academies (as with predecessor schools they are often less popular) it goes against government and often LA policy. So instead we have this mish-mash - more of those schools which offer unequal opportunities, more faith schools, more single sex. And the programme is seen as a market opportunity by edu-businesses hoping to profit whether by economy of scale or future changes in the law and politicians aiming to encourage that.

So there will be some free schools that could provide some needed balance in areas of increasing shortage. But others just perpetuate the inequalities in the existing system. And on top of that for-profit providers view free schools and also sponsorship of existing schools as a market opportunity. The policy doesn't work on the whole, but it is worth assessing each school and provider on its own merits.

"The LEA has no obligation to make their lives easier."

I agree, and think the reverse is true .... that state schools can and should aspire to compete with some local private schools on quality of teaching and learning, despite having less financial resource.