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!

Daphne I share some of your cynicism about the Free School Strategy. I worry about the opaqueness and some of the players but if you are trying to make your points via the example of Turing House you are completely barking up the wrong tree. This is a school born out of deep dissatisfaction amongst parents with the Local Authorities handling of it's school place strategy, which leaves many parents without school places at primary level and with it being common for parents to feel forced to move or go private, if they can afford it at 11. There are nearly 5000 posts on the subject on the local site if you want some measure of the strong feelings, and the issues. Turing House has come into being because a group of parents, many already heavily involved in the local education scene, as governors, sitting on Council Committees etc. got together and decided to do something about meeting the parental need for an inclusive coed comprehensive school modelled on the local outstanding comprehensive schools (one of which incidentally is at the centre of the area of the borough with one of the highest rates of social deprivation so let's unhook the outstanding = middle class perception, post London challenge that is increasingly irrelevant, in London at least ) at a time when we are facing a huge bulge in pupil numbers. Turing Houses catchment was pinpointed on the area of greatest need, as agreed by the Council, an emerging black hole of provision, and socially pretty much representative of the borough as a whole rather than the pockets of middle class affluence. Parents in this borough are only too familiar with the loss of community when a black hole of school provision forces parents to move away (and I speak as one who was in that situation at primary level). Though it may be hard for you to believe, this is a Free School proposal Bourne out of genuine need and the local parents are deeply grateful to the parents and governors who have worked hard and sacrificed their time to make this much needed and wanted school a reality, with no other less than altruistic motives than to have a school place for their own children. As a local parent I have taken a deep interest and I know that RET ( who incidentally it never occurred to me were remotely connected to the Russell Group ) were selected as the provider of support and expertise that were the best fit with the group's aspirations.

In the context of what I Know locally your posts are coming over as unnecessarily cynical and bitter. I totally agree that we need to be questioning some of the processes and players involved in the current setting up of Free Schools. But Turing is an example of where it is actually meeting the needs of a community where the LA had let them down for decades.

Why should I be bitter? I don't live anywhere near Richmond, my youngest DC has almost finished school and I have no personal interest at all. I had a free place at a GDST school, my father went to Tiffins and my grandfather to Habs. My own DCs were the first in my family to go to a state comp and have done very well, but I made absolutely sure that I lived in the catchment area of an excellent school. I am 100% behind any initiative to ensure that pupils have a first class education, wherever they live.

I have a great deal of empathy with people in areas where school places are a nightmare and I have no doubt at all that the sponsors have worked extremely hard and sincerely to achieve what they have. I am not even totally opposed to the idea of free schools, especially those providing services to replace special schools and EOTAS provision.

My concern is with the lack of openness ("transparency" if you like) surrounding RET and some of the people connected with it. Over the last three years RET has received at least £788,970.60 from the DfE and Education London has received £1,015,122.95. (It could be more, but only individual payments over £25,000 are listed.) It would appear that the individual schools have received additional grants. This is public money and I, along with every other taxpayer, has a right to know that is not being siphoned off to individual directors and cronies, as happened with a4e and other outsourcing companies. I know for a fact that this has happened within the health service and some vocational training providers, so I can perhaps be excused for being somewhat cynical about education. If I were Margaret Hodge, I would definitely have some questions I would like to ask RET.

PS. I must have too much time on my hands, because I've searched for information about Education London's role in the London Challenge and I still haven't been able to find anything.

"My concern is with the lack of openness ("transparency" if you like) ..."

daphnedill, as I said before, I think reasonable answers can be expected to reasonable questions. However, you also need to treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

If your children's school's governors didn't have their profiles published on the internet, or the LA officers who ran your local education system for that matter, would you bombard them with requests for their CV, and write a blog about how their lack of response must mean they have something to hide? Would you proclaim that the fact you don't know exactly which schools they've worked at previously must mean that they have no experience to do the role? No, you'd assume that the people who appointed them had adequately checked their background, unless you had some specific reason to doubt it.

