Failing Free School closed by DfE

[vindscreenviper]

Durham Free School has been told it will close as soon as all the pupils have found places at other schools. Its Ofsted report was only published this morning and although it's really bad I've never heard of a school being closed down on the same day. There must be other stuff happening in the backround surely, don't the DfE usually hand failing schools to one of their mates an academy chain to sort out?

vindscreenviper It would be good if the truth would out but it's unlikely to happen. These disputes are usually settled by way of a compromise agreement containing a gagging clause under which both sides undertake never to disclose to anybody what has happened or why. Reading between the lines, it's likely such an agreement was involved when Mr Cantley suddenly quit his last headship: m.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Principal-St-Andrew-s-College-quits-closer-home/story-11536596-detail/story.html

I think you're right granola, if the cost of school transport is such a state secret then there's little chance of getting to the bottom of this mess.

Re the cost to the tax-payer of DFS, I've just copied this from Hansard, it's an extract of last nights Commons debate.

"Roberta Blackman-Woods: It has been extraordinarily difficult to get information about the total funding the school has obtained over the two years of its existence. How can I easily get that information?

Mr Gibb: I am very happy to supply the hon. Lady with that information. Revenue and capital, in additional to the per-pupil funding, amounts to about £840,000, but I will write to her with the precise figure."

I like the "about £840,000", it's as if the DfE accounts are a bit vague...

He has used a freedom of information request because the local authority have been immensely obstructive since day one. Ever since the school was to be a Free School rather than an Academy. If phone call had worked he wouldn't have put in an FoI.
The decision to sack the ex-head was made before he made false accusations to the DfE. Like you say, I'm sure the truth will out at some stage.

Free Schools receive their funding from the DfE Education Funding Agency so perhaps it would have been more productive to ask them rather than the LEA

Thanks for coming back and answer my questions LadySybil, the Governors should complain to the Local Government Ombudsman if DCC have refused to supply him with a copy of a contract between themselves and the school, that's crap service if not illegal.
Is the school sticking by its claim that one of the Ofsted inspectors asked one of the pupils if she was a virgin?

the Governors should complain to the Local Government Ombudsman if DCC have refused to supply him with a copy of a contract between themselves and the school

The FoI request was made on Sunday (i.e. 4 days ago). The Council responded on Monday. To be honest I don't know what the governors hope to gain by this. DCC is obligated to provide free transport to qualifying pupils by law.

Any complaint about DCC's behaviour regarding disclosing this contract would be made to the ICO, NOT the LGO.

I still don't understand how the Chair of Governors came to be in a position where a)he did not have a copy of a contract between his school and a service provider, and b) feels that he needs a FOI request to obtain a copy. Was the paperwork lost or was the contract agreed between the DfE and the council directly with no input from the school itself?
John Denning is also a science teacher at Grindon Hall, the other free school that Ofsted rated Inadequate, so I imagine he is feeling like the whole world is against him at the moment. However, I would think that the chances of his many FOI requests turning up written evidence of a conspiracy between the Tory SoS for Education, the Labour run local council and the local Labour MP are very slim.

he did not have a copy of a contract between his school and a service provider

This is not a contract between the school and a service provider. The contract relates to transport to school. It is therefore between DCC (i.e. the local authority) and the service provider. It has nothing to do with the school at all. DCC is responsible for providing free transport to qualifying children. The free school has no involvement.

And, as I said previously, I don't know what he or the governors hope to gain by seeing this contract. The LA determines which children are entitled to free transport. Neither the school nor the service provider has any say in the matter. And the LA must follow the law.

Perhaps they are trying to show that the LA has refused to allocate children to the school in order to reduce costs but, even if the LA wanted to try that, I don't see any way it would work. Parents would rapidly find out that their preferred school had places available and would appeal.

Thanks for explaining prh I understand now. I was getting confused because the DFS also has it's own free bus with a fixed route collecting Yr7 children from the outlying villages in addition to any statutory provision by the LA, I thought that was what the Governors were querying with the FOI request.

I understand the school provides buses because many of the parents have chosen this school rather than available places in schools nearer to their home addresses

Know a couple of parents who took their kids out of other schools to place into Grindon Hall. To quote my neighbour "it's a private education for free." A lot has been said about how amazing the school is but their KS2 results were awful compared to other local primaries.
There is talk of a march on London and handing a petition to 10 Downing Street. The head seems to have gone into PR overdrive without commenting on the many areas covered by Ofsted.

I've just read that the day trip to London has been cancelled, probably for the best. It does look like the Head has the Sunderland Echo on speed dial, he comes across as quite a cult leader character.

The parents have been whipped into a frenzy . Lots of sad face "typing to the prime minister" photos of kids.
Having said that they must be worried by it all. Several other schools have slipped into special measures and nothing has been Echo front page. Mr Gray isn't saying what he's doing to address the report AFAIK.

Regarding parental support for the school:

I have seen this before. When a school gets into trouble, and with an established rather than a new school, the issues normally build up over a while. Some parents will react to this by taking their children out. (So prime warning sign in a community school is Governors taking their children out, unless its cos they are moving away.)

But the ones who remain will be hugely loyal. Any councillor will tell you that closing a school is really hard, even when, by any measure, it is crap.

