Richmond Borough Schools Chat 8

[muminlondon2]

This thread follows on from Richmond Borough Schools Chat 7.

News and opinions on all the changes to schools in Richmond borough.

If Lord True and Paul Hodgins are set on a strategy to try and act on his words and protect Richmond Schools being absorbed into these big remote managed chains in forced academisation by setting up locally rooted MATs then it is the lesser of two evils. Obviously it would be better if schools, and their local governing bodies really did have control of their fates of course.

Richmond West Trust will include Nelson Primary to start off with, once the Waldegrave trust schools join. That would work as a feeder for both Waldegrave and Twickenham Academy.

The primary I can think of with the clearest possible secondary school feeder link is Collis: the London Schools Atlas has 94% transferring. But if Nicky Morgan and Lord ('cemeteries, care homes, schools = cash') Nash really do force mass academisation - and politics can take many twisty turns, so by no means certain - it's going to throw up lots of division and anomalies.

• Stanley has 80% going to the secondaries expected to join the Richmond West trust - so how does that work as a feeder for Turing House? Call in Harry Hill and get them to fighhhhhhhht?
• Hampton Hill Junior has about 65% to the new trust, although similar situation as Stanley in terms of how Turing would like it as a feeder
• Archdeacon Cambridge has 54% going to Waldegrave, but it's a CofE school so couldn't join in
• Chase Bridge is getting bigger but is currently split between Orleans and Twickenham Academy - but there'd be a three way split with the Richmond College Trust...
• St Stephens is CofE so despite sending over 80% to Orleans Park, it couldn't be part of a non-church Orleans MAT, presumably....

What a mess it's going to be. I hope the primaries resist it takeover as far as they can.

Yes many questions. What has happened to C of E schools in other places where academisation is occurring - have any joined non religious chains? Both St Johns and SMSP are feeder schools sending ver high % to Teddington so wouldn't make any sense for them to join any other MAT. Orleans Park is supposed to be part of a 6th form partnership with Waldegrave and Teddington with sharing of resources and students able to study at another school if they cant do the subject they want at their main school. Is that now defunct? Could Turing's local governing body decide to switch from its national chain to a local MAT (assume they dont have local autonomy but founding parents would have some sway and might prefer that?)

Could Turing's local governing body decide to switch from its national chain to a local MAT

No - not without RET wanting to pass it on. I'm assuming that might include circumstances where a school becomes too expensive to run - LST may have had this problem in three of its four schools, whereas RPA has become a potential benefit for AET as it has started to fill up compared to its underperforming schools in other areas of lower demand (although Paul Hodgins appears to be accusing AET of starving it of cash to subsidise other schools).

And because not one of TH's local governors are directors making such a decision, unlike standalone converter academies, or the Richmond West Trust as currently formed. RET's three 'members' (is that the same as trustees? not sure), who act as 'guarantee' and appoint the directors, are Karen and Danny Lynch and their company Education London.

I think it's different for Becket Keys within RET, because it is in its own trust formed with Mr and Mrs Lynch, RET and Chelmsford Church of England diocese, and with the headteacher as director (Turing House's headteacher is/was an employee of Education London). RET's annual report did express the desire to incorporate it fully within the chain as it achieved with Bristol Free School - if that happened, it would be an example of a Church of England school in a chain with non-denominational schools. But as a trust federated with a trust it has also been possible to join church and non-church schools.

The blog I linked to by Disillusioned Idealist put it this way:

'The MAT your school will be forced to join IS the ONLY legal entity. Your school effectively ceases to exist. ... As it ceases to exist as a separate entity, it cannot choose to ever leave its MAT. ... The MAT can trade your particular ex-school franchise to another MAT, a bit like Sainsbury’s selling a site to Waitrose.'

That didn’t take long ….. TA head steps down

Was the TA head generally considered to be doing a good job or was she sacked? Sounds like they have been negotiating with her lawyer over the hols. Very unsettling for all for her to just leave suddenly instead of at least carrying on until end of summer yerm. Well thats goinģ to take up a bit more of the other heads time then. I am still a bit confused about who is/ will be on the Board running the new MAT. Current governors of Waldegrave and Teddington?

