The Free Schools experience.

Paul Atherton's picture
 285
Over the last 18 months, I've been watching the involvement and engagement of the free schools process and I've been so encouraged by the people involved, that I genuinely believe it can do nothing but good.

Many of the arguments on this site seem to focus on the fact that LA Schools could be improved.

But that seems to miss the point.

The Free School (dare I call it) movement. Seems to be more about engagement by parents & community than an LA School could ever achieve.

This, in main of course, has been highlighted by the Governments push to keep the idea in the media and the high profile types who've been the initial founders (e.g. Katharine Birbalsingh & Toby Young).

In addition to the freedom this type of school offers to parents, pupils and teachers alike.

But I think Free Schools like Academies before them force communities to think about education in a different way to the existing LA system.

I was brought into Bexley Business Academy as it transferred from a failing school to an Academy. And what was noticeable was not the exam results but the complete turn around of attitude from the pupils.

They wanted to be in the school (truancy was at an all time high previously), were filled with aspiration (most students came from backgrounds where there expectations of future progression were kept low) and could generally engage with all the new facilities that were offered to them (there was much wrong too - I was brought in because, they'd had an entire TV Studio installed but nobody had been taught how to use it).

This may not have translated into exam results but anecdotally at least, translated into more well rounded, positive children joining society than the schools previous incarnation.

I think what Toby Young says in the we produced Free Schools video about Working Class parents wanting the best for their children, is reflected in his schools intake and why I think this is genuinely a good thing for UK society.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Paul Atherton's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 10:44

So, no point then Janet?


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 15:26

There's a fascinating article in the current New Statesman by the former Labour education minister Andrew Adonis.

The title is "Labour should support Free Schools - it invented them."

Here's the first paragraph for a taster:

"Free schools are Labour's invention. They were a crucial part of our drive to promote equality of opportunity and social mobility, particularly in disadvantaged communities with low educational standards. Independent report after report has shown that they work, and most of them are wildly popular with parents, so the issue for Labour is how we take them forward, not whether we are for or against them."

Adonis's logic is that a free school is just a new academy - i.e. an academy that hasn't converted from being a maintained school.

I think that ignores the full significance of the parent/teacher initiative that Paul A majors on in his intro to this thread, but is broadly true otherwise.

An interesting intervention.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 15:53

Ricky - any comment by Lord Adonis about "independent report after report" should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism. The way in which he and his supporters ignored "report after report" is highlighted on the thread below:

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/03/deception-about-academies-...

And how can "independent report after report" show that free schools "work" when the first 24 didn't open until September 2011 and 5 of those were previously independent schools?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 16:15

I suspect he meant independent report after independent report on new start-up academies. In the NS article, for instance, he cites Mossbourne as a prototypical 'free school', invented by Labour.


Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 16:33

Ricky - a link to the article would be useful. And what is meant by "new start-up" academies? Are they new-build academies in disadvantaged areas where there was no school previously? Or academies which rose from the ashes of a predecessor, under-performing school?

The evidence in these independent reports repeatedly shows that academy conversion is not a silver bullet to raise standards. Where academies have been successful they have used similar methods to those used in improving non-academy schools.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 16:44

Sorry, forgot to post the link in my earlier comment.

Here it is:

http://www.newstatesman.com/education/2012/03/free-schools-labour-academies

What he means is - academies that are not converters.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 16:53

Thanks, Ricky for the link. So Lord Adonis was referring to sponsored academies ie all the academies established under Labour. All the indepedent reports have researched these sponsored academies and they have concluded that academy conversion is not a panacea notwithstanding the success of many of them. Even the latest, "relatively" positive report by the London School of Economics warned that more time was needed to assess the academy effect fully and that research about sponsored academies could not be applied to converter academies or primary schools which is, of course, what the Coalition is doing.


Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 17:09

Oh, dear. I've just started reading the New Statesman article and found this:

"Labour set up dozens such "free school" academies before 2010. The only reason why the Tories invented the term "free school" was to pretend they were doing something fundamentally different, instead of continuing one of Labour's most successful policies."

All of Labour's academies were sponsored. They were not free schools like the ones established under the Coalition (five of which were already in existence as private schools). Coalition free schools are called "free schools" NOT "sponsored academies". Mossbourne is designated a "sponsored academy" as is the Belvedere Academy, also cited by Lord Adonis.

And he says this, "The Tories would need to change the law to allow profit-making [schools], and I would oppose this." Really? According to a Policy Exchange report jointly produced with the New Schools Network which has a vested interest in promoting free schools, Lord Adonis was a "radical" minister who "knew that allowing profit would provide a significant boost to the market, but considered the politics unworkable."

Perhaps Lord Adonis should sue them for libel.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/BLOCKING_THE_B...