Perhaps what you're missing here is the fact that the free school approval process does include rigorous checks of capacity, capability and suitability. I'm not saying the DfE always get it right - there have obviously been some high profile mistakes on that front - but that doesn't mean that all free school trustees should be viewed with suspicion until you have personally vetted them. I'm sure there have been some dodgy goings-on at LA-run schools in the past, but the vast majority of those are left to get on with things without too much finger-pointing.

I'm happy to answer your questions, because I think it's important to set the record straight. However I can also understand why others have ended up closing the door on groups that have taken up a considerable amount of their time with questions that would more appropriately be directed at the DfE. After all, groups are simply trying to work within the framework that the DfE sets out; a framework that is constantly evolving. Sometimes it evolves in response to feedback from the groups themselves, because they don't always see things working properly either. I think everybody just wants education policy to be as free from politics as possible, to be able to get on with creating great schools and not be bogged down by nasty accusations from people who either don't understand, or don't like, the latest policy initiative.

www.turinghouseschool.org.uk/steeringgroup.php

I'd be interested to see somebody from RET themselves answer some of the questions .....

I note that Private Eye has started following the money on some Academy chain schools where the Charity has subcontracted the actual running of the school to a profit making company ....

"I'd be interested to see somebody from RET themselves answer some of the questions ....."

One of the first questions I was asked on this thread was "do you work for RET" as if that would de-legitimise everything I said. Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't ..." .

Don't expect them to post to Mumsnet.

"I note that Private Eye has started following the money on some Academy chain schools where the Charity has subcontracted the actual running of the school to a profit making company ...."

RET doesn't fall into that category.

daphnedill The references I have found in the City Challenge report are

p.vii, 'In London secondary schools, consultants from Education London were viewed as particularly effective',
p.51 'Education London was awarded the first Challenge Service contract in 2007 to support the London Challenge ... Comments on the questionnaire, and the case study data in several schools showed that support from Education London was seen as the main factor leading to school improvement. They developed strategies for supporting secondary school improvement, including a standards-driven audit and a maths and English project. They worked with headteachers, subject leaders and teachers, and they developed handbooks for subject leaders which were distributed across all three Challenge areas, and received very positive feedback. A key element in the effectiveness of Education London was the experience and expertise of its staff. A testimony to their effectiveness is that many of the KTS schools have continued to use Education London after they have left the Keys to Success programme. '

Could their school improvement consultancy be a reason why they have been paid a large fee by the DfE?

I do think it is right to ask questions. Much of the publicity around free schools has been local not national, yet some local news outlets are little more than ad sheets which do not put questions to free school providers either - so it's left up to blogs. The providers are not answerable to parents and the public in the same way as local democratically accountable council staff and councillors may be, and it is immensely frustrating not to get answers direct. But for some providers (and all the profit-driven businesses) you are not even likely to find many parents admittting support, let alone company directors.

straggle,

Thank you very much for the page references. I had been looking for references to the original London Challenge, which was from 2003-2008. I believe the later initiative was actually part of City Challenge, which was a different (although obviously related) initiative. The service provided would indeed explain the the £1,015,122.95 fee from the DfE. I expect the fee to RET is explained in the same way, but I still think it should be accounting publicly for the money, as well as following proper procedures when appointments are made and services are procured. Incidentally, the latest company report I found shows that RET is in debt.

Having worked in education for nearly all my adult life, I'm no big fan of the old faceless local authorities. I witnessed too many examples of "I'll scratch your back...", so I'm well aware that public organisations aren't as accountable as one would like. I'm also aware from personal experience (although I'm not going to give details here) that this kind of thing is still going on in the DfE itself and its providers. Unfortunately the DfE is even more remote and inaccessible to most people than local authorities.

^"The service provided would indeed explain ... "

They also provide services to the Welsh Government.

"I expect the fee to RET is explained in the same way"
RET receives Government funding in accordance with its funding agreements, to run its schools.

"I still think it should be accounting publicly for the money ..."
RET are accountable to the public via the DfE, in accordance with their funding agreements (did you read them yet?), just like any other Academy Trust (converter academies, transformational academies etc). They are regulated by the DfE. That is what exempt charity status means.