Yes, there are currently nine directors including what looks like four from each of Waldegrave and Teddington (including the headteachers and chairs of governors) and an employee of Achieving for Children, though she's not on their board. I suppose it could change and there could be additional ones later.

The 'members' seem to be the chair and vice chair of governors each of Waldegrave and Teddington plus an independent (who is currently chair of governors at Stanley).

The articles of association state:

Not less than three trustees/directors but no maximum -

Up to 6 appointed by the members
Up to 2 headteachers
Up to 3 independents (i.e. overall number ends up an odd number)
Up to 2 parent trustees if no local governing body with parent governors

Up to 5 can be co-opted
No more than a third of trustees can be employees of the trust.

Thanks muminlondon - this is all a bit worrying as they have no representatives of TA and HA (apparently) and have clearly already fallen out with the TA head who probably felt she was under criticism and unlikely to be pleased at having a "supervisor" appointed to help her. I know nothing about her or the school so can't judge whether she has been doing a good job over the last 2 years or whether supervision was justified. She must have left because she was unhappy - it's not as if she could transfer to another LST school in the UK or as though she's moving to another head job. I hope the HA head won't go too (assuming he or she is good). Recruiting a new head in these circumstances may be a bit hard I'd imagine and this already seems to be turning into more than the two day a week consultancy for the heads alone that parents at Waldegrave and Teddington were assured was to be the only demand on time.

The RTT has a number of stories today including TA head resignation and the one about Cllr. Hodgins demanding the RPA be brought back under local control - quite bizarre considering the way his party is trying to do the exact opposite all over the country! It contains the odd assertion that the appointment of the new Head is nothing to do with AET - who else would have appointed a new Head?

Reading through the article on Richmond Park Academy Paul Hodgins is saying "local control" not local authority control, so perhaps the headline and first sentence are RTT misinterpretation. A Richmond East MAT would be local control and it would be their more likely aim given their past lobbying.

As Lottie says we can't comment on Tracy Ward's performance and motives, except that results did improve. When the MAT announcement was made her comment on the website was that this was not a takeover but a means to share best practise, but then that disappeared for some reason. I am sure in the development of the new strategy there will be clashes of principles (as opposed to Principals), individual performance aside.

The various pronouncements of the LST spokesman in the article did make me a bit at the hyperbole. On the one hand the Head had given "inspiring leadership" and given the team "a sense of purpose and optimism" "with the results plain to see", on the other this is "the beginning of a journey that will see both academies transform" as if they were not remotely providing "a challenging supportive and caring environment and offering life changing opportunities for students" I assume if that were true they would be empty. I suppose at least there is no mention of the "outstanding" word. He is certainly not the first educationalist to be guilty of hyperbole but it is easy to use the words, it's delivering the substance that is challenging......

Looking at her LinkedIn the Head's two years at Twickenham Academy would be one of her longer job stints uk.linkedin.com/in/tracy-ward-principal-executive-coach-617a4835 and she does seem wedded to the educational strategies in place at TA.

Remember that HA and TA are still in the Learning Schools Trust until September - it's perfectly possible that parent, teacher or governor representatives of other schools will join, be co-opted, etc. later on.

But yes, the TA headteacher is experiencing this as a sort of takeover, because that's how schools get transferred from one trust to another - they don't exist in their own right. I remember googling her a while back and seeing that she had a coaching business, so maybe she can go back to consultancy work very quickly.

The letter in the RTT is quite a rant from what looks like an exhausted teacher - but most of the points covered apply equally to academy and LA maintained schools (spending money, supply teachers, bullying, SATS, complaints procedures, OFSTED, teaching unions). He/she doesn't like unions, but there is a choice of them, and private school teachers belong too to get liability insurance and be properly covered by the pension.

The main point made relating to academies was that 'Academies need a business person at the helm rather than a teacher.' I'd like those at the helm to have a mix of education and management expertise, but the real issue is of accountability which the letter does not address.

You'd think that someone like the CEO of AET has the perfect background to operate a large trust (teacher turned barrister, ex-Director of Education, experience as chief operating officer of ARK and adviser to other trusts and the Saudi Arabian government...) but the leaders of our Tory council are furious with him and AET and do not see the advantage of remote-managed large chains which have been severely criticised by Ofsted.