I'll continue reading the article tomorrow. If I find other discrepancies I'll let readers know.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 09:00

The worst quote for me is

"But what type of free schools? The early Tory rhetoric about the new schools claimed that they would be "parent-led". In reality, very few parents want to take on the job of setting up a school and governing it. What virtually all parents want is a good school, run by professionals in whom they have confidence."

That is what I'm entirely against. This notion of passing the buck and then being surprised that things don't work out.

We don't want parents just blaming schools when their children fail, they have a responsibility for their children's education that shouldn't be abdicated

The reason I've got so excited by the movement is the engagement of parents - take that away and we're back to square one.

Otherwise we'll have a country of Matilda (The Musical) Parents:

"Have you seen his school report? He got a 'C' on his report!
What?!
We'll have to change his school. That teacher's clearly falling short."

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 10:46

Paul - you are right that parents have a responsibility for their children's education. It's one they share with trained professionals. Trusting the professionals doesn't mean that parents are "passing the buck".

The majority of parents do support their child's education but support isn't confined to sitting on the PTA or opening a free school. The most valuable support from parents apart from the obvious of getting a child to school on time with all the equipment s/he needs is spending time with the child, reading, talking, playing sports, visiting places - in short, enjoying the company of their child.

To suggest that the only way parents can be engaged in their children's education is by embracing the free schools "movement" is insulting to the majority of parents. And while enthusiasm for a cause can be uplifting it can also be harmful.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 11:08

Janet,

You're confusing my argument about Free Schools with a larger argument about schools generally.

If you follow my comments from the beginning, you'll see consistently that I've advocated the parents, teachers and pupils in the free school movement and not the politics, and reiterated ad nauseum, that, that is why I like the movement so much.

This movement only works from the ground-up.

Everything else works on the notion that somebody else knows best, about your own children's way of learning, capabilities etc., which in my world is totally insane.

I know plenty of (so called) trained professionals who aren't very good and lot of untrained amateurs who are brilliant (or naturals, if you prefer). Once you get to a University level, none of your lecturers are taught to teach.

We are discussing free schools to extend my argument outside those realms is disingenuous, to me and my point.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 11:20

Paul

As a result of reading your remarks on this thread, I've followed links to read about the Nishkam School in Handsworth, Birmingham.

This free school exemplifies all you say. Not only are the parents involved - when builders fell behind, the local Sikh community literally rolled-up their sleeves and got digging, hammering and plastering to help actually BUILD the school.

I find that level of commitment really impressive - and very moving. And what a contrast with all the talk here about "strategic planning", "surplus places" and all that management-bureaucracy crap. So sterile.

Empowering people is what it should all be about. Shifting power from Janet's "trained professionals" (who, let's not forget, have FAILED a generation of kids put in their charge, wrecking their life-chances) and giving that power to people who really care about the education of children.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 12:29

Paul - if my child is ill I would trust the trained professional before the enthusiastic amateur. If I've got toothache I'll go to a trained dentist not someone who thinks they can pull it out with a pair of pliers. It seems to me odd that no-one would go to an untrained doctor, lawyer, dentist, plumber, builder and so on, but rather a lot of people think it's OK to leave educating children to untrained amateurs.

On extending the argument outside your defined "realms" could you please explain to me why, then, you asked a question about how many schools in Wales taught debate? This is especially odd since the free schools policy does not apply in Wales and all the discussion on this thread relates to England (as it must do).

And any discussion about free schools can't be divorced from the education system as a whole.

Ricky - (11.20 am - no reply button). I'm afraid you've been reading too much of the Daily Mail. A "generation of kids" have not been failed. UK children performed at the OECD average in PISA 2009 in reading and maths and ABOVE average in Science. That isn't failure on a massive scale. And in the 2007 Trends in Maths and Science Survey (admittedly smaller than PISA but nevertheless significant), English pupils were at the top of the European league tables for Maths and Science at age 10 and age 14.

I'm rather suspicious and increasingly uneasy about the trend to rubbish trained teachers in England and the suggestion that keen amateurs can do the job just as well. The keen amateurs would be cheaper, of course, but I can't see high-performing jurisdictions like Korea, Hong Kong and Finland following English enthusiasm for untrained educators.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 13:57

Janet,

If your child was ill, would you not first apply your knowledge of health & treatments, before whisking him off to a "trained professional"? And then, just because you take him to say, the G.P., how do you know they are any good at what they do? It's just faith in a system, that is actually unfounded.

The reason that education is so different, is that it's inherent in parenting. The parent\s teaches the child from birth. We teach them how to walk, to talk, to behave, engage, play, read, eat and socialise from 0 - 3 or sometimes older, without any external assistance.

