Russell Education Trust/Russell Group Universities

Just two last points:

1 It's Brentwood not Brentford

2 The national average secondary school pupil/teacher ratio is 15.6, so 18 teachers (and there's no indication that they're all full time) for 300 pupils is a high ratio - and there aren't even any small option groups at GCSE or A level to worry about yet - that's my point!

I believe it could be a Catholic maintained school. The court case has set quite an interesting precedent. ;-)

I agree with the others - it's a totally daft way to build a curriculum. Not only that, but the free school in question is supposed to have specialisms, which are not reflected in the curriculum design. If the curriculum hasn't yet been decided, why on earth publish something which is just a rehash of the National Curriculum?

I can only hope that the steering group of the new free school asked some very searching questions about the demise of Parsons Mead School and how the £16million which was raised from selling the site to a developer is being used. I also hope that the group asked some very searching questions about RET's actual provable role in London Challenge, because there's quite a lot available online about the project, but I haven't been able to find one reference to Education London/Russell Education Trust's involvement, apart from one reference on a 2020- hosted site (2020 was until recently another of the Lynchs' companies). I wouldn't expect you to publish the replies, but I sincerely hope that you DID ask the questions!

Just coming back to this thread, but want to pick up about TAs.

Talkinpeace....do you have a primary school background? Maybe that explains our differing views about TAs. In my opinion, TAs are overused in secondary schools. In many classrooms they don't have a defined role and are actually quite disruptive to learning. Pupils come to rely on them doing the work for them. At the other end of the scale, some of the neediest pupils are fobbed off with the worst trained adults.

And, yes, I'm aware that some TAs are brilliant!

I'm old enough to remember a time when it was the norm not to have any TAs in a secondary school classroom and I really would like to see some solid research justifying their place in secondary schools. For me, warning bells ring when I see so many!

"prefer not to name it publicly"

I don't particularly want to give my location away publicly. Plus its a complex situation that's been covered extensively on other threads, so I don't want to bring it into this conversation. It's not really relevant to this thread - I just know Talkin likes to see some evidence!

Yes, really. I will PM you the link, but prefer not to name it publicly.

Jesus, stealth maintained schools that can't be named. Whatever next?

"Really?"

Yes, really. I will PM you the link, but prefer not to name it publicly.

A new maintained school has recently opened up near us
Really?
I've done a bit of a search and can only find existing schools moving into new buildings.
No evidence on the Dfe website of what you say.

"because they put them in areas of need so they were full within two or three terms"

No, they opened with a (possibly) full Year 7 only, then the following year they had a Y7 and Y8, then the next year a Y7/Y8/Y9. They built up by one year group each year. (Otherwise, where did all the older students come from?)

A new maintained school has recently opened up near us (yes, it can be done ... there are still routes open to do that, they're just not straightforward), and it is building up in the same way.

It's the way most new schools build their curriculum
did they tell you that or do you have independent evidence?

just that until the block on LEAs opening schools
it was certainly NOT how LEAs opened new schools
because they put them in areas of need
so they were full within two or three terms

"Which is a very silly way to build a school's curriculum."

It's the way most new schools build their curriculum. Schools are funded on a per-pupil basis (with some start-up funding for new schools tp stock classrooms with books etc), so when they start with just one year group and build up from there then their curriculum grows with them. It would be the same for a new maintained school, if any were able to be opened at the moment.

Once a school is large enough to support a full time Latin teacher (for example) then there is no reason why they shouldn't employ one in order to maintain continuity. It would be a waste of money for a school with 150 Year 7 pupils (or 300 Y7&8 pupils) to employ a full time Latin teacher (for example) unless they also taught a subsidiary subject.

(e.g. if an English specialist teacher has Latin or Mandarin as her secondary subject, those might be added to the curriculum).

Which is a very silly way to build a school's curriculum. What happens if the English teacher leaves or, worse, goes long-term sick? Do you look for an English teacher who can recruit Mandarin? Small pool, to put it mildly. Do you recruit a part-time Mandarin teacher, and if so, out of what budget? Or do you just drop the subject?

One of our local comps played this game, and offered all sorts of languages which sounded terribly impressive. Not a single child, over the course of some years, took one through to GCSE, because to teacher who happened to be able to do a bit of whatever stayed long enough, and the school simply couldn't recruit replacements.

