Been offered brand new free school or last choice

[Lazymama2]

We're not sure what to do as have been offered a place at a brand new school which is with walking distance but has not been 'fitted out' yet (buildings are there). There is very little concrete info on term dates, start and finish times, curriculum and obviously no past performance on which to base a decision. Also no older kids to look up to. Other school is our last choice and has improved from satisfactory to good. DH does not want Dd to go to this school and would prefer private. I, on the other hand, quite like idea of a brand new school.

Thoughts/ideas anyone?

PS please dont turn this into a debate of state vs. private as I believe every parent does what is best for thier child/family circumstances and im not for/against one or the other.

I am starting to realise that one of the things about Mumsnet is that the OP has no say on how a thread develops! So its just as well that the OP doesnt mind in this case.

I have gone back as a relative newcomer both to the thread and the argument. There are couple of things that struck me.

First of all nlondondad's first post on this thread was a general one relating to the OPs question advising that as Free Schools are a new thing and intentionally not regulated like ordinary state schools - for example they do not have to employ qualified staff - that anyone considering any Free School should make careful enquiries of the school to a greater extent than they might an ordinary state school. This was followed by a personalised post from one of the WPS people saying basically "dont listen to Nlondondad he opposes WPS" So actually I suppose I am saying that what the record shows is that nlondondad did not "start it"

Continuing the playground feel, and a general failure to "play nicely" various personal attacks are made on nlondondad, for it seems having the temerity to ask questions culminating in the charge that he is pursuing a "campaign of hate" but when he makes a sharpish remark in response there is an immediate chorus of "look miss, he said a rude word!"

Then there is an argument developing that only people with reception age children are entitled to have an opinion, as if no one else has any right to have a say. Well while the obvious retort that if the WPS is going to cost millions of public money we all surely have an interest has been made, I happened to mention WPS in conversation to a friend of mine who has her child in a school in South Islington. They have just been told by their Head that repairs they were hoping for to the school, have been delayed, and may not happen because of Whitehall Park School, and the loss of three million for the Islington School building budget caused by it being set up. She is pretty angry about this. Should she not have a say?

Absolutely Pythagorous!

I have a child at Ashmount and there are many parents discussing the new Free School on our old site. We vacated the site because it was not fit for purpose and obviously we now have a newly built school so do not have the concerns of parents who have school sites that need to be renovated and upgraded that will lose out because of the funding going to WPS. This is not about being uncharitable to the 4 and 5 year olds at WPS but about all 4/5 year olds in Islington (and Haringey where we live, right on the border of Islington) who will lose out directly because of the funding going to WPS; a school which is not required in terms of admission numbers.

nlondondad's posts have been fair, measured and well informed and the criticisms of him have been petty and small minded. He speaks for many, believe me.

@PythagorousPlannedIt

Please could you let me know which school in South Islington that is? I wish to make a formal complaint to the head for propagating the lie that the hole in the school repairs budget has anything to do with WPS rather than Islington's own financial mismanagement when they built the new Ashmount. Feel free to PM me the name if you are too embarrassed to name and shame the school on a public forum. Thanks.

@Pythagorus

Congratulations: You have driven TheNewbrown into threatening to make a "formal complaint." Respect.

@TheNewBrown while Pythagorous is considering, as no doubt she is, your kind offer to "name and shame" the Headteacher of the School her friend's child is at. (No reason why she would have any trouble with that, surely?) I have a modest suggestion for a way forward.

You see there is a Headteacher, who has, a number of times "propagated the lie" that setting up WPS is causing a hole of a bit over three million pounds in the repair budget for Islington Schools. He is in North Islington, so its not Pythag's friend's head.

His name is Barrie O'Shea, and he is Headtteacher at Duncombe School. I have no problem naming him on a public forum as he, for example wrote letters to the Islington Tribune and the Islington Gazette for the express purpose of "propagating this lie". He also attended a public meeting about WPS and spoke from the platform, and made the same point. Setting up WPS means a loss of funding to Islington Schools.