So unlike any other sector of employment in society, we've done the job & the real hard work, all before the child ever gets to school.

And parents aren't taught how to be teachers.

In fact if you've not been a reasonably good educator as a parent, the child is unlikely to ever recover from that educationally, regardless of how good the teaching they receive later in life is, they need that basic grounding in the first place.

Happy to post all the research on this, but by one of your comments earlier in relation to child development, sounds like you've probably got it all - but let me know otherwise.

As I pointed out, in higher education, nobody is taught how to teach, you just get experts in their field, who are dumped into lecturing. Some shine, some wither. Just because you know a subject doesn't mean you'll be able to share that with others, but at least you know, as a student, that they know their subject inside out (at least in the good universities).

It's then down to the students to get the best from their lecturers - in stark contrast to their schooling.

Would you rather be taught Chemistry by a teacher who knows how to teach Chemistry or by a Chemist who is so passionate about his/her subject and therefore know so much more than the Chemistry teacher, that it oozes out of his every pore when he's sharing his joy in an experiment with a class?

Sharing stories of how this experiment is used in the real world, sharing anecdotes about what he and his colleagues used to do in a working environment. Bringing the subject alive.

As I said, earlier, just because you know a subject doesn't mean you can share it, but if you can and you haven't got a badge that says "teacher" on it, would you really want to deprive children of that passion in a subject?

(the Welsh question was a personal one - that I explained above)

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 14:02

And in relation to your comment:

"And any discussion about free schools can’t be divorced from the education system as a whole"

Why?

We have a Grammar School System, that works perfectly well, without interference to the rest of the education system - why not Free Schools as well?

Fiona Millar's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 14:49

ARe you suggesting that parents in the maintained sector don't roll up their sleeves/ get involved to support and improve their schools? There are stories of this sort of commitment by parents in communities all over the country. Empowered parents are not the exclusive preserve of a free school sector ( which barely exists yet).


Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 11:06

More stuff from Lord Adonis in the New Statesman:

"Hyman wants his free school to break away from "the tired old model of one teacher and 30 children sitting in rows waiting for the next pearl of wisdom". His free school intends to put literacy, debate, discussion and communication skills at the centre of its curriculum, including new ideas such as the use of Harkness tables (large, oval tables around which a dozen or so students and their teacher interact, seminar-style)."

I hate to tell Lord Adonis but classrooms, particularly in primary schools, have not had children in rows for years - at least a quarter of a century. Flexibility is the key - tables and chairs which can be moved easily to allow different teaching styles when appropriate are ideal (group work, seminars, clearing space for role play and, yes, rows when needed). That's what the Harkness model at its best is - tables which can be moved. A Harkness table, on the other hand, is a fixed oval table which allows for only one arrangement.

And are there really any schools which don't promote communication skills?

These "new ideas" promoted with enthusiasm by various politicians (seating arrangements, phonics teaching, team games and so on) have been around for years - hence the incredulity of most teachers when politicians talk as if they've found the Holy Grail.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 11:09

Janet,

You'd be an angel, if you could give me a list of all the LA schools in Wales you know who teach debate - been looking for ages?

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 11:38

Oral skills, including debate, are in the Welsh National Curriculum. That would suggest that all LA schools in Wales are expected to develop debating skills.

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/101013englishncfwen.pdf

You should be able to find a complete list of LA schools in Wales here:

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/theme/schools/?lang=en

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 12:57

You missed my point. I've read the curriculum (which isn't particularly helpful), I've also gone around a number of schools in Cardiff - but none apply these principles in any depth and therefore are not particularly helpful.

Thought you may have known of a school that actually teaches debate - rather than have it as a part of a wider remit.

Or alternatively, have debating clubs maybe?

You seem, so well versed in the knowledge of individual schools, I was hoping to take advantage of your inside research.

Not to worry!

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 11:27

And Lord Adonis is jumping the gun a bit here, isn't he?

"WLFS and many other free schools are all-through, catering for children aged three to 18"

Nearly half of the all-through academies praised by Lord Adonis were under the benchmark for KS2 pupils in 2011. And one of them, Hereford Steiner Academy is exempt under its Funding Agreement from teaching reaching before the age of 7 and the need to enter pupils to KS2 Sats.

Lord Adonis praises Durand Primary Academy - that's the school which spent £200,000 in two years to promote a Durand "brand" but 19 other Lambeth primary schools (all non-academies when 2011 Sats were taken) equalled or bettered Durand's KS2 score. This shows it isn't necessary to be an academy to get high results.

He also eulogises the Birmingham Ormiston Academy - like all academies it is supposed to be comprehensive but according to this report it's selective. A misunderstanding, perhaps?

http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/west-midlands/news/birmingham-ormiston-aca...

