The ideological vandalism of the English education system

[daphnedill]

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/michael-gove-ideological-vandalism.html

What does the future hold for state schools?

gaba - The operators don't buy the land. It really is that simple. Many, possibly most, academies use land rented from the LA. If the land is transferred to the operator they cannot sell it or use it for any purpose other than running the school. They can only buy it if the school ceases to operate and the land is not transferred back into public ownership. You are seeing things that really aren't there. I am not making excuses for corruption. There is no corruption in the way public land is dealt with in relation to academies. There is no way to make a quick buck by setting up an academy then building flats on the land. It simply is not possible without breaking the law. By the way, I am not in a legal department anywhere.

daphnedill - That is the relevant legislation although it has been updated a little. The broad thrust remains the same. I don't know how you think the operator can buy the land. Parts 1 and 2 are about transferring land to an academy operator so that they can run an academy. Part 3 is about what happens when the academy ceases to operate and is the bit I have summarised. There are no powers that would allow the operator to buy the land at below the market price at the time of purchase. There are no powers that would allow the operator to buy the land unless it is no longer required for the academy.

OOps

Just read that over and it wasn't very nice sorry.

I was a little shocked recently, when looking at school transport policy in an area where I used to live (Oxfordshire). Becauase a new free school has opened, which for some rural pupils is closer than their existing designated catchment secondary, there is a proposal (which seems likely to succeed) to withdraw transport funding to the catchment school. This will force less well-off pupils - it is not an affluent area - to send their children to the totally unproven new free school, rather than the established catchment school. The catchment school was not over-subscribed, and there is not a shortage of secondary places locally.

It seems madness - to spend lots of money on a school that is not needed in its present location (main taklers seem to be children from a town some distance away, where a secondary is in special measures) and then force children who have a totally viable catchment school to attend it, through withdrawal of transport funding. Bizarre.

"There are no powers that would allow the operator to buy the land unless it is no longer required for the academy "

Ahh you mean like the sports fields that all got sold off last time around.

I can't imagine what they will pull next, maybe they will sell off the canteens to Mc.Donnalds. Or since they have already gotten away with erecting cell phone transmitters all over the kids schools, why not bury nuclear waste under the sandpit?

It's all in the best interests of the kids, because all that money goes to buyy text books right?

You've read the Guardian article on how private firms and the relatives of trustees are profiting from academies?

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/12/taxpayer-funded-academy-paying-millions-private-firms-schools-education-revealed-education

Even the Telegraph reported on the Guardian investigation.

prh what do you make of this story about a playing field in a school controlled by Lord Nash's Futures chain being 'released from educational purposes'? And who will profit from this - Westminster council, of 'homes for votes' and 'cemeteries for 1p' fame, which awarded Lord Nash Pimlico Academy in the first place?

www.westendextra.com/news/2013/nov/lord-nashs-future-academies-chain-under-fire-over-bid-axe-playground-pimlico-primary-s

gaba - The sports fields were sold off by LAs. But I agree it was a bad move, as was closing schools when the birth rate was rising.

Straggle - I am not familiar with the school concerned but having taken a look on Google Maps it seems we are talking about an area that is separate from the main playground and includes a fenced off basketball court which takes up about half of the usable area (which gives you some idea of the size). It is a playground, not a playing field. The surface is tarmac (apart from the basketball court), not grass. It is not clear how much use the school makes of this area. I have done some digging and this appears to be part of a plan to regenerate the area including provision of specialist housing for older people, refurbishing the primary school, moving play provision from Sussex Street (some distance away) onto the primary school site and so on. This appears to be a pretty major scheme with £510k allocated to progress it to the point where they have selected a preferred option. It is not clear that the playground will be sold as part of this scheme. It may be that Westminster simply want to use it for another purpose. That certainly seems to be the case from the information I have found but I can't be sure of that until the LA publishes more details. If this playground is released from education purposes (which requires DfE approval) it is likely that the land will be transferred back to Westminster's ownership. This appears to be the LA's intention so I expect this is what will happen. Indeed, without checking the Land Registry records it is impossible to tell if the land has been transferred to Futures - it may still belong to Westminster. Given the LA's plans I would not be surprised to find that they have not transferred the playground to Futures. The other possibility is that Futures could purchase the playground for use in line with their charitable purposes but that seems unlikely as it would clearly conflict with the LA's plans for the area.