Then there's John Nash who appointed an unqualified teacher as head, who then left after 6 weeks into term, and the Tory Party donor and businessman Alan Lewis who the DfE assumed for a year was chair of governors at Kings Science Academy but apparently was just the ‘patron’, and is still the landlord. Where there is no oversight over the trusts or accountability to local communities, having a business person at the helm can be a positive disadvantage when large sums of public money are at stake, rather than a benefit.

What is missing from the Tory dogma, not surprisingly since they are probably the mainstay of many a Constituency hierarchy, as well as donors, is that in amongst the business community there is a very large segment of SME owners, with varying degrees of success, levels of business skill and motivation. It is one thing to appoint people with proven business skills developed within large organisations which require a degree of professionalism and competence, in the context of responsibly implemented Corporate Social Responsibility strategies. I could see benefit in that, sourcing management professionals who are properly trained in the skills needed for applying business skills in schools and have sound motivation. There aren't very many of those though, or those from other backgrounds who do have transferrable skills and altruistic motives but I forsee it is just as likely they recruit via cronyism, blundering "business" men people with mediocre skills who are in it for the status and the money. The lack of local accountability is going to give them greater freedom to do damage.

I can't help thinking that the potential shenanigans of future MATs would have provided David Nobbs with food for parody.......

I was looking at RET’s directors wondering how Turing House isn’t yet represented there. The three 'members' now seem to be Daniel Lynch, Education London and Philip Ward, the chairman, while Karen Lynch is CEO. A register of interests shows that its seven directors include the two directors of Education London (the sponsor) as well as an adviser for EL, one from the Bristol Free School Trust, one from St Andrew the Apostle Greek Orthodox School and two who appear to be independent, including the chair.

I think Karen Lynch worked in the past for Nord Anglia, a global education company like GEMS (it sold schools to GEMS in 2003). She was a trustee of Jubilee High School, a Labour public-private partnership arrangement. According to the 2005 Ofsted report ‘The school’s partnership with the educational consultancy firm has not been entirely successful’. GEMS also managed schools in Surrey through a company called 3E, but that was unsuccessful too, whether because of the companies themselves, or just the fact that such ventures are doomed to fail (unless the school can pick its admissions policy, site, staff, etc. from the beginning).

Then again, companies can have good people but it's the teams, structures and contracts that don't work. Education London clearly was well regarded in the City Challenge evaluation whose consultants were ‘particularly effective’.

This week’s print RTT has (p 3) ‘Hand back our school’ (RPA), (p 5) ‘Academy (TA) head to leave school’, (p 6) ‘Plans revealed for new (DPV) school’, (p 7) ‘Concern over lack of transport documents’ )SEN) and a letter (p 16) ‘Ten points on academy schools in Richmond upon Thames’ from ‘veritas’.

Looks like the new RPA Head was aware of the local MAT idea before he took the job. Maybe he's on board with the LA plan already.

So the Companies House site is a useful way of helping to check who manages the chains.

Now there is a Compare school and college performance beta site. You can pick all the secondary schools from a chain, e.g. Academies Enterprise Trust, filter secondary schools and select them all, select performance measures stage, and compare e.g. Ebacc entries by prior attainment. In future you'd be able to compare 'Progress 8', etc. Then you can sort columns.

Out of 29 AET secondary schools that have more than 80 pupils, for high attainers, RPA is their 3rd best for Ebacc achievement. And yet the other 25 schools are all below the national average. Even if it picked up low performing schools in the first place, most of them were four or five years ago, so that's much worse than nearly all LAs, e.g. Sunderland. The ones performing at the same 'higher standards' of RPA are in Hampshire, Essex and Isle of Wight, so no local sharing of expertise there.

Of the three Learning Schools Trust schools, Hampton is top - around average for top attainers, above average on 'middle' attainers, but Twickenham was bottom and well below national average.

Recruiting a new head in these circumstances may be a bit hard I'd imagine and this already seems to be turning into more than the two day a week consultancy for the heads alone that parents at Waldegrave and Teddington were assured was to be the only demand on time.