He is easy to contact, just go to the Duncombe School website. Google Duncombe School islington.

By all means contact him to tell him he is a liar. Go ahead with your "formal complaint"

But perhaps I should mention that he did what he did to point out the financial consequences for the children of Islington of WPS in his capacity as Chair of the Islington Schools' Forum, so he was acting as representative of all the other state funded schools in Islington. So in a way you are calling all the Heads in Islington liars.... So no half measures then.

Come on now NLondonDad I know you understand how free schools are funded and it is wrong to pretend otherwise to further your argument.

You say "Setting up WPS means a loss of funding to Islington Schools."

All the money for setting up (and indeed running) WPS comes from central government. Whereas the budget for repairing Local authority run schools is held by Islington so they are completely unconnected. It would be just as nonsensical if Islington claimed they were reducing bin collection to once a fortnight because the Ministry of Defence was building a new Aircraft Carrier.

My concern is that the aforementioned head of this South Islington school seems to be misinforming the parents at their school (based on PythagorousPlannedIt's recounting of what was said). I would just like to know which school it is so I can write to the head and determine if they have been misinforming their school's parents (either knowingly or not) and encourage them to set the record straight.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might well be, I'm absolutely no expert), but isn't it true that Islington's educational building budget is £3m down as a consequence of not getting the money that they'd planned on receiving for the sale of the old Ashmount plot?

So, yes, the money for the setting up of WPS does come from central government but they're not paying for the site itself.

As I understand it, it went like this: Islington rebuilds Ashmount on its new site, planning for some of this immense cost to come from selling off the old site. DofE swoops in and says they can't sell the old site, they have to 'give' it to Bellevue. Islington therefore has £3m (or more) less than they'd budgeted. All schools under the Islington axis therefore have their pot of money reduced.

If I've got this right then the cost per pupil to Islington of WPS is immense.

But do 'set the record straight' if I've got this wrong.

All schools under the Islington axis therefore have their pot of money reduced

Revenue funding for schools (i.e. the money to meet running costs) comes entirely from the government. Revenue funding for schools in Islington is therefore unaffected by whether or not the Ashmount school site was sold.

As I understand it the money raised from selling the Ashmount site was to be used as part of the funding for moving Ashmount School to Crouch Hill Park. They are therefore having to find this money from other sources. I believe it is coming from the capital budget for building repairs. Having said that, a quick look at the 2012/13 accounts for Islington suggests they had budgeted up to 2016/17 on the assumption that there would be no income from selling the Ashmount site so this £3M, if received, would have been additional to budget.

I should also note that, had the free school proposal not been approved, there was an alternative proposal from a local school wishing to use it as a sixth form college. It is likely this would have been approved by central government in preference to selling off the land for high density housing, which was Islington's proposal.

prh47bridge - thank you. That's a really helpful and interesting clarification. Also one further point to mention is that it appears that the site is going to be split, with Islington retaining half which is likely to be developed for housing. Presumably, if that is the case, Islington will still make money from the site by selling off their half for development, because part of the deal with the DofE would be that it could be taken out of educational use? It would also be interesting to know whether that land had increased in value since the Crouch Hill move was planned and budgeted.

@prh47bridge

Your exposition of the financial position is accurate, so far as it goes. The taking of the site from Islington by the Secretary of State without paying for it, and its subsequent transfer to private hands - Bellevue Place Educational Trust - has no effect on the revenue account for schools in Islington. It is the capital account that is affected. 3 million of the cost of moving Ashmount was budgeted on the council receiving 3 million by selling the site to a Housing Association for social housing. Consequently Islingtons schools have lost three million from their repairs budget, from which this three million was spent. As Barrie O'Shea, Head teacher of Duncombe has pointed out.

The accounts you mention already took the loss into account as the Minister's intentions were made known some time ago.

There was no proposal for a Sixth Form Free School on the site, or at least not one known to the DfE

No, the proposal was not for a sixth form free school. As I'm sure you are well aware the proposal was for St Aloysius College to use the site for a new sixth-form college so that it could stop using Archway Methodist Hall for lessons. I believe the NUT supported this proposal.