A curriculum means stuff the school commits to offer over a sustained period, such that a child arriving in Y7 stands a reasonable chance of being able to take a GCSE in it. It doesn't means odds and ends of well-intentioned hobby teaching which depends on the presence of particular well-intentioned teachers?

"so why ARE they passing themselves off as a famous University grouping?"

They're not. Any more than Russell Grant is passing himself off as a famous university grouping, or Russell Investments, or Hotel Russell, or Russell Europe, or Russells of Clapton.

"and yet you have not sought evidence and proof."

Of what? That they won't employ unqualified teachers in the future? It's not possible to prove that. But they have said that they won't.

I haven't hunted down the CVs of their existing teachers any more than I have done for other local schools, but then nobody has ever doubted it before you started throwing around mud on Mumsnet. In the light of your attack I will certainly suggest to them that they put some additional information on the school websites, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to finish their Christmas holidays first.

I have been working with them for the last 2 years
and yet you have not sought evidence and proof.

so why ARE they passing themselves off as a famous University grouping?

"you clearly believe everything they say"

You are clearly determined to disbelieve everything they say. I have been working with them for the last 2 years and have no reason to doubt it. You are politically opposed to free schools, so want to believe that everyone associated them is dishonest.

"other than them being god botherers .."

They provide the educational support to local groups wanting to set up their own schools. Some of their schools are faith schools and others aren't. That is defined by the local group, rather than by RET.

"Spreading doubt on Mumsnet"
hmmmm
you clearly believe everything they say
I am awaiting concrete evidence in support of the assertions
if that evidence is forthcoming, other than them being god botherers I have no problem with them
oh, except that Free schools are a looming car crash of accountability and governance

"indeed, but a lack of transparency is the first thing to look for. just ask the lady who is spending Christmas in prison this year and next as a result of my work"

Perhaps, but she was presumably convicted based on more concrete evidence. I hope you didn't spread doubt about her on Mumsnet before she was convicted.

"The link to their website you quoted says: Yes – we will employ qualified teachers with a range of experience"

The link I quoted says "Despite the recruitment freedoms available to free schools and academies, we can confirm that only qualified teachers will be employed".

indeed, but a lack of transparency is the first thing to look for

just ask the lady who is spending Christmas in prison this year and next as a result of my work

"I make my living by getting past the puff and ascertaining the truth"

As an auditor you would need evidence to back up claims of wrongdoing.

wrigglingandgiggling
and they get a lot of applicants (500 at Hove for 8 positions)
believe what you want to believe - its a faith school after all.

I'm an auditor.
I make my living by getting past the puff and ascertaining the truth.
The link to their website you quoted says
Yes – we will employ qualified teachers with a range of experience.
but note the lack of the word only / exclusively
so to fit with that assertion, only one of their teachers needs to be qualified
does not fill me with assurance

And as for the local schools
They're all converter academies, or transformational academies, so have just as much freedom to employ unqualified teachers as free schools
they do indeed have that freedom because the idiot gove wants to de professionalise teaching but only for staff recruited after conversion and before Ofsted put a spanner in those works.

"Then you clearly have lower standards than I . I do not just accept assertions - I demand evidence"

Then you should look for evidence that they don't employ qualified teachers before you publicly spread doubt on the matter. There is nothing in their adverts that suggests they encourage unqualified applicants, and they get a lot of applicants (500 at Hove for 8 positions), so there is no reason to suspect they might need to. Other than that I have no reason to doubt their word, or what they have said publicly at parents' evenings and similar events, or online.

I've just looked at my local secondary school websites and they don't publish detailed qualifications for all of their staff either. They're all converter academies, or transformational academies, so have just as much freedom to employ unqualified teachers as free schools (which are just newly created academies).

I think Talkin has a point. How difficult can it be to add "PGCE" to the "BSc" or "BEd" after someone's name? I would hope that the TAs are also qualified and again, there should be no issue listing what level they have attained. I find it quite shocking that it can be considered acceptable NOT to publish basic biographical information about owners/trustees/teachers of any school, be it a free school or any other kind.

Wrigglingandgiggling
I can't. They have told me they don't. Prove that they do.
Then you clearly have lower standards than I .
I do not just accept assertions - I demand evidence.
If they are not willing to post the qualifications of their teachers on their website (as many other schools do) I will always assume that they have something to hide.