Here is another comment on the Evening Standard site, this time from an ex-student, which suggests that the for-profit schools may well be failing themselves and students:-

“As a former student of an educational institution run by Cognita, I must clearly say there is a drastic need for reform of this particular ownership. As cognita is a private, profit-driven firm, the main objective is for it to cut costs and expenses to generate highets possible earnings. This concept does not suit many educational institutions as their main priority should be investing every possible resource into the children/students attending these facilities. Cognita’s substantial inflow is not fairly distributed to their working staff, sadly and consequently resulting in a poorer student performance and future outlook. I have seen many teachers leaving and considering leaving my school due to unfair payments and compensation for their efforts. A fair proportion of the potential some of my classmates had has therefore not been fully utilized. I am glad that this has finally been publicised and amendments are underway to fix some of the many problems clearly evident under cognita.”

Sadly, this is old news in America, but new here (but so new that the Adam Smith Institute didn’t flag it up?) and, so far, confined to private schools. Are profit-making free schools really the solution and alternative to LA maintained schools? America suggests not – and the signs are that Gove will not be learning from the American mistakes…

It is unclear how putting in additional “required” hours allows teachers to spend more time with their families. And can we conclude from this statement that schools employing “second income earners” can pay them less because they are subsidised by the wages of their partners?

Or how about plonking the pupils in front of a computer with little classroom teaching? Adam Smith again: “A key strategy in this regard, notably among school chains, has been to migrate curriculum delivery to on screen and online formats, with a view to developing more efficient pedagogy” (page 20 ASI report).

So this is the formula in the brave new world of free schools wanting to reduce costs: unqualified teachers + lower wages + longer hours + pupils being “taught” by computer = the Govegrind curriculum.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/download/(id)/127674/(as)/125335_361358.pdf

The comment under the Evening Standard story (reproduced by Allan) says the school is employing “barely qualified staff” to save money. This subjective comment may or may not be accurate. However, Mr Gove thinks that the use of unqualified staff is acceptable in free schools. This may be one way, therefore, that schools reduce their costs despite the fact that the OECD Economic Survey 2011 stressed the importance of teacher quality in raising pupil test scores (OECD 2011 page 102).

Ah, so the measure of a school’s success is how many scholarships to exclusive public schools it garners? For fans of the state system, that does seem a somewhat odd metric to use.

“Chris Woodhead has managed to ruin Milbourne Lodge School in Esher. This magnificent school established by the inspirational Norman Hale boasted a record number of scholarships to Eton, Winchester and St. Paul’s. Now Cognita have forced out the senior staff that made this possible and brought in barely qualified staff to save money. Thus, the School numbers are down by a half and there is little chance of repeating Norman Hale’s success – no hint of the ethos or the magic of this wonderful school. All thanks to the doughnuts at Cognita.”

This report has been conveniently published at the right moment, just when the government has admitted to running out of money to support the expansion of free schools and academies, recommending that the government just needs to clear the final hurdle by allowing profit making companies to run free schools without the pretence of setting up as a charitable trust.

However, the example of the Southbank International School and many Charter Schools in America underline a fundamental disconnect between the ideologies of making profits and teaching children.

This row, together with court cases and concerns by Congress in the US re for-profit education companies, serves as a warning about the possible consequences of allowing for-proft organisations to run education.

However, my advice to the parents at Cognita’s schools would be to withdraw their children and place them in the nearest state school. It won’t harm their education – they will leave university with the same class of degree, if not slightly better, than their peers who remain in the independent sector.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6077920

In this context “A Cognita or AN Ark” is a synedoche, a figure of speech where a part (ie A Cognita) refers to the whole (ie for-profit chains).