If the land is sold any profit will go to Westminster Council, not Futures.

prh,
You might very well be right about the ownership of physical assets, although I'm not entirely convinced. However, I feel this is a red herring. The real issues are those highlighted in the OP and the Guardian article. How do you defend those?

This isn't the only land which ARK has sold off: www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200086/schools_and_colleges/1287/ark_putney_academy
I accept that in this case the money will probably be used to enhance the existing building. However, the builder will profit from having rarely available London land made available. In the long run this is land which will be lost to the public domain forever. What will ARK do in ten or twenty years when the school needs further refurbishment/expansion and there are no more assets to sell? Do we have to accept that city state schools have cramped sites? How can we ensure that free schools and academies don't deem sport as unnecessary, as they do not have to teach the National Curriculum, and therefore can justify outdoor spaces as surplus to requirements? How can we ensure that the land isn't sold to somebody with the same funny handshake as one of the trustees or a second cousin twice removed?

PS. I still regard this argument as a diversion from the main issues.

I am not here to defend academies. I generally confine myself to correcting factual errors and answering questions.

It is Wandsworth that sold off the land, NOT ARK. Wandsworth used the money to improve the buildings. Yes the builder will probably profit otherwise they wouldn't have bought the land. The LA is not allowed to undertake speculative developments in the hope of making a profit. But ARK hasn't made a single penny from the deal.

ARK CANNOT sell the assets to refurbish the school. The ONLY body that can sell the land is the LA. It doesn't matter what the academy does to justify the land as no longer being required, it CANNOT sell the land (being strictly accurate it can but it will need permission from the DfE and will have to hand over all the money received to the LA, so there is no financial benefit to the academy).

Hmm! As I've said all along, this isn't my main concern. However, in the case of the Pimlico school, I believe it is Futures (owned by Gove's right hand man at the DfE, Lord Nash) which is involved. DfE needs to sign off the release of the land from educational use. www.westendextra.com/news/2013/nov/lord-nashs-future-academies-chain-under-fire-over-bid-axe-playground-pimlico-primary-s
The point is that both cases involve asset stripping.The long-term result is the transfer of assets from public to private ownership, which is an ideological issue.

ARK does stand to make money from the Putney deal, because the money is being used to enhance the school, which is under ARK's control. If there were no investment in the building, presumably the school would stand a chance of failing. If free schools and academies run by chains fail, the opportunity for top slicing, leeching, expenses, salaries and nepotism is lost, along with the means with which ideologues can promote their particular beliefs.

These pigs are having a feeding frenzy at the trough of tax money and getting away with it. If a single mother fills in her benefits form wrong she goes to jail, why cant we find jail places for these crooks in government?

How about a rule where if you work for government the highest salary is say the national average. It is tax payer money after all, and these governors and managers are no different to someone who has spent a lifetime on benefits. This idea that they work hard is a joke, they spend all day down the golf course coming up with ingenious wheezes to wangle yet more money out of us that pay.

I think you are right that Westminster council may benefit from the transfer of the land. What concerns me more is that Lord Nash is the schools minister and responsible for making decisions on whether land should be removed from educational purposes. Yet he has benefited from transfer of control of schools from Westminster to his charity - if not financially, by using them to test experimental curriculum which is also a businesses. There are still conflict of interests here.