Now of course this loyality can be hugely valuable; it is often key to turning a school around after it has been put in special measures.

But sometimes, it can be a sign that parents are in denial over having made a mistake in entrusting their children to the school.

But in this case there may be an extra complication. There may be parents at the school who opted for it exactly because of its "Christian ethos" and who are not bought in to the values that OfSted embodies on behalf of society at large.

In this case the school has only operated for four terms and had less than a hundred pupils.

I don't think it will be missed much locally, a colleague that lives close by told me that only 3 children from the primary school next doorchose to go tothis school.

Sorry, only just spotted this thread!

Historically parents from outlying villages had no chance of securing their child in the most popular school in the city so the Free school was set up to attract them with mixed success. While there may be plenty of school places for those children living within the city the same cannot be said for the many rural pupils.

I live just outside the free bus area. Most (Non RC) teens in our village either go to Belmont or a smaller secondary in the opposite direction. To be honest, even if we were in the free bus area (and had kids in mainstream secondary), I can't say that a school with an evangelical Christian ethos would have met our need for school places. If the shortage of places was the reason for the school being given funding, then the school should have been secular so that it didn't only appeal to a small minority of parents.

The government may be heading for a U-turn here.

Nicky Morgan has certainly gone too far in her statements. There is a clear process laid down in the school's funding agreement under which the Secretary of State must first serve notice of her intention to terminate the funding agreement. The school may then make representations. She can then serve notice that she is terminating the funding agreement after considering the school's representations. I assumed the process had already gone that far given Nicky Morgan's announcements that she has decided to close the school. I was wrong. The school had until yesterday to make its submissions. Nicky Morgan's statements suggest she has already made up her mind. The school would appear to have a strong argument that she should step aside from the process and give the final decision to a minister from another department. I understand the school has served notice of its intention to seek judicial review if Nicky Morgan continues with the process. On the basis of her public statements I think the school has a good chance of success. However poor the school may be, Nicky Morgan appears to have seriously subverted the process. Unfortunately this is not uncommon when politicians get involved.

The school's submissions to the DfE suggest that the school has not been told the allegations it faces nor been given any chance to answer them. However, they appear to have good reason to believe that these allegations were made by the head teacher they dismissed.

The school has made some serious allegations against the Ofsted inspectors. They believe the inspectors were expecting to find evidence of religious extremism. They state that the inspectors wanted to know what the school was doing to educate students about FGM which the school does not consider to be a priority for 11-13 year olds in the context of the communities served by the school.

It is claimed that questions to students aged 11-13 included:

• What would you do if a Muslim came to this school
• Do you know anybody in the school who is gay
• What would you do if someone gay came to this school
• Have you ever met anybody who is gay/bisexual
• Have you had "The Talk"
• How have you learned how to make a baby

The school state that one pupil has alleged she was asked if she was a lesbian, if she knows anyone who is lesbian or gay and if she feels comfortable in her own body.

There is also an allegation that one inspector who was not part of the main inspection team asked a female pupil inappropriate questions of a sexual nature in an unsafe situation.

Finally it is alleged that one inspector questioned a boy alone in a windowless room with the door shut - a serious breach of safeguarding protocols. The boy concerned alleges that he was asked personal questions about his sexuality and whether he had lost his virginity.

Michael Wilshaw assured a Commons committee that these allegations had been "investigated very thoroughly" and were false. According to the school, this "thorough investigation" did not involve contacting the school, parents, the complainants or witnesses. It seems the "thorough investigation" consisted of simply talking to the inspectors concerned.

And not one of those claims was mentioned until the Ofsted report was published

They have also chosen to instruct a law firm who have form for making loud accusations of anti-christian bias in the press which are never followed up in a court.

It is important to remember in all this that there are issues surrounding the competence of the disgruntled former head and the competence of the governors who appointed him.

I'm also dubious about the questions that kids were alleged to have been asked. Given that the oldest kids are 13, why wasn't a bigger fuss made at the time of the inspection?

And not one of those claims was mentioned until the Ofsted report was published

So? They had no need to go public with these allegations until they were threatened with closure. Michael Wilshaw gave evidence to MPs on 28th January. He told them, "we've spent a long time looking at this" (referring to the allegations) and claimed there had been a thorough investigation. Since the report was only published on 19th January that strongly implies the school had relayed these allegations to Ofsted prior to publication.

a law firm who have form for making loud accusations of anti-christian bias in the press which are never followed up in a court

This would be the law firm that won a case against BA in the ECHR over a worker prevented from wearing a cross. Yes, they have taken on a lot of controversial religious cases in the past. They have, contrary to your assertion, generally followed up in court (although, of course, sometimes their client has settled out of court) but they have not always been successful. In any event, what matters is the facts of the case, not who represents the school. Ad hominem attacks on their lawyers are not helpful.

It is the case that Nicky Morgan appears to have failed to follow the process laid down in the school's funding agreement. Had I realised that the date for submissions from the school had not passed I would have said that from the beginning. That is a serious problem for the government and risks any decision Nicky Morgan makes to close the school being overturned on judicial review.

Note that I am not making any judgement as to whether or not the school should be closed.