Just for clarity, I believe the site remains in public ownership but the Trust leases it for a peppercorn rent. This arrangement is used by a significant number of academies and free schools.

Ah now I understand. There was a proposal put foward by the NUT shop steward at St Aloysius, but it was never put forward by the school. My understanding is that the Governors of St Aloysius considered the matter, and decided not to support it. I dont know why they rejected it. Of course had there been a proposal to use the site for a Sixth form centre the arguments would have been different, as a Primary School proposal put forward by a for profit company and a proposal for a sixth form centre put forward by, in this case, the Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster would be so disimilar. The demographic argument for a start. But the appropriation of land to give to a church, would I think, be controversial.

But anyway this is not the option before us now.

Your point about the lease is, with respect, pretty meaningless pedantry. Are you going to tell everyone reading this living in a leasehold flat that they do not "own" it? As they are not the free holder?

Prh47bridge - One question that I have never had a complete answer to is why was a budget for the new Ashmount building allowed to include £3 million of funding when the receipt of that £3 million was based on an assumption that they would receive permission to take the old site out of educational use and sell it to a developer for housing? Surely it is that assumption that has caused a deficit in the capital budget rather than WPS? Who had responsibility for the decision about the sources of funding for the new Ashmount building?

Its the decision by the Secretary of State to appropriate the land without compensation that causes the deficit. WPS is then thrust into the firing line because it benefits from this decision.

In short, no WPS no appropriation. So the children who attend WPS are made innocent pawns in a political game whereby Mr Gove seeks to score a point over Labour controlled Islington. And all the other children in Islington are made to suffer, so that this political point may be scored. And Bellevue Ltd get control of a valuable public asset without having to pay for it.

jakecat - I have to say I agree with you. It is by no means certain that the LA would have been allowed to sell the land even if there was no WPS.

nlondondad - Yes, I am quite happy to tell anyone living in a leasehold flat that they don't own it. Legally they don't. It is not meaningless pedantry. It is a very important distinction.

If you own a lease you do not own the property. The property remains in the ownership of the freeholder. You own the right to occupy the land or building for a given length of time and the lease may include significant restrictions on what you can do with the property. When you sell a leasehold property all you are actually selling is your right to occupy it. You cannot sell the property itself. It is not yours to sell. If you want to own the property you have to buy it from the leaseholder.

The same is true here. The land still belongs to the LA and cannot be sold, redeveloped or used for any purpose other than running a school. No public assets have been transferred into private ownership.

So the children who attend WPS are made innocent pawns in a political game whereby Mr Gove seeks to score a point over Labour controlled Islington

Notwithstanding the fact that many local residents campaigned for the Ashmount site to continue to be a school? And notwithstanding the fact that sites owned by councils of all political colours have been passed to free schools over the objections of the council you insist this is due to Islington being a Labour council?

And Bellevue Ltd get control of a valuable public asset without having to pay for it

There goes that allegation again. In what way do they have control of it? Can they build housing or shops on the site? Can they sell off the site? Can they do anything with the site other than run a school on it? Here's a clue - the answer to all three questions is no.

Nlondondad I don't agree. Surely it is "no permission to take the land out of educational use, no £3 million". But also you ignore the point that the site is expected to be split, with Islington retaining over half of it. Which would mean that any deficit caused by not receiving permission to take the site out of educational use will be less than half the "£3 million" you assert.

Oh god, this is what I mean. The whole thing is so confusing, I don't know what to believe. This is one of the big problems with education at the moment, the lack of clarity and transparency.

Had WPS not been 'given' the site, would Islington Council's capital budget by £3m the richer?

I have thought of an analogy of this situation.

Imagine I am shopping around for a new car because my current one is clapped out. I am looking at practical, affordable cars but then remember that my wealthy Aunt Edna is on her last legs and I will probably inherit some money in her will. I promptly ignore the affordable cars and splurge my money on a sporty, little Mercedes.

