'Zealot' Michael Gove is accused of 'lunacy' in £400m free school row...how is this affecting your children's education?

[MillyDLA]

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/classroom-controversy-zealot-michael-gove-accused-of-lunacy-in-free-schools-budget-row-9350075.html

I would like some reactions and thoughts to this. As a teacher in an oversubscribed school, surrounded by other over subscribed schools money would have been better spent creating more places where they are needed in the state sector.

That's interesting. But not evidence of an proportionate increase in demand for private schools. Overall the increase in demand for state schools in that period far outstrips that 14% rise in private school numbers in the same period for London and the south - a 3% increase since last year alone.

That report is evidence of a dramatic increase in the gulf between North and South in terms of income and value of assets. Fewer people have left London for the countryside as they might have done a decade ago because London schools have improved dramatically yet London property prices keep rocketing, so their equity would devalue moving out and schools elsewhere aren't as good. Also evidence that immigration, especially from EU countries, has hit London and the South East more because that is where the economic opportunities are. It's also a magnet for well educated families of non-EU countries transferred by their work. Birth rates have also gone up.

I can't find the exact figure but in some boroughs like Barking - no free schools there - the numbers of primary pupils will have risen 40% in five years. So the private school place increases are much, much smaller as a proportion.

Some facts and figures here:

www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/1524LCDotheMath5.pdf

The school-age population (5-19) within the capital grew by 107,000 over the 10 years – a growth rate of 8.2 per cent between censuses [2001 to 2011]

In 2011/12, London had just under 1.1 million children in its education system. This figure is set to grow year on year to approximately 1.25 million by 2016/17

42 per cent of all shortages in school places nationally will be found in London. Despite this, London will only receive 36 per cent of the recent basic need capital allocation for 2013 to 2015.

the pupil growth rate in London is increasing at twice the rate than the national average

" That's interesting. But not evidence of an proportionate increase in demand for private schools."
Yes, I agree it's a smoking gun, rather than real evidence. The trends need to be studied at LA level, in the context of local surpluses or oversubscription levels, and there are other variables such as local quality issues. Also, people's reasons for turning down state places need to be recorded and published, so that trends can be monitored.

However, in a recession, when state sector quality is increasing, populations are rising and sites for new schools are becoming more difficult to find, it is dangerous to assume that the private sector "should" expand in line with state places, because they will be competing for the same sites.

There's no question that more places and money are needed. Still trying to find exact figures for London but nationally the increase in reception age children has risen by 16% from 2006 to 2011. So the 14% increase in private school places in the south and 12% decrease in the North lags behind even the overall national figure, and way behind the rate for London.

The wealth gap has widened - the top 1% now own as much as the 'bottom' 55% combined. So that might explain why the demand for private education has not increased proportionately - who can afford it?

But as the NAO and public accounts committee have found, the free school and academies programme are not addressing this crisis in terms of basic need. And now they are diverting money away from primaries that are doing their bit and trying to expand.

OK so 94,000 applied for London reception places 2011. 102,441 applied for 2014 entry. So that's 9% increase in just 3 years.

Core funding to local government has been cut by 35% by this government. Local councils in the capital have been subsidising insufficient grants from central government to the tune of £9k per pupil.

So straggle, even in London a smaller percentage of children are going private (because the & going private has grown less than the overall growth %), very different to the assertion that more and more children are going private in the face of tighter state school admissions?

It is perhaps more in line with the stories that I have heard locally, with oversubscribed schools being put under even more pressure from children who would, pre-recession, have gone private, but are now wanting state places (and, in the main, and again anecdotally, finding the state sectore not as bad as they feared and this sending younger siblings etc to state as well, even asd things pick up economically)

Definitely what I have heard and seen acnecdotally too, and the figures do seem to back it up. London schools have also gone from bottom of the league to top in 10 years. But that's why private school chains (like Islington's Bellevue Place) are desperate to propose free schools in the middle class areas in order to skim off a piece of the funding - they are not seeing the demand they used to expect. Unfortunately they continue to give a wide berth to the boroughs with a huge population rise - Tower Hamlets, Barking - because they are in more deprived areas, and potentially more challenging. But those LAs cannot open their own schools and capital funding for expansion is being raided so there they are doubly stuffed, despite previous improvements under the London Challenge.

