Russell Education Trust/Russell Group Universities

[strictlyfan2013]

Can anyone confirm if the Free School sponsor "Russell Education Trust" is linked to the Russell Group Universities please? Also, what does "State funded independent school" mean? In relation to Free Schools... Thanks!

Yes, there are still vulnerable school's.

Wriggling - maybe the RET schools will, but overall the pushing through of the free schools will be damaging to education in general and Gove will be to blame for that. I don't think it will be 'interesting' to look back on the unsuccessful schools, I think that will be saddening that an ideology was allowed to be pushed through to the exclusion of everything else.
One thing that always comes across when people are pro free schools is they only seem interested in their school and not education in general. So the school planning is not looking at what the area needs, rather what the individual parent wants and those that shout loudest get what they want.
Wiggling - your situation may be different if a new school is meeting the needs of the local community.

"One thing that always comes across when people are pro free schools is ..."

I wouldn't describe myself as pro free schools. And I wouldn't describe RET as pro free schools. Free schools are the (almost) only way to create new schools at the moment. There are lots of people complaining about that, and it may or may not change in the next parliament. However, there are others who are simply working with the current legislation to create schools that are wanted (and often needed) by their communities.

It's worth pointing out that the balance between want and need is one of the things that has evolved within the lifetime of the free school programme. At first groups just had to show that they were providing something different to what was on offer in local schools, and the focus seemed to be on making sure there was a free school in every area (to counter the "it's just a London thing" accusation). Now the emphasis is much more on need, although the definition of need does explicitly include quality as well as quantity of places (see here).

I agree with you that there will be (and has already been) some failures, and that is desperately sad. The recent NAO report on free schools concludes that the policy has allowed school places to be created more quickly and cheaply than previous policies, but reserves judgement on quality because that is something that will take time to measure.

I think it's also worth recognising that some LAs have been failing their local communities on quality for years. Whether the academy/free school programme is the best solution to that is obviously debatable. Everyone will have a different opinion based on their local experience and political perspective.

"So the school planning is not looking at what the area needs, rather what the individual parent wants and those that shout loudest get what they want. "

Yes, I agree, but I would say that has been true of maintained schools too in some areas. The people who have been shouting the loudest for many years (and who have strongly embedded representation on many LA committees) have been the established churches, hence the massive expansion of the faith school sector under the last Government.

That might seem counter-intuitive to those of you in Brentwood, because from your perspective the free school programme has allowed a new faith school to be created, which you didn't necessarily want. However, from my local perspective the opposite is true ... the free school programme is allowing more high quality mainstream comprehensive school places to be created.

I was under the impression that the potential to cause an existing school to close is still very much a possibility

I think the entire free school programme is ideologically driven fuckwittery, and I am deeply sceptical of the motives of both the schools and the parents involved. Most of them look like projects to build exclusive schools to keep out "the other", be that cynical attempts at backdoor selection, religious extremists or the carcrash that is the Montessori lot in Crawley (See their latest unintentional piece of comedy).

However, I don't think that the potential to cause an existing school to close is a good objection. If a free school opens and is a disaster, local schools will not be affected. If a free school opens and is a success, why should local children be denied a better education to protect the position of weaker schools that happen to already be open?

The argument that we can't allow good schools to open because it will compromise bad schools is a weak one. And the argument that parents are mugs who will send their children to bad new schools because the schools are shiny and the parents don't know what's good for them is deeply patronising. Successful existing schools have nothing to fear from the arrival of a free school. Less effective schools have much to fear, and so they should. The "what about the children in those schools" argument is also flawed: those children would be better off with their schools in special measures earlier, and it's never good to leave children in bad schools without intervention.

"Successful existing schools have nothing to fear from the arrival of a free school."

I agree.

"I am deeply sceptical of the motives of both the schools and the parents involved. Most of them look like projects to build exclusive schools to keep out "the other""

By "most of them" I think you mean the ones you know about because they've been in the press for those reasons. There are many others under the radar because they aren't so controversial.

The fact is that the Free School route is (almost) the only way to create new schools at the moment, so in some cases parents have become involved to make sure that the inevitable influx of free school places are tailored to local need rather than being imposed on them from outside.

"Successful existing schools have nothing to fear from the arrival of a free school."

I think indifferent private schools have something to fear. Some LAs have been inadvertently bolstering the private sector while letting their maintained schools remain below par. It's easy (and cost effective) to say new places aren't needed if existing schools aren't full, but that's disingenuous if a disproportionate number of families are reluctantly scraping together funds to go private because they are worried about quality issues.