Lastly, Lord Adonis praises WLFS for offering Latin and saying parents who want their child taught Latin shouldn't have to go private. Latin is not intrinsically "better" than other languages - why not offer Mandarin Chinese which would be of more use in the future? And not learning Latin at school is no barrier to learning it later. The OU offer an excellent course:

http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/a297.htm

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 12:28

"but 19 other Lambeth primary schools (all non-academies when 2011 Sats were taken) equalled or bettered Durand’s KS2 score."

I think you'll find that when you strip out the C of E and Catholic VA schools and set the filter for "Community Schools" only, that figure of 19 drops to 5.
Durand's KS2 score was 89%.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 12:42

Ricky - why should CofE and Catholic VA schools be filtered out? They are still non-academies. And I am aware of Durand's score. How do you think I found out that 19 non-academy primaries equalled or excelled this score if I didn't know it.

Even if we accept that the Voluntary Aided schools should not be considered, that still leaves five non-academy primaries equalling or exceeding Durand's KS2 score (according to your calculation). If all the hype about academy conversion being a pre-requisite for rising standards was true then surely Durand should have been at the top? It did well but other non-academy schools did equally well or better. As far as I'm aware none of the schools where the score was higher spent £200,000 on PR in two years to establish a "brand" which is probably why Lord Adonis and the MPs who mentioned Durand in Parliament didn't bother mentioning the non-academy primaries which scored as well or better.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 13:25

Janet

I doubt if anyone anywhere has said you have to be an academy to be a good school. Durand only became an academy in September 2010, and was a good school before that. I reminded you that its score was 89% because you seemed to be implying that it had not done well, when 89% is considerably above the borough average of 78%. That borough average is quite high in itself - but largely because the borough has quite a number of good faith schools, which tweak the figure up. When you look at the Community Schools - i.e. the one's the LA is actually responsible for, the picture is somewhat different. Those in leafy middle class area - like Paxton do very well (better even than Durand). But take a look at some of those that (like Durand) have FSM above 40% and high BME - for instance, Jubilee Primary School in Tulse Hill and you get an appalling 36% score. That's the problem in Lambeth - schools are socially (and often ethnically) segregated, with kids from deprived & challenging backgrounds doing well in faith schools, in academies but left to rot in council controlled schools.

As for your misleading/selective remarks about Durand investing in "creating a brand". You might more fairly have mentioned the facts that this money was:

a. Spent on a campaign to get support for becoming an "all through" academy (i.e. adding a secondary to the existing primary); and
b. the money for the campaign didn't come from the school's revenue budget, but was privately raised by commercial activities; and
c. ...was successful in getting an £18m capital allocation from the government to build the secondary school on land that a charity set up by the school had raised £3m to buy.

Durand is in a very challenging area serving Stockwell and Brixton. I must say I find its entrepreneurial "get-up-and-go" spirit a pretty good advertisement for academy freedoms. Their secondary school opens this September.... only two years after Durand became an academy. Meanwhile, the central planners in Lambeth Town Hall took nearly 11 years to open the two most recent schools.... and so totally neglected to provide sufficient primary places that they are having to winch in portacabin type classrooms all over the place to meet this autumn's demand.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 17:50

Ricky - the "misleading/selective remarks" about Durand did not come from me but from the archive of Coloribus which described the "Promo and PR" strategy to promote the "Durand brand" by the marketing firm "Political Lobbying and Media Relations". One of the strategies was “To deploy incessant creative energetic public relations and political lobbying to make Durand Primary School synonymous with state sector education excellence and innovation..."

Coloribus make it clear that the strategy achieved "23 mentions of Durand in Parliament" and "Over £2 million worth of print and broadcast media coverage" among other things.

You also said that I "implied" that Durand hadn't done well. You "implied" incorrectly. It did have high results, as did 19 other Lambeth primaries (all non-academies).

http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/promo/state-education-shine-a-light-...

http://www.plmr.co.uk/clients

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 18:33

Janet


No, Coloribus included (but you omitted, which is what I meant by 'selective') the actual purpose of the campaign (a key consideration, in my view):

"The Situation:
The achievements of Durand had no public profile. They were not understood or supported by their local council. Durand needed national public support, media coverage and political support in order to:
- Be widely known and understood,
- Be in a position to fight for and to win further funding to allow the construction of the UK's first free of charge boarding school on a site it had bought in the British countryside, and to offer to children, many from deprived backgrounds & overcrowded homes, the educational opportunity normally reserved for the children of royalty, elites, and the rich."

Not just to show off how good their results had been, as you rather imply.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 17:45

Being a newbie to LSN, I'm not yet fully used to the not-exactly-straight facts, evidence and stats are deployed here sometimes.