Aunt Edna duly pops her clogs but, horror of horrors, it turns out in her will that she has left all her money to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. I am now left with a car I can’t really afford and when the central heating in my flat breaks down I have no money to fix it.

The key question here is who is to blame for the financial situation that means I can’t fix my central heating?

NLondonDad would have you believe it is Battersea Dogs & Cats Home’s fault for having the temerity to be the beneficiary of Aunt Edna’s will - that is clearly nonsense.

One could maybe argue that it is Aunt Edna’s fault for writing me out of the will but that doesn’t hold much weight as it is really her prerogative how she disposes of her money.

The real culprit here is my poor financial planning and the questions jakecat asks are valid, namely ‘who were the people who made the decision to buy the Mercedes and shouldn’t they be held accountable for their poor financial management?’

Had WPS not been 'given' the site, would Islington Council's capital budget by £3m the richer?

Not necessarily. Any disposal or change of use of land used for state schools needs permission from the Secretary of State. The current government has approved a much lower proportion of such applications than the previous government. So it is possible Islington may still not have been allowed to sell the land.

I believe the site was valued at around £10M but Islington intended to sell it for much less than that so that it could be used for low cost housing. If jakecat is right and the site will be split it is still possible Islington may be allowed to sell off part of the site and may therefore get some or all of the "missing" £3M.

Does anyone know what the cost of the new ashmount school was. I have seen figures bandied around but nothing definitive. But I am assuming that it was less than the cost of making the old ashmount school fit for purpose?

I take it it was substantially more than £3 million.

@WhitehallParkdad

The Crouch Hill Project was to provide, on the site of the former Crouch Hill Recreation Centre, a new school building for Ashmount school, a new nursery for Bowlers Community nursery, a refurbished youth centre at CAPE, improvements to the security and accessibility of the Metropolitan Open land, projection and enhancement of the plant and animal life on the Metropolitan Open Land, a combined heat and power system to provide energy to the new buildings and to a neighbouring Council estate. Provision was also made to allow the revival of some of the community facilities lost when the old community centre closed. The cost to the Council of the whole project was, I understand £9.25 million. I am basing this on an old council report.

What I do not know, and would be interested to find out, is what proportion of that cost was the new building for Ashmount itself. I imagine that that was "commercially confidential" at the time so only members of the project board would have known it, but it must be a matter of history now. Maybe someone will put in an FOI.

@WhitehallParkDad

The figure from Islington's website is £16.5million. See here

Or you could read this thread started by NlondonDad where he says he expects it to cost about £16million.

nlondondad Sat 04-Oct-14 00:00:29: "Bellevue is a (very profitable) limited company owned by shareholders based in Switzerland, to whom it is, of course accountable."

Er, no, it is a UK company, jointly owned by an entrepreneurial prep school headmaster and a Hong Kong private financier, with some other passive investors which it describes as Swiss and UK families. See its Wikipedia page here.

It has grown very rapidly. I'd be nervous about its ability to maintain quality at that rate of growth, and its success in the free school sector isn't yet proven, but otherwise the intentions of the company looks reasonably sound to me.

I am indebted to thenewbrown for the update and correction. It would seem that the officially announced figure for the cost of the "Crouch Hill Campus and Crouch Hill Park" project was 16.5 Million pounds. But unfortunately this does not answer whitehallparkdads question which was how much the new Ashmount School building cost as this is only part of the whole project (of course). [To recap it was a new school building, a new voluntary nursery building, the old one being demolished, a large scale refurbishement of the Cape Building, and energy centre, works on the adjacent Council Housing estate, reinstatement of the derelict public park, construction of a new Multi Use Games Area, construction of a new adventure playground, a new skateboard ramp, and some works on the Parkland Walk proper and re instatement of some community facilities.]

So the closest I can get for the cost of Ashmount School is "less than 16.5 Million" Not very helpful. Perhaps someone else has more accurate information?