Forced acadamisation and Primary School Ark academies. Does anyone know about them?

[Mez2000]

We have just found out today that our lovely community primary school which has served the community for over 100 years is due to become an Ark Academy as it had a bad one bad Ofsted report in March 2013. As parents we are feeling bemused and worried. The last 3 Ofsteds were were either "good" or "good with outstanding features". Ofsted judged the attainment of our children at reception, year 1 and year 2 as being "above average". Our Maths/English combined level 4 SATs far exceeds the government 60% floor target. Yet the Ofsted inspector deemed things as so bad we have been put in Special Measures. Without any consultion of the parents, we are told we are going to become an Ark academy. Does anyone know anything about Ark Primary schools? We have a lovely school and while there are things that could be better, we don't understand why being an academy is the only way for the future. Any opinions gratefully received.

I don't think all charities are cuddly. I think that a charity founded by hedge funders will and should maximise its financial position by using appropriate tax breaks. They work internationally so have the right and experience to ensure that moneys are held in the most efficient ways and countries. Isn't that for the best when it's a not for profit organisation as the money goes back into their core proposition of benefitting children

I thought you should re- consider your post because I think you implied with investigation you would uncover Machiavellian profit-making corruption

Not all academy chains are the same and I really do believe that ARK are the best of them all

at 'libellous' quoting of facts about ARK's offshore investments.....

Would you like me to srat on Oasis then?

Sorry but I have a serious problem with the lack of transparency in the use of taxpayer funds by academies.
Eric Pickles is a git but he is utterly right to enforce transparency on local authorities.

Gove, by removing schools from transparency rules is setting up the next great scandal.

And the fact that ARK can divert school funds to the Cayman Islands is indefensible.

Please explain what you mean by that, I'm really not a financial expert so I, like many, don't understand what you mean

My understanding was that a mot for profit charity puts its money to the end user so if you give a charity £100 and they hold it in the UK and keep £60 to spend on their end user or hold it in the Cayman Islamds and keep £80 then the latter is better

What am I missing (not being sarcastic here, really want to learn) please just keep it simple for me

Your understanding of charities is the cuddly view. It is entirely possible for charities to extract significant funds in fees and charges.
The network of companies set up by peole like Ark and Oasis is deliberately designed to ensure that the money flows are not transparent.
As an auditor, lack of transparency is never a good thing.

It's a democratic right to expect central government to be transparent and spend taxpayers' money efficiently. Several academy chain directors (including Lord Fink) have joined the House of Lords since 2010 so they are also involved in drafting and approving the law.

The Public Accounts Committee report on academies expansion highlights the £1 billion overspend caused by the 'excessively complex and inefficient academy funding system':

'We are not yet satisfied that individual academies' expenditure is sufficiently transparent to parents, local communities or Parliament. Despite some improvements, key information on what academies actually spend is still only available at trust, rather than individual academy, level. This limits the ability of parents to scrutinise how their child's school is spending its money, and of communities to hold their local school to account'

MuminLondon that speaks volumes. I'm preparing our case against response to forced academisation and that quotation is going straight in

I have seen no evidence that any ARK money has gone to the Cayman Islands as alleged. For clarity:

• All government funding goes to ARK Schools, a UK charity
• ARK Schools is controlled by ARK, another UK charity
• ARK owns a Cayman Islands company which manages an investment trust on their behalf. They own it outright so any profits it makes go to ARK, not to individuals
• The funds managed by the Cayman Islands company belong to ARK and are therefore covered by their UK audit
• ARK Schools accounts show that they pay no money to ARK. Money actually flows in the other direction - from ARK to ARK Schools

And just to pick up on a discussion up thread, in the few cases where public land has been transferred to an academy trust the funding agreement ensures that the trust cannot sell it off. Any land they no longer require will be transferred back into public ownership without any payment to the trust.

It's the murkiness around academy funding that is of utmost concern, imvho.

If the money is flowing from academy chains to schools, why is the academy spending out of control and why is it so very, very difficult to obtain basic information about how this public money is being spent.

This is a very interesting piece by Warwick Mansell, a respected education journo.

www.naht.org.uk/welcome/news-and-media/blogs/warwick-mansell/the-murky-world-of-academy-finance/

PRH
to which company / charity numbers do you refer to in your points above
as there are over 30 companies with the name ARK, controlled by trustees of the various ARK charities

and no, the UK audit will NOT cover the Cayman Island company : it will accept "management representations" from them.

I wasn't suggesting that the UK audit would actually audit the Cayman Islands company but it will clearly cover the funds being managed by them on behalf of ARK. They will want to know that the money is still there and producing a reasonable return.

ARK Schools which operates their academies in the UK is a charitable company, number 05112090. They are controlled by Absolute Return for Kids, a UK charity, company number 04589451. ARK Academies Projects is a wholly owned subsidiary of ARK Schools, set up to manage the building programmes needed for their first academies - company number 04101629. ARK UK Programmes, company number 05932797, is a wholly owned charitable subsidiary of ARK which provides extended school programmes at the academies.

ARK Schools does pay some money to ARK UK Programmes. Also to correct myself slightly, ARK pays rent, general office overheads and service charges on behalf of ARK Schools which then repays the relevant amount to ARK. The most recent accounts available show that they paid around £750k to ARK to cover these items and received over £3M in sponsorship funds from ARK.