But I just felt in my bones that there was something not-quite-right about the figures being bandied about by Sarah and Allan Beavis on the cuts to the capital budget: they made it seem that Gove was taking schools back to the Stone Age practically.

A quick gander around the DfE site puts that "60%" cut into perspective:

"Indeed we are investing £15.8 billion of capital over the Spending Review period, and the average annual capital budget over the period will be higher than the average annual capital budget in the 1997-98 to 2004-05 period. "

and:

"...a 60 per cent reduction in 2014-15 compared to the historic high of 2010-11."

So, it turns out that:

1. Capital spending isn't being reduced to the bone, just to the same level it was in the heyday of Tony Blair's time in government, when Education, Education, Education was the mantra. (Were you lot complaining then?)

2. The 60% cut hasn't happened yet.... and won't be fully there til 2015.

3. It's a cut from a historic high, when capital funding was boosted to provide a fiscal stimulus during the 2008-9 recession (and wasn't intended to last).

Which all puts quite a different complexion on things, no?

Sarah's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 18:33

Not so, Ricky. For the local authority in my area the net difference between capital allocations in 10/11 and 11/12 was 60% and 80% for devolved capital for schools. The funding then stays roughly at that level for 12/13 and 13/14 until the next CSR (reducing to take account of academy conversions each year). Yes, capital did reach a high in 10/11 but only because the BSF programme was really getting into the swing at that point - but many local authorities got no money from BSF (other than a one school pathfinder project). Many secondary schools were getting over £100,000 a year to deal with building related issues - this is now around £30,000. Primary schools getting as little as £4000 per year. Have you any idea how little you can do with £4000 in building terms? Many local authorities now have multi million pound maintenance backlogs (especially those who got nothing in BSF) so they are torn between funding additional primary pupil places and fixing leaking roofs and rotten windows. In the meantime Gove is giving millions to set up new school in areas with no demographic need whatsoever.

This is simply wrong.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 19:42

Sarah -

Quite right.

It would be incredulous that anyone would have to resort to the spin of the DfE site in order to refute more impartial and less politically motivated research such as IFS and and other sources when they show that education budgets under Gove are being cut to a degree unprecedented since the 1950s. But then this would assume that the arguments were not coming from a troll.

A quick gander throws up the following horrors facing schools that haven't been given £20m:-

In October, David Cameron told the Commons that the government was “protecting” the schools budget and per-pupil funding as well as boosting schools funds with the pupil premium. A year before that, Michael Gove vowed to “protect the frontline” but the frontline is already being hit and it is the most vulnerable children and young people who are taking the brunt of the cuts.

There is no money for essential repairs for schools that are no longer fit for the purpose of modern education. Despite coalition promise to protect spending cuts, in one school in Coventry http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/dec/26/how-spending-cut-hitting... , £3.8m is needed for urgent repairs. They were given just £9,000 to tackle premises besieged by damp, cold, a leaking roof and flooding toilets, all affecting the health and safety of the children. This is not a one-off but is a fact of life and teaching in many schools up and down the country.

Schools are being forced to drastically cut budgets for new books, resources, staff development, debating clubs, theatre trips, nurseries, play schemes, after-school clubs, sport, art and music. Schools are ending or cutting funds for one-to-one tuition for pupils falling behind in reading, writing and maths. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/dec/26/schools-funding-cuts-hit...

So, no - Ricky Starr and many more people need to know that his whitewashing of the government sponsored degradation of the state school system is as mendacious as the lie that Free Schools "empower" the community, offer "choice" and are justified in a democracy.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 20:35

Alan,

You don't want a democracy, you want an Autocracy - You!

I know you've struggled with my points in the past - so here's a link to the definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 20:48

Paul -

I haven't struggled with your incoherent and ignorant points in the past. Make some points that are not based on dissecting fannies and pants, your personal history or your narcissism, then come and play with with grown-ups

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 20:49

Too easy Alan, too easy:)


Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 20:54

No. Not too easy. I can't be bothered wasting any more energy on the unpleasantly lazy and delusional


Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 20:56

Write out a 100 times....

"I must stop poking the bear"
"I must stop poking the bear"....

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 22:30

Paul -

Not sure what confused point you are trying to make here, unless its supposed to be an expression of biting wit, to put alongside your fannies and pants. The points I made were that the cuts in education were the severest for over 50 years and that many schools were falling into serious and health threatning disrepair while you stood on the sidelines smirking and applauding a Troll who you would like to think has just proved that the cuts amount to nothing more than- oooh - 1%. It is precisely because you refuse - or lack the intellectual capacity - to see the much bigger picture than the one buried inside your own head that makes your contributions so risible.Unearth something that shows schools are not suffering under the coalition. Until you do, I suggest you stop making even more a fool of yourself by not talking about poking bears.