This is a weird concidence but you know those Westminster cemeteries? Guess who bought them?

www.thecnj.com/westend/2007/101907/news101907_01.html

daphnedill - Yes it is Futures that is involved but they will not benefit financially if this playground is sold off. The money will go to Westminster. Are you seriously saying that there are no circumstances ever under which a local authority should be allowed to sell land it owns? Personally I can see nothing wrong with an LA selling land it doesn't need provided it gets a fair price.

Turning to the Putney deal, the buildings will ultimately revert to Wandsworth. If the school had not become an academy Wandsworth would have had to find a way of refurbishing the buildings. If the academy is forced to close because the buildings are in a dangerous state Wandsworth will be left with buildings that are unusable and a shortage of school places. And all the abuses you claim happen in academies also happen in LA-controlled schools. There is no form of organisation that is immune from abuse.

gaba - A single mother should not go to jail simply for making a mistake on her benefits form. She should only go to jail if she deliberately sets out to make a fraudulent claim. And I really cannot support your rant about people working for government and local authorities. They do not spend all day down the golf course. In my experience the majority work as hard as anyone in the private sector (I work in the private sector but have had a lot of contact with people in the public sector). And if you limit the pay for senior staff in the way you suggest you will end up with rubbish senior staff. By the way, school governors (who you seem to include in your rant) are unpaid.

'Personally I can see nothing wrong with an LA selling land it doesn't need provided it gets a fair price'

And if the parents and governors at Churchill Gardens say no? Because the children mainly live in flats rather than houses with big gardens like the sponsor or councillors, and this may be the only outdoor space the children have to play in? I notice that Pimlico primary has no outdoor space either.

If the parents and governors say no I would tend to the view that the LA DOES need the land. But as I understand it the question doesn't arise here. The published information strongly suggests that the land is needed for redevelopment and that Churchill Gardens is going to get a better play area as part of this.

But if strong opinions are expressed against the plan during consultation with residents and parents?

state education is already really fragmented

depends where i uk you live, lea , suburb.

money buys you a good school.

some areas still have grammars

Faith also can get you into a good school and some areas like london have high proportion of voluntary aided faith schhools.

academies assume must be money in it. sometimes they can raise standards as they tend to spend lot money new buiildings,equipment swanky new uniform however think sometimes sink schools as demographic does not change stay in doldrums but polar opposite are well performing schools turn academies as used to be just really bad ones some have entrance tests, fair banding, lottery take from huge catchment.

Free schools are a connundrum not sure about as we dont ahve many most well know is toby youngs free school he was critiacl labour dumbing down education.

I have put a free school as choice 2.
its very wealthy so moneys not an option.,
open to all kids in entire city.
but its not in area of shortage only 30places by lottery so if got it would be like winning lottery and would give sibling link and give them school until they 18 as its linked up to academy next door which was ex indepdendent so very popular . academy has more restructions than free school and lots have said why is it a free school and not an academy.

it has made me think somethings dodgys going on.

many feel uneasy about faith chains setting up acedemies in deprived area sink schools as if they anti faith nothing else nearby.

I dont understand why they called principals in academies and not head teachers.

also from applying schols so many diffrent admission rules make you wonder god knows have no idea which school i get as they all have diffrent admission policies and now the new converters have no ofsted and no sats as they a new school makes hard to make a decison.

guess time will tell in few years time but not sure they measure sats and gcses/alevels by tpe of school ie

grammer
faith
state comp
academy
free school.

lots have said why is it a free school and not an academy

The reason is quite simple. If an existing school converts to an academy status it is an academy. If you set up a new academy from scratch it is a free school. Otherwise academies and free schools are identical. Nothing dodgy about it.

I don't understand why they called principals in academies and not head teachers

Fashion. Some community schools call their head a principal and some academies have head teachers. It isn't unique to academies.

new converters have no ofsted and no sats

If it has converted to academy status you can find Ofsted reports and SATS results from the time prior to conversion. Of course if it is a brand new school it won't have those things at first but it will be inspected by Ofsted within 2 years of opening.

