@TheBlackShiksa
Hi David, question about your campaign against Downhills Primary becoming an academy. The school is failing- why are you campaigning against academy status? Do you think that children who come from poor areas should be condemned to sub standard education? I listened to Sancha Bergs report on your campaign and was appalled to learn that many parents, i.e. those who English was not their first language, were completely misinformed about the campaign and thought that academy status meant Downhills becoming a private school and were worried about being burdened by fees. I'd be really interested to know if your own children go to Downhills or a school in Tottenham, or a state school for that matter? Also how many children who are currently attending Downhills will be lucky enough to get a scholarship to a private school like you did given that Downhills is failing? Lastly do you think you would have gotten as far as you have without the benefit of your elite education?
This is a long answer because I want to be absolutely crystal clear on this and focus the rest on the discussion about the riots.
Downhills is my old primary school. My secondary school, King?s School Peterborough, is not a private school ? it is C of E state school. I have two boys: one of them is at nursery in Tottenham; the other attends one of our local state primary school.
Regarding academy status at Downhills. Firstly, Downhills is not a failing school. Using the Department of Education?s own barometer for performance, Downhills is better than over 2,500 primary schools in England, including 26 in Michael Gove?s Surrey. This is despite of the challenges the schools faces: almost ¾ of students do not have English as their first language; it has one of the largest intakes of Roma pupils and it 1/3rd of the class leave the school each year to move on. When you look at the pupils who have been at Downhills from start-to-finish, 75% of them get the expected grades, above the national average and above the London average.
Secondly, I am not opposed to academies, I have always made that clear (see my speech to Parliament on Downhills on my website). It is intellectually bankrupt to argue that academies are a panacea for all failing schools. You can have bad academies and good academies, just like you can have bad community schools and good community schools. There are other ways to improve a school: new leadership, new teachers, federation with another school etc. and these steps are being taken. The governing body has replaced 6 teachers this year.
Finally, what do we make of the opinions of democratically elected governors and the parents who have pretty unanimously come out against these proposals? Sanchia Berg?s report aside, 92% of parents surveyed were happy with their child?s experience at the school. The best schools forge a great collaborative atmosphere between the school, the government and the community that surrounds them. In this case, Michael Gove has done his best to antagonise them. He ? nor his ministers or officials - have made the effort to come down to Tottenham to explain to these parents why these changes are necessary. He gave the school 6 weeks to find a sponsor or have one forced upon them ? a ridiculously short amount of time. When the parents complained, he does a set piece speech to the nation?s media branding them ?ideologues? and ?enemies of promise?.
Now tell me this: how can it be right for him to praise one set of parents as capable of running their own Free Schools but ride roughshod over the wishes of another set of parents? It is grossly unfair and undemocratic and that is why I stand with the parents, teachers and governors of the school against Gove?s proposals.