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 17/03/2012 - 10:09

Ricky - re your Durand comment above (no reply button). In the context of a short post about the "branding" campaign I quoted a section from the Coloribus description which dealt with that. I'm sure you're not suggesting that I should have typed out the whole document when I provided a link.

Your comment about Durand paying for its PR out of money raised through commercial activity is interesting. It must have been quite a large undertaking for the Academy Trust to raise to raise sufficient money not just to pay for PR but to raise money to purchase a £3 million property to turn into a boarding school. According to the 1 per cent campaign, which is asking for money to sponsor a boarder (£19,000 for five years), the income from the commercial activity raises £350,000-£400,000 a year. Perhaps you can explain how £400,000 pa can stretch to the purchase and upkeep of a property worth £3 million. The DfE has trumped up £17 million, I believe, to turn the building into a boarding school - it seems odd that the Trust is asking for sponsorship for pupils to attend a state school.

The whole purpose of the PR campaign was to make Durand "synonymous with state sector excellence." There is no doubt that the school's results are good. However, other Lambeth schools equalled or exceeded these results without needing to spend a considerable amount of money on publicising their schools. You have not addressed that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13467354

http://www.spearswms.com/1-per-cent/29582/1-per-cent-campaign-durand-aca...

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 11:54

Janet

"It seems odd that the Trust is asking for sponsorship for pupils to attend a state school. "

It's because they want the boarding to be free. Other state boarding schools provide tuition for free, but charge parents boarding fees. Many of the people who go to them get the boarding element paid by another part of government (Armed Forces, Foreign Office etc). Families around Stockwell and Brixton could never afford fees. That's why they've gone the Big Society route to help them.

"It must have been quite a large undertaking for the Academy Trust to raise to raise sufficient money not just to pay for PR but to raise money to purchase a £3 million property to turn into a boarding school. "

Yes, I expect it was. But they did it. And it worked. So the PR must have been pretty effective.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 07:54

Yet your points are meaningless Alan.

"...cuts in education were the severest for over 50 years" That's an advertising slogan. Implies something, means nothing.

Schools were suffering before the coalition.

If you've read the posts throughout the thread, you would have seen that from both Free Schools & LA's (Fiona Miller I'm sure will happily list all these for you) alike parents are getting involved.

Pulling their sleeves up, from helping build schools to changing curriculums.

Clearly LA's are in no place to do anything, the facts speak for themselves.

Failure to manage schools maintenance in the first place (hence the BSF), poor supply management (lack of primary school places UK wide - huge discrepancies between preferred child placement in urban conurbations), political bias (underhand moves that blocks one policy or another).

So, if there is a genuine concern for schools & education, the changes are going to come from the Parents, Teachers & pupils. We're definitely seeing that in the Free Schools movement and I'm pleased to hear from Fiona Miller that it's happening in LA schools too.

So if you want to talk to me about the big picture - there it is.

Individual responsibility and a genuine drive for change for the better.

If there's no funding for after-schools clubs, Volunteer your services for free. I always have done.

Unless of course this is all about the money and actually nothing to do with improving education. In which case shout at your windmills.

But I'm genuinely concerned about the education of "ALL" children and that has to be driven from the bottom up.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 11:43

Paul -

Meaningless? So a considered, well researched and analytical report by the respected IFS is, in your arrogant opinion "an advertising slogan. Implies something, means nothing"? Are you even aware of this report, despite it being newsworthy and having it flagged up to you? I suppose your ill informed and naive opinions are to be taken more seriously than those of the IFS? Does your narcissism have no limits??

You're pleased to hear from Fiona Millar that parents, teachers and pupils in maintained schools are engaged with their schools? This is nothing new Paul. The only difference is that maintained schools are nothing new and they do not threaten the existence of schools around them. Free Schools do. Free Schools proposers and pawns of the government like yourself do not have the monopoly on driving change. People campaigning for improvements to schools have been doing it for years and in a ways that work towards giving all children equal access to quality education.

Many people volunteer Paul. You needn't bang on your own drum. I see you have nothing to say about the schools falling in to ruin and posing health risks. Or the cuts in the education budget that will impact badly on children who need extra help. Or cuts in music lessons. You going to volunteer for those? Do you even have the skills?

If you were "genuinely concerned" about the education of ALL children, you would not be supporting Free Schools. You have already urged people - including, risibly, the mendacious claim you were directing the comment at me - to go out and set up schools teaching curriculum they want to children they want. In other words, a narrow currculum for children deemed deserving by the group of people dictating the ethos.

I wonder what the IFS would make of your nonsense statement about all this being about the money and nothing to do with education. Are you so divorced from reality that you cannot see education needs funding?