3asABird yes, they do work out average result by type of school but it gets complicated because grammars can also be academies, and state comps can be faith schools. There are two types of academies - sponsored, generally comprehensive but not always, and converters, some of which are selective, but most of which had to be good/outstanding to convert in the first place. About 85% of grammars are converter academies now, but some were 'foundation schools' before!

See provisional 2013 GCSE results - final ones due next week I think. Some interesting Ebacc results in descending order (overall average 22.7%):

Converter academies 29.9%

Independent schools 29.3% - but this may be a little inaccurate for reasons given in that link

LA maintained schools 20.7% - but this also includes faith schools (voluntary aided or voluntary controlled) which are generally governed by dioceses but still classed as 'maintained' because the budget goes to the LA in the first place - correct prh?

Free schools 16.1% - but few will have entered children for exams

Sponsored academies 10.9% - their low score is explained in part by their over-use of equivalents (until recently one business studies course was equivalent to 4 GCSEs)

Sponsored academies also, in general, have a history as failing schools - sadly, waving the 'magic wand' of academisation does not automatically reverse the issues of socioeconomic deprivation, entrenched worklessness, high proportion of SEN, low parental educational attainment / ambition etc which also challenged the predecessor schools.

Especially as academisation no longer comes with extra money, it is unclear why simply transferring a school out of LEA control should improve attainment. Especially since these schools are often more-than-averagely dependent on centralised LEA services - Ed Psychs, SEN expertise, school improvement advice - which are being disbanded becausde of the onward march of academies.

So the difference between Converter and sponsored academies - and also LA maintained schools, and the subset of faith schools within these - are only meaningful as indications of the 'difference the type of school makes' once all socioeconomic factors and factors around intake are stripped out.

I would hazard a guess that if you compared a converter academy, a sponsored academy and an LA maintained school, in identical socio-economic areas, with no selection at all (faith or ability) and with identical pupil profiles (high, medium, low ability, SEN, EAL) then which got better results would be, essentially, random, and muich more down to the individual school than to its type.

straggle - Almost! I could get pedantic and bore you to death on the subject () but in essence what you've described is a VA school. For a VC school the church appoints around 25% of the governors and the school is under LA control, so they don't really have any more freedom than community schools.

Interesting figures for EBacc. The equivalent figures for 5+ A*-C grade GCSEs including English and Maths are:

Converter academies - 67.9%

LA maintained schools - 58.8%

Free schools - 54.5%

Independent schools - 54.4%

Sponsored academies - 50.7%

Interesting but difficult to tell what to make of it. Many sponsored academies were failing schools before converting whilst all converter (i.e. non-sponsored) academies were rated outstanding.

teacherwith2kids - No LA should be disbanding Ed Psychs due to the onward march of academies, nor should they be losing all their expertise in SEN. They remain responsible for Ed Psych, SEN administration assessment and co-ordination, monitoring SEN provision, SEN transport and provision of expensive tailored support for individual pupils. They are still receiving funding for providing these services. The only SEN responsibility that potentially passes from the LA to academies is SEN support services but many LAs already delegate this funding to individual schools. Similarly many LAs already delegate their budget for school improvement to individual schools.

prh - locally (neighbouring county) all but 1 county Ed Psychs now released from theuir employment. Where LA schools used simply to use their budget to call in Ed Psychs as needed, Academies seem not to be using their money in that way, and certainly not using LA Ed Psychs to provide that service.

The provision of an Ed Psych service available to ALL schools is a statutory responsibility of the LA. Conducting SEN assessments is also a statutory responsibility of the LA. No school, LA or academy, should be charged for calling in Ed Psychs (unless it is for matters not covered by statutory provision) and nor should any school be charged for SEN assessments.

It is, however, true that many LAs have cut funding for Ed Psych services, some to the point where it is not clear that they are meeting their statutory responsibilities.

Just reread that and realised one sentence was badly worded. Try "No school, regardless of whether it is an LA school or an academy, should be charged..."