I think indifferent private schools have something to fear.

That should be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. They're private businesses. The LEA has no obligation to make their lives easier. As you say, unintentionally that has sometimes happened through lack of good quality places, but that's the private sector's temporary good fortune.

"but that's the private sector's temporary good fortune."

I hope you're right. I agree its something that could be reversed through improving existing maintained schools, rather than introducing free schools. It's a big issue in some parts of London, and is a factor in segregating those that can afford it from those that can't. It is also a factor in family breakdown (due to the financial stress) and community breakdown (due to people moving house in droves as an alternative solution).

"The LEA has no obligation to make their lives easier."

I agree, and think the reverse is true .... that state schools can and should aspire to compete with some local private schools on quality of teaching and learning, despite having less financial resource.

Parents complain of lack of choice, imbalance, or unequal opportunity, e.g. where there are faith schools or single sex schools and their children do not fit the criteria. That may drive some to the private sector. The only new schools that have been created in the last decade have been more faith schools or sponsored academies which have usually replaced other schools - sometimes several in one area managed by the same sponsor. This feels like an even more reduced choice. So it is interesting where parents have demanded an alternative that resembles a conventional LA comprehensive school.

The problem with opening too many new mainstream fully comprehensive schools is that it creates surplus, with a bang. If it creates surplus in sponsored academies (as with predecessor schools they are often less popular) it goes against government and often LA policy. So instead we have this mish-mash - more of those schools which offer unequal opportunities, more faith schools, more single sex. And the programme is seen as a market opportunity by edu-businesses hoping to profit whether by economy of scale or future changes in the law and politicians aiming to encourage that.

So there will be some free schools that could provide some needed balance in areas of increasing shortage. But others just perpetuate the inequalities in the existing system. And on top of that for-profit providers view free schools and also sponsorship of existing schools as a market opportunity. The policy doesn't work on the whole, but it is worth assessing each school and provider on its own merits.

I"d question any free school that has CofE admissions criteria though, so I can see why Becket Keys was controversial. We have too many faith schools as it is. The Catholic Church has decided not to have further involvement in free schools now that it is sure it can continue to open voluntary aided schools. While there is a separate argument about whether faith schools should be opened up more with a fixed proportion of community places, it doesn't justify more of them in general. Or even 'Christian ethos' schools like ones run by Oasis or Chapel St - seems very nineteenth century to me.

"it doesn't justify more of them in general"

I agree. I think in some cases the parental demand for them has been generated by the perception (talked up by some politicians, and the churches themselves) that a faith school is automatically a good school. If you live in an area where local schools aren't performing well, then it's probably easier to say "we want a faith school because we don't have one and other areas do", and be listened to, than it is to say "we think local schools are badly managed and we can do better".

RET are helping to establish both faith and non-faith schools. I would expect them all to do equally well, because of good management, and committed parents, rather than because they are one or the other.

I would expect them all to do equally well, because of good management, and committed parents, rather than because they are one or the other.

There's a simple reason why faith schools, particularly over-subscribed faith schools, will do better: they're selective. Not on ability per se, but on stable families who can plan in advance. That makes schools' lives immeasurably easier.

Consider your local CofE primary. You're pretty much assured a place if you plan a couple of years in advance and turn up dutifully at the associated church. That means you are people who plan education two years in advance, and are living in the area semi-permanently. Oh look: the middle classes. You're only slightly less assured a place if you plan a couple of years in advance and turn up dutifully at some other church (older, more complicated admission requirements had a "that does not have its own associated school" clause, but that's much less common now). That means who are people who plan education two years in advance and are living in an area semi-permanently. Oh look: the middle classes.

That's why CofE schools have, compared to their neighbouring community schools, lower levels of FSM, EAL, SEN: they select for people who can and will plan in advance and navigate the system. The middle classes.

If a school set its admission requirement as "you must turn up to four meetings out of six over the preceding two years and write a 100 words on the subject of your choice" they would get the same effect.

"There's a simple reason why faith schools, particularly over-subscribed faith schools, will do better ..."

Yes, agreed in the "exam performance" sense in recent year. And that is what has driven the quality perception. However, there have been some fundamental changes recently, that will help to redress that:

1. Ofsted's criteria now measure performance using a value-added measure, rather than absolute results. In order to receive the top judgement of "outstanding" you have to show that your pupils are making outstanding progress, and that can sometimes be just as difficult with high attaining children than low-attaining children. As a consequence, many schools that are currently judged as outstanding will be downgraded at their next inspection, and parents are starting to see schools they might not previously have considered being awarded an Outstanding grade instead.