For the sake of completeness, some directors of ARK are also directors of ARK Masters Advisers, company number 05443569, which provides investment advice to the Cayman Islands company (ARK Masters Management Limited). Some of the directors of ARK are also directors of ARK (South Africa), company number 4957091, which runs ARK's programmes in South Africa.

That appears to be the complete list of ARK Companies in the UK. I can't find any other ARK companies controlled by the trustees of either ARK or ARK Schools, although I haven't managed to get a full list of companies for Stanley Fink.

www.duedil.com/director/915227047/stanley-fink/directorships

www.duedil.com/company/05112090/ark-schools/financials
www.duedil.com/company/05112090/ark-schools/people

the net spreads very very wide
:-)

What are 'Director Emoluments' (£146,573,000)? Do they have anything to do with teaching?

Almost certainly not.
They will be head office and management fees.

I note that you haven't actually turned up a single additional ARK company to the six I listed. So not that wide a net.

Director emoluments is directors pay and expenses. However, that figure shows why you shouldn't rely on Duedil as a source of information - it is pretty obvious that it is wrong as there is no way they can pay £146M in salaries when their total income is only £111M. Total director emoluments were £146,573. Duedil has managed to multiply that by 1,000. It represents the salary paid to the MD plus her expenses.

And just to add, overall ARK Schools receives more money from other ARK charities than it pays out - about £1.25M more. So you only need the accounts of ARK Schools to find out about the funding and spending of ARK academies.

The most recent full accounts for ARK Schools are on their website and can be found here.

prh
sorry, I was not actually trying
I'm doing Public Sector transparency audits all day every day and evening at the moment.
Come back to me in July when the deadline has passed and I'll get to work.

Those ARK accounts.
How much were the heads and deputies at each of the schools paid?
How many of the people in the note on page 26 are at head office?
how much is spent per head at each school?
Can we see the list of every payment over £500 : as is the case for a Local Authority?
Should Lucy Heller's bonus of £25,000 really have been paid out of taxpayer funds?
What was the £1,099,000 of salary recharges to the charity in the year?
And note 21 reinforces my point about the network. If that company did not pay its directors, what did they live on or who did.

The important issue is that the complexities of GAAP have no place in school financing

My daughter goes to an ARK primary in north Westminster and it's terrific. Lovely mixed community primary school full of happy local children with really caring staff and a great community atmosphere. It's very diverse and it feels very welcoming and every child feels really cared for. They seem to go out of their way to meet every child's needs and the kids seem to be making great progress. On Ofsted's parentview site 100% of parents say they'd recommend it to their friends - which is good enough for me.

You wouldn't get all of that information for most LA-controlled schools. You can get some of it if you are prepared to spend time trawling around the performance tables on the DfE website.

Lucy Heller did not receive any bonus, let alone one from taxpayer funds. She received an additional salary from ARK UK Programmes for acting as their MD.

The salary recharge is explained fully in the accounts. That is money coming IN to ARK Schools, not going out. ARK Schools operates the payroll for ARK UK Programmes, a subsidiary of ARK. ARK UK Programmes therefore had to pay ARK Schools £1.099M to cover the costs of their staff's salaries.

Note 21 does not in any way reinforce your point about the network. The directors, like the directors of any charity, are volunteers. They live on their income from their full time jobs.

We'll have to agree to disagree as I do not have time to do the research till July.
You clearly have far fewer concerns about the transparency of Academy chains than I.
Sooner or later I'll compare policies between DCLG and DFE.

I have serious concerns about our local Ark Academy in Rebridge Isaac Newton) Longer school day, lots of homework, lots of detention, focus on academic performance and going to university. Kids are buckling under the pressure, increase in referral to the local Child Mental Health Service, sign of stress and depression in kids, added to an increase in permanent exclusion for non violent incidents. Academies seem to be run like business focused on artificial performance not on the needs of children and the communities they serve.

Good Heavens, quest. You do not want a secondary school that focuses on academic performance and going to university? Obviously this is not a focus for all, but surely raising standards and aspiration is a good thing? Also, we are talking about primary schools on this thread.

I think the comments from the Inspection Report of the OP's School are very selective. No school is Special Measures and required to be an academy unless it is pretty dire in a number of vital areas. It could also be that the LA is not able to improve the school. Also, no school can put off Ofsted - the very thought! New academies do not have an inspection until they have been going for about 2 years. There is no lead-in time. You more or less know the morning they are coming!

Our school was inspected 2nd week back in September, and we finally got "good" standard. We have been lucky that we escaped Academy status - but it has been a very long and traumatic 4-5 years getting there.
Although we were threatened with becoming an academy, somehow we managed to convince HMI that it was not necessary, and it's been a long slog to get up to standard. It is amazing that it didn't happen, given that our school is in an officially 'deprived' area.

If HMI can see that SLT, Governors and the LA are capable of improving the school, they do not necessarily become academies. HMI do give a certain amount of time if the school is in SM for the first time. Usually ones with a long history of poor inspections are the first to get converted. There is no advantage to clinging onto a useless LA that cannot improve the school and has spent years failing the children. It does take years to improve a school but as long as there are geeen shoots, there can be rapid improvement when good teachers actually want to come to the school and stay!