"as well as following proper procedures when appointments are made and services are procured"

They are following proper procedures, agreed in full consultation with the DfE. I know the sub-trust model for the first two schools was complicated to understand; but that situation has now evolved with the introduction of the multi-academy trust model. It makes the financing and procurement much easier to understand and audit.

"Incidentally, the latest company report I found shows that RET is in debt"

They're a non-profit trust, so you would expect their P/L to be around zero.

And before setting up EL, its director was involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme. The link also mentions her role in leading the secondary school improvement support contract for Westminster.

"They're a non-profit trust, so you would expect their P/L to be around zero."

And, if the report you looked at is the one from June 2013 then that would have been before they signed the multi academy trust funding agreement. Following the signing of that agreement the trust would have received Gvt money for running the two new schools that opened in Sept 2013.

They're a non-profit trust, so you would expect their P/L to be around zero.
Good gracious, I hope not.
If they have not understood how to carry an annual surplus over to provide capital funds and contingency reserves then their business model really is pants
or is it relying on regular bailouts to cover up the lack of forward planning from too many SLT salaries

Talkinpeace, I'm not an accountant, and I'm certainly not going to try and explain the sub-trust funding model used by the first two RET schools because I'm sure I wouldn't do it correctly, but I do know that it was all agreed in consultation with the DfE. It was complicated though, and the new MAT model is much simpler.

I'm not an accountant ..... but I do know that it was all agreed in consultation with the DfE
thing is I am an accountant
and I know crap when I see it
the Free school funding model is crap.

I use Duedil to see who is connected to whom in the little web they are weaving and the multiple changes of directors etc etc rings alarm bells even to the credit agencies as per my news feed.

"I am an accountant"

Yes, I know. That's why I'm conceding that I'm not the best person to explain this. However, I don't think you can expect to audit them via Mumsnet.

"the Free school funding model is crap"

You mean you think the Model Funding Agreement is flawed?

"I use Duedil to see who is connected to whom in the little web they are weaving and the multiple changes of directors etc etc rings alarm bells even to the credit agencies as per my news feed."

Not sure what you mean by all that. Which "multiple changes of directors"?
And where is your news feed?

W&G
Take a break.
Go read some documents OTHER than those written by your little chums
and take the rose tinted glasses off.
Even the NAO is unhappy with the free school funding model

"Even the NAO is unhappy with the free school funding model"

Then it will evolve in line with their scrutiny. And all the Free School trusts will evolve along with it.

As I said before, the individual trusts are just trying to operate within the framework that is set out by the DfE. If the framework is "crap" then it needs to change, but that doesn't mean all free school trustees are criminals in the meantime.

Talking Peace What was the implication in posting the Turing House steering group? A list of people who I know to be working hard on behalf of the community together with their advisers (and I am certainly not someone who takes all at face value since with a background in public sector planning, and indeed preparing select committee submissions, working with government and the NAO, I was very much involved in analysing and highlighting the dodgy assumptions used in school place forecasts the LA used to justify actions that were fundamentally driven by politics and vested interests, and questioning them publicly, in front of Council Cabinet, the impotence of that process shows just how accountable Council Leaders and Officials are) . If there was any derogatory implication then this is looking more and more like a witchhunt since you have absolutely no reason to impugn the motivation and reputations of the people involved.

How about acknowledging that however the process may be vulnerable to being manipulated / exploited, and in need of improvement, in this case a group of local people have worked on behalf of our community to deliver what we need in the only way that it could be delivered. We have two outside organisations, GEMS, who are openly talking about their ambitions to make money out of the process and another organisation that run a chain of independent schools,now coming into the borough to propose much needed primary schools in the vacuum left by there being no similar parent led initiatives. I would welcome you and Daphne asking the same searching questions of organisation that have certainly not rooted their proposals in the community's needs and wants. Hardly surprising local parents have not come forward to meet the challenge when it exposes them to this sort of cynicism and unfair cfritisism.

and ^those written by your little chums
and take the rose tinted glasses off^ is just downright patronising and rude. Surely we can have a debate without sinking to the level of insult.