London's schools have improved more than those elsewhere in the country because they get LOTS more money per pupil.
over £7000 in Haringey, under £5000 in Dorset per pupil

Locally that figure is c. £4,200.

London's schools have improved more than those elsewhere in the country because they get LOTS more money per pupil

A study was carried out recently that showed no linkage at all between school funding and results.

What is the rationale for the pupil premium then? It is sometimes hard to see improvement in league tables when pupils are getting Ds rather than their predicted Es.

The London Challenge has been proved to have improved performance - both in terms of GCSE/Ebacc and Ofsted ratings. At the same time, not as much money was spent on it as has been spent on the academies programme.

" very different to the assertion that more and more children are going private in the face of tighter state school admissions?"

Teacher, I suspect both things are happening. The effect I'm talking about, if it exists, would be smaller and concentrated in particular areas at first, so wouldn't necessarily show up in those stats. If it's there then it would be having a dampening effect on the growth, but it would be hard to isolate it from other effects.

It's a hypothesis, and it's logical, but as Straggle rightly points out, it needs more tangible evidence (though plenty of anecdotal evidence in my area).

What is the rationale for the pupil premium then?

People, including politicians, instinctively believe that more money means better outcomes. And it is possible that this is true where money is specifically targeted at disadvantaged groups - the study I mention above didn't look at that level of detail. It was more interested in the macro level - how did a school's funding per pupil affect results.

prh47bridge Extra funding should pay directly for staff or, as you say, targeted activities. I'd take good quality teachers over slightly reduced class sizes any day. A class of 30 with a good teacher is better than a class of 26 with an inexperienced and/or poor teacher.

I don't think London schools are necessarily better resourced - teachers are paid London weighting which accounts for slightly higher salaries, although it's probably easier to recruit Teach First and other newly teachers because more graduates are doing their training in London. But living costs are higher so retention is a problem unless there is a good career structure. The £9,000 I referred to was, I think, a subsidy of capital costs not the annual funding per pupil.

Interesting Independent article about the first academy chain to fold:

'Dr Bousted argued: “At the moment, there is no mechanism for dealing with failing academy chains or sponsors who relinquish their academies, other than a kind of ‘fire sale’ whereby the DfE looks for new sponsors. Parents and unions have no input into this ‘auction’ and this adds considerably to the stress.” She said one solution could be to allow the schools to return to local authority control.'

I walked past a sponsored academy the other day and it actually had the chain's logo embossed several feet high on the side of the wall as part of the rendering. So far it's been judged 'Requires Improvement' and it's four years into a seven-year funding agreement. If it changed sponsor it would need to be re-rendered!

Well this is certainly an example of bringing "the private sector into public sector education. When a business folds, it does fold abruptly just like that. Usually the problem is that the Directors of the Company have been advised, (formally by their company secretary) that if they go on they will be "trading while insolvent". If you do that, as Directors you are held individually responsible and in the worst case could go to jail. As well, or instead you can be held personally responsible for some of the Companies debts, and you can also be disqualified from acting as a Director for a term of years, or even life, which for some people is a huge inconvenience and a potential source of large scale financial loss.

So one does not do it. (Trading while insolvent) The most likely trigger is the directors were told they could not meet payroll this month...

There are a number of questions to be asked:

1. Are the staff in the schools going to be paid?

1. How are the finances of the schools arranged? If they are all part of the Trust, does that mean some of the schools, or all of them, share in the debts run up?

3.If they are not part of the Trust, financially but were buying all their admin from the Trust, does that mean they are now creditors on the Trust? (if they have paid for services which cannot now be delivered) And in the short term where do they get their admin such as HR and payroll from?

4.Presumably if the schools are to be passed on to another Trust that Trust will not accept any liabilities, so does that mean that the DfE will have to pay off some of the liabilities of a private organisation? Legally how does that work?