I'm sorry that your perception of your problem with homelessness is, allegedly, entirely the fault of Lambeth council, but don't you think its time now to shed the mantle of victimhood and stop the vendetta against Lambeth Council for any alleged mistake? I think your perspective on schools might be a lot clearer if it weren't clouded by these personal frustrations, which we very unfortunately are having inflicted on us.

Sarah's picture
Mon, 19/03/2012 - 18:42

Paul. You come across as exceedingly anti-local government which I don't think is a fair or rational position to take - and is certainly very limited to your own very parochial experience.

Local authorities did not 'fail to manage school maintenance' - they have largely done what is possible within the constraints of the capital allocations they had. When Labour took office there was a multi million pound backlog because of chronic under invesment. You can criticise the previous government for many things (and I do) but they did invest significant amounts of money in trying to improve the school infrastructure. Local authorities have invested what they have been given in line with central government policy and in my opinion they have done a great deal with limited resources.

Neither have they failed to manage the supply of school places. There is nowhere in this country where a child cannot obtain a school place and in many places more than 95% of children get their first choice of place. Offering parents some degree of choice has inevitably meant that there has been more movement across local authority boundaries - often in both directions. The picture is complex particularly in urban areas where there are many different schools.

I sense an enormous chip on your shoulder when it comes to your views about local authorities and a blinkered and unquestioning acceptance of the free school policy.

Nowhere in all of these discussions have you seriously engaged with the issues being raised - namely that there is scant evidence that this policy will raise standards, that it is costly at a time of shrinking capital and revenue funding, that it is likely to have a detrimental effect on other schools some of which may be on the brink of viability, that it is completely with odds with the government's stated aim that local authorities should be the commissioner of school places, that it lacks transparency in the funding being made available to it, that it lacks any local democratic accountability and that it is appears to be a vehicle for under qualified and under experienced aspirant headteachers to circumvent a normal career path. What is your response to this?

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 15:48

Alan, Alan, Poor Alan,

Let's do this paragraph by paragraph as laid out in your post:

Paragraph 1.

Your usual gambit of omitting the most salient information isn't going to work here I'm afraid. I made no comment to the IFS study, I said your comment of:

"The points I made were that the cuts in education were the severest for over 50 years"

Is indeed an advertising slogan. The language is intentionally incendiary whilst being intentionally vague.

Think "Carlsberg probably the greatest Lager in the World" - the probably means everything. It implies it's the greatest lager without saying it is.

In your line, it's the word "severe" that becomes the insinuator. Severe conjures up a multitude of emotions. It implies by it's usage that the cut is, by themselves very bad. By placing this in a time frame it also manipulates the reader to believe that this is a seismic change.

But lets play it out. If you give your child a £1 week pocket money all his life, except 1 week when say you had a flush week on the horses, that week you give him £10 but the following week give him his normal rate, then we'd get "child hit by severest cuts in a lifetime".

This of course is true in the moment, but not in the context and that is why I said it's an advertising slogan.

Would appreciate what you mean by the term narcissism though (I'm sure you know of it's many meanings and wouldn't want to put words in your mouth)?

As for the Institute of Fiscal Studies, though I've made no mention of it until now, it is one of many Think Tanks that have researched Education Spending. It's less political than most Think Tanks so you at least don't have to address the usual political or academic bias inherent in the flaws of their data collection.

I am concluding you are referring to the IFS "Trends in education & School Spending Report" which of course I have read and which clearly states:

"All areas of public education spending are expected to see real-terms
cuts between 2010–11 and 2014–15, but the severity of cuts will differ.
Current spending on schools will see the smallest real-terms cut (about
1% in total)."

I remember you contesting this me with me elsewhere. But there it is, in your preferred research for all to see.

The most telling thing behind this research though is the number of assumptions that have been made - and we all know your feelings on assumptions:

"We assume that central government resource spending and capital spending on
education evolve as per plans set out in PESA 2011 (reducing from £30.9bn in 2010–11
to £26.1bn in 2014–15 and from £2.3bn in 2010–11 to £1.7bn in 2014–15,
respectively). Resource spending by local authorities in England was £42.0bn in 2010–
11 (PESA 2011). We assume this grows at the same rate as grants to local authorities
for schools spending set out in PESA 2011 (12.5%), and thus increases to £47.3bn in
2014–15. We make the same assumption for growth in local authority spending in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (totalling £7.4bn in 2010–11); making
alternative plausible assumptions makes little qualitative difference to the overall
conclusions. We also assume that local authority capital spending (£7.9bn in 2010–11
according to PESA 2011) is cut in line with planned cuts in capital grants for education
to local authorities (a cut of 52% between 2010–11 and 2014–15, so falling to £3.8bn).
Adding these figures together, we forecast that UK education spending will stand at
£87.2bn in 2014–15, compared with £90.5bn in 2010–11."