1. The pupil premium (provided it is used wisely) should help to address inequality. I think some faith schools may be struggling with finances because they don't have enough FSM children to be able to access additional funding.

1. The London Challenge, and its successors, have proved that with the right level of financial and management of support you can significantly turn around a school's performance, however disadvantaged its intake.

Yes, pupil premium and a focus on progress is acting as a sharp wakeup to schools that have been coasting. However, the "can sometimes be just as difficult with high attaining children (as with) low-attaining children" argument is only true up to a point. It's much easier to teach children who are with you for seven years and whose parents are supportive of education, than it is to teach a mobile population whose parents are unsupportive. Schools with entrance criteria that are more complex than "turn up and ask for a place" will have more of the former and fewer of the latter.

"the "can sometimes be just as difficult with high attaining children (as with) low-attaining children" argument is only true up to a point"

Yes, agreed. That's why the other two points are important. But it all helps.

"It's much easier to teach children who are with you for seven years and whose parents are supportive of education ..."

That's also why I mentioned the point that parents are starting to see schools they might not previously have considered being awarded an Outstanding grade instead. If that starts to reverse the flow of middle-class families from community schools to faith schools by even just a small amount, then it could potentially become self-enforcing, creating a positive feedback loop.

parents are starting to see schools they might not previously have considered being awarded an Outstanding grade instead.

One local comp: Outstanding to special measures in five years, as it turned out that they were fiddling their results with a massive dose of early entry, retakes, multiple entry, "equivalent" qualifications and so on. They went from Good to special measures in ten months, as the new framework revealed just how bad things had become.

I nearly sent my children there, so would have had a Y11 and a Y13 child at a school in special measures. Thank God I didn't believe the Ofsted reports.

"Thank God I didn't believe the Ofsted reports."

Yep, well it's only one tool for judging a school. Most people use more than that. But it can be helpful, even if you just "read through the lines" rather than look at the headline judgement.

As a matter of interest, do you know why notices appeared in the London Gazette on 24th December for voluntary strike-off of:

RET King's Church of England School Brighton Trust
RET St Andrew the Apostle Greek Orthodox School
RET Twickenham Trust

Ignore my comment in the last paragraph. It refers to another post. The query about dissolving the trusts still stands. What's going on?

Errmm...I'm not clutching at straws!

YOU were the one who stated that Becket Keys has a high pupil-teacher ratio - it doesn't! The national average figure I quoted is from the DfE - ask them if you think it's wrong.

I'm working with somebody else on questions to the other questions I asked, so not giving any more details just yet, except to ask again why the would-be head of Turing House School was taken along to the DfE interview www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/dfeinterview2013.php

I know more about this process than I'm going to give away here and part of it is knowing the right answers and knowing the right people.

You're probably aware that the Commons Select Committee launched an inquiry into Academies and Free Schools, the deadline for which has passed. The terms of reference include procurement and recruitment. It will be interesting to see the results.

"As a matter of interest, do you know why notices appeared in the London Gazette on 24th December for voluntary strike-off of:RET King's Church of England School Brighton Trust, RET St Andrew the Apostle Greek Orthodox School Trust, RET Twickenham Trust"

Yes, I do. In 2013 the DfE introduced a new kind of free school funding agreement aimed at multi-academy trusts. Previously there was only one type of funding agreement, for single-academy trusts. Both funding agreements are explained here.

As stated here, "RET established its first two free schools using the Single Academy Trust model. It formed two sub-trusts, the Bristol Free School Trust and the Becket Keys CofE Free School Trust, which each signed free school funding agreements with the Secretary of State."

They were planning to use the same model for subsequent schools (hence the creation of the three trusts you listed). However, the introduction of the MAT model meant they could use that instead. It's much simpler (which is presumably why the DfE introduced it). Therefore the three sub-trusts for the new schools are no longer needed.

daphnedill: "except to ask again why the would-be head ... was taken along to the DfE interview"

Perhaps you'd better explain why you think that's an issue?

He is a member of the steering group and made significant contributions to the proposal. From the interview guidance, the following should attend:

"The member of the group responsible for putting together your financial plans;"
"The member of the group responsible for putting together the educational plan (if this is more than one individual, then the key contributors should attend"

He wasn't principle designate at the time. That appointment process happened later, in full consultation with the DfE.