Thats quite enough for now

1. Normally the staff are unsecured creditors when an employer folds so they are unlikely to get paid in full, although they may get some of the money they are owed. It is possible the DfE will require any new sponsor to make up the shortfall but I don't know for sure if that will happen.

2/3/4. To disentangle this we need to understand what we mean by "school". The word could represent the land and buildings. It could also represent the entire operational school. The operational school was part of the Trust. It was not in any way a separate entity. But the land and buildings (i.e. the physical school) don't belong to the Trust. So the debts all belong to the Trust and the schools are not creditors of the Trust. No part of the debts will fall on the schools if they are taken over by new sponsors. Neither the new sponsors nor the DfE will have to pay off any liabilities (unless the DfE requires the new sponsors to pay any money owed to staff).

The most likely trigger is the directors were told they could not meet payroll this month...

This chain's schools are mostly undersubscribed - but they were large to begin with. So this will affect over 5,000 children and a few hundred teachers.

Secondaries

Gloucester Academy Capacity 1250, number of children 740 ('Inadequate')
The Dean Academy Capacity 1095, number of children 910 (no Ofsted)
Bexhill High School Capacity 1500, number of children 1395 ('Inadequate')
Paignton Community and Sports Academy Capacity 2188, number of children 1435 (no Ofsted)

Primaries

Curledge Street Academy Capacity 467, number of children 430 (no Ofsted, but 'Satisfactory' pre-conversion)
Kings Ash Academy Capacity 420, number of children 410 (no Ofsted, but 'Satisfactory' pre-conversion)

This has veered off the discussion of free schools, but free schools are just new academies and most are sponsored. If they are not well supported by parents at the beginning, they will be deserted if they do not perform well. There's no room for experimentation here.

"The most likely trigger is the directors were told they could not meet payroll this month..."

Why are you assuming this is a financial issue rather than a performance issue? All Academy Trusts have exempt charity status, and are funded by the DfE in accordance with their Funding Agreements. For example, here is the funding agreement for Gloucester Academy. The conditions for termination of the agreement are on Page 34.

@icecreamsoup
of course I am speculating, but its the abruptness of it. If the Secretary of State were terminating the agreement for performance reasons, one would expect the announcement to be coupled with the announcement of who is taking over. Moreover, Gloucester Academy was only transferred to the Trust as recently as last month, and would the Secretary of State have done that if closure on performance grounds was on the way?

Also just because you are an exempt Trust does not mean that you cant run out of money, if you spend more than you are getting. And the Trusts used for Academies (and Free Schools) are constituted as companies not for profit limited by guarentee. Such a company does not have shareholders but members, and the members elect Directors who have all the normal legal duties and liabilities of Company Directors. But in addition as the Trust is a charity they are the Trustees of the charity as well.

(I have been a charity trustee)

"its the abruptness of it"

Hmm, you might be right, although here are the reasons for termination of the agreement "forthwith" instead of with a notice period ....

^"123) The Secretary of State may at any time by notice in writing terminate this Agreement forthwith on the occurrence of any of the following events:-
a) the Academy Trust calls a meeting of its creditors (whether formal or informal) orenters into any composition or arrangement (whether formal or informal) with its creditors; or
b) the Academy Trust proposes a voluntary arrangement within Section 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986; or
^c) the Academy Trust is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 123 of Insolvency Act 1986 provided that, for the purposes of this clause, Section 123 (1)(a)
of the Insolvency Act 1986 shall have effect as if the amount of £10,000 was
substituted for £750. The Academy Trust shall not be deemed unable to pay its
debts for the purposes of this clause if any such demand as is mentioned in the said
Section is being contested in good faith by the Academy Trust; or
d) the Academy Trust has a receiver and manager (with the exception of Receivers and
Managers or Interim Managers appointed by the Charity Commission under the
Charities Act 1993 or any subsequent re-enactment of that Act), administrator or
administrative receiver appointed over all or any part of its undertakings, assets or
income; or
e) any distraint, execution or other process is levied or enforced on any of the Academy
Trust's property and is not paid out, withdrawn or discharged within fifteen Business
Days; or
f) the Academy Trust has passed a resolution for its winding up; or
g) an order is made for the winding up or administration of the Academy Trust.