Shooting
I am against Free schools.
Labour were effing stupid to force LEAs to sell of empty buildings just as city populations started to rise again.
Schools should only be opened after an assessment of need on an area wide basis
and they should be open to ALL children, not just those connected to steering groups

I am also against Sponsored Academies
I have posted extensively about the car crash that is my local one

those of you involved in setting up such schools, will you still be there in 15 years when the demographic of the area has changed outside your control?
will you adapt your criteria to fit?

That's a strawman argument, shooting. Just because other organisations are even worse doesn't make the one which has been chosen good. If it were up to me, I'd abolish organisations such as GEMs and chains' ability to control schools...but I'm not in a position to do so.

This thread started about Russell Education Trust and I've generally stuck to the topic. I could go on and on about the mistakes in education and the waste of billions of pounds over the last forty or so years on countless new initiatives, but this isn't the place to do so.

"they should be open to ALL children, not just those connected to steering groups..."

They are. They have to adhere to the same admissions code as other schools. They can prioritise children of founders. Not all do, but where they have I think objective people have acknowledged it was well earned.

"those of you involved in setting up such schools, will you still be there in 15 years"

Will the Governors of the LA-run schools still be there in 15 years? What about the LA education officers? No, they will move on and be replaced as part of normal succession planning, as they would be in any well run organisation.

"will you adapt your criteria to fit?"

The admissions criteria will evolve appropriately in consultation with the LA and local people, as they do for other local academies.

Talking Peace it matters not a bit whether parents object to Free Schools or agree with them, for a community like ours with a clear proven need it is the only way that we can get a school to provide for a Year 7 pupil population that will increase 17% by 2017. We have three outstanding comprehensives within a mile and a half radius that each have over a 1000 parents making their 250 places first preference. There is also the pent up latent demand that results from the Council's long term strategy of deterring demand rather than create sufficient capacity, by consistently underproviding and making parents feel forced to move away or go private, a strategy incidentally that was actually made explicit in Council reports 15 years ago. If the proportion going private at 11 were to become just the average of the ten most affluent boroughs (and it isn't one of the five most affluent) it would mean that two new 150 place secondaries would be needed.

Turing House's proposal is for the sort of school the local community want, inclusive, co ed and not bound by any educational dogma, not, as the LA have delivered, academies sponsored by a Scandinavian organisation that uses it's own idiosyncratic educational approach or an exclusive Catholic School that was just gifted the site of the former community school that served the area in the past. As I previously said the catchment has been devised with the Council to serve an area that will very soon cease to be served by any school, not to serve the needs of any individual families. I am quite sure that in creating a school rooted in community need it will indeed long survive any individual's involvement, just like the other outstanding comprehensives do.

As wriggling said how else do we go about creating excellent schools for generations of children to come in our community?

results from the Council's long term strategy of deterring demand rather than create sufficient capacity, by consistently underproviding and making parents feel forced to move away or go private, a strategy incidentally that was actually made explicit in Council reports 15 years ago.

really?
because that is such a catastrophic breach of their legal duties you could probabl call a judicial review on the issue
BUT
remember that since 2010, LEAs have been blocked from opening new schools - and round here been given grief when academies they fought against went into melt down

London's LEAs have been too small to be sustainable since ILEA was abolished
interesting that a lot of the data is now held on the London Grid for Learning site - full circle

Talkin How they do it is they plan to 0% spare capacity (yes, against the NAO guidelines of 4%). So they underestimate demand by quite some margin, leaving hundreds of parents with no place at initial allocation, and then manage down demand by offering places in unpopular inaccessible schools (expecting one local family to undertake a 40 minute walk busride in each direction with a 4 year old and toddlers) or procrastinating about offering bulge classes. They can rely on a good proportion of the parents without school places or offered places that are logistically impossible to access to go away. And when parents get up in arms, write to MPs, the local paper etc. they plead unexpected influxes of new families to an area, less surprisingly going private in a recession etc. etc. except that those excuses have been trotted out year after year for 17 years to my knowledge and in earlier years they were actually quite open about the fact that initial demand could be relied on to subside. The Education Officer is proud of the fact he fills every last primary school place, with scant regard for the parents left with no school places until well into the Reception year as a result.......