Indeed - what credible person would take on a Headship under the supervision of two other Heads?
The best they can hope for is a puppet a credible acting Head as RPA have had, keeping the place warm and providing a 'name' for parents.
Not good news at all for Waldegrave or Teddington parents.
And at RPA, the vapid answers given by the head designate as displayed on their website 'I knew I wanted to work here when I saw a poster on the wall in the corridor' does not bode well for improving the credibility of RPA.
If AET did not appoint him, and was down to Hodgins - will be interesting to see how he wriggles around that in the future.

Might it suit one of the deputies from Waldegrave or Tedfington perhaps? That would be interesting.

Jellytoto
Good point. Although Teddington itself is advertising for a Deputy Head.
Grey Court looks as though it has lots to spare - on their website they show a vast number of people with Assistant/Deputy/Associate Head in their job title.

MrsSalvo It doesn't seem fair to prejudge the new head at RPA when he's got some really interesting experience and training in education. I like the sound of him.

Interestingly, he used to report to Teddington's current head when they both worked at the Elmgreen School. And Mr Wilkinson himself was promoted from deputy to head there in 2010 (according to Wkipedia but there's probably a LinkedIn page to prove it) so promotion for a current deputy is a really good idea.

MuminLondon - his track record is underwhelming, and his answers to Mona's questions are trite and anodyne.
Perhaps he will be okay, but RPA desperately needs more than 'okay' - needs a radical improver - someone like Maggie Bailey who could purge the deadwood (there are pockets of mediocrity in RPA that should not have survived this long and would not have under normal leadership), and get some 'oomph' into the school and deliver genuine progress.
He sadly does not come across like this, more like an AET stooge who will keep the thing ticking over till he sees his next career move.
He also does not demonstrate the gravitas or the backbone to take tough decisions - what is his track record there?
There is big black financial hole that can only be fixed by unpopular staffing decisions - will he take them?
Would love to be proved wrong on this, as RPA has been badly served for so long - as the A level results will demonstrate this year , it desperately needs quality leadership

I had noticed the proliferation of Deputy Heads / Assistant Heads / Assistant to the Deputy Head in private and state schools but if that is a manifestation of recognising that introducing measures of effectiveness, and accountability for achieving them is as important in implementing strategy as thinking up the strategy in the first place it is good management practise.

Mum Turing have a link to the RET Trustees on their governance page [[https://www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/governance.php]] www.russelleducationtrust.org.uk/board.php. To my knowledge Nord Anglia have an entirely different reputation internationally to GEMs. They have been running some successful International Schools with satisfied parents for a long time whereas GEMS until recently were focused on exploiting the lucrative rapidly expanding Dubai market with a sort of Hilton approach to branding their schools with nice sofas in Reception. The websites say it all really www.russelleducationtrust.org.uk/board.php www.gemseducation.com/

And Westminster Council seem to have been grateful to Nord and Karen Lynch Para 13 here www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/BSF_Project_Initiation_Document_appendices.pdf

13.Westminster’s high profile commitment to raise educational standards forms a key priority within the Education Guarantee programme, under Civic Renewal. The Ofsted inspection of the LEA, published in 2002, confirmed that the LEA had made significant progress in the school improvement strategy, corporate leadership and support for school improvement. This progress is evidenced by the fact that since 2002 the LEA has had no schools in serious weaknesses or special measures for the first time since 1993. This has been achieved due to initiatives including:
• a strong commitment to secondary school improvement, through its partnership programme with Nord Anglia, of support and challenge to schools in raising educational achievement including inputs from two Beacon schools and intensive interventions in three schools;

FrustratedofTW1: *s for bold must be applied to each paragraph:

13.Westminster’s high profile commitment to raise educational standards forms a key priority within the Education Guarantee programme, under Civic Renewal. The Ofsted inspection of the LEA, published in 2002, confirmed that the LEA had made significant progress in the school improvement strategy, corporate leadership and support for school improvement. This progress is evidenced by the fact that since 2002 the LEA has had no schools in serious weaknesses or special measures for the first time since 1993. This has been achieved due to initiatives including:
• a strong commitment to secondary school improvement, through its partnership programme with Nord Anglia, of support and challenge to schools in raising educational achievement including inputs from two Beacon schools and intensive interventions in three schools;