That's a hell of a lot of assumptions for you to be bandying these things around as facts.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 15:59

Paragraph 2

Interesting, here your subtefuge takes on a slightly different stance.
Rather than omitting the entire salient point, here you've just omitting my examples in the hope of corrupting what I'm saying. Sorry that's not going to work here either.

Though you did omit the rather obvious point that Schools have been in decline well before the coalition - prepared to admit that now?

And then of course all the Local Authority Argument - oh wait, sorry, you are back to your old ways of missing the salient points. Silly me.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 16:27

Paragraph 2 - the return:

If Grammar Schools have no impact on those around them, why do you think Free Schools will be any different?

Your line "The only difference is that maintained schools are nothing new and they do not threaten the existence of schools around them."

Reminds me of my point about you just wanting the status quo - which you dismissed as rubbish, yet... there it is "nothing new".

"People campaigning for improvements" is not what I suggested.

I said people who actually affected change - not hoped for it.

People who picked up a spade when the builders were running late, found ways around Local Authorities when they weren't doing their jobs etc.

These still remain to be headline news stories, so not as common as you'd like to think Alan

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-education-news/2011/01/...

And I am hoping Fiona posts a list of all the LA Schools following suit.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 16:37

Alan, your lies have caught you out

What they actually said was:

"This would represent the largest cut in education spending over any four-year
period since at least the 1950s, and would return education spending
as a share of national income back to 4.6% by 2014–15. "
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn121.pdf

Where's the word "severest" in there? You seemed to have missed out "over a 4 year period" in your rantings too.

For once, are prepared to apologies and admit you are wrong?

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:18

I don't engage with Liars Alan. Good Day!


Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 19/03/2012 - 20:38

Sarah,

I hate local authorities.

What they were before the Local Governments Act 2000, were admittedly amateurish, but nonetheless you could usually find some good people in them (many more before councillors were paid allowances and worked voluntarily).

Since then, they've turned into training grounds for politicians with chief execs who are paid ludicrous salaries - which make bankers bonuses look poultry by comparison. I wouldn't mind that so much if they were there for the interests of the people - but they are clearly not.

A million LA workers went on strike for their pensions, but where were they, when the disabled people took to the streets a week later, to protect their care?

You may remember me highlighting the fact that I started a campaign to protect these people

"Paul Atherton says:
06/03/12 at 10:51 pm
Alan,
... Highly educated people would not be employed in sectors that they challenge – the adage of “over qualified”, “not suitable for this environment” or “the role is beneath you” will get rolled out time & time again. And with enough uneducated (not in the academic sense) drones, who can repeat the same thing over and over without ever losing their soul, why would any employer risk someone who would say – “this isn’t fair”?

What would happen to the insurance industry, banking industry and the entire Public Sector without these folk.

And the public sector hates change, so anybody that comes in with fresh ideas and “look what I can do attitude” never gets employed.
Perfectly illustrated by Gerry Robinson’s OU series http://www.open.edu/openlearn/whats-on/ou-on-the-bbc-can-gerry-robinson-...

I’ve set up a campaign to deal with the heartlessness of the public sector from Social service, NHS & Local councils because these people are so appalling and are letting down the people they are paid to serve. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/apr/01/soup-runs-homele...).""

Well that campaign receives between 100 - 300 emails a day from people failed by their LA's UK wide. That's nearly 15,000 a year and we've not even launched yet.

I'm not anti-local management though as I said:

"'Paul Atherton says: 06/03/12 at 3:59 pm
Hi Rebecca,
... I find the democratic argument in relation to schools (actually, even general politics) somewhat moot. We don’t have a democracy. If we had non-political Local Authorities then maybe, that argument could hold water, but we don’t.

So if you’re in a Labour controlled borough such as Lambeth – the council decisions will all be for Labour initiatives regardless of who is in Government and likewise in say Conservative controlled Wandsworth.

These seats are so strongly entrenched, that the LA’s are not interested in the views of the general electorate, only those that have their values.

We need swing vote councils who are genuinely interested in the needs of all those in their communities or apolitical ones (my preferred choice) before any notion of democracy can be seriously engaged with."

We addressed the school place issue:

"Paul Atherton says:
12/03/12 at 3:02 pm
Sarah,
Thanks for those statistics.
As it says 1 in 3 pupils don’t get to attend their chosen schools in London. That’s 1/3rd!!!!
Area’s where they have fewer density of children, then clearly it’s easy to manage.
But the areas of most density, they fail across the board:
Lambeth, Nearly 45% failed to get their choice (Where Katharine Birbalsingh wanted to set up her school) from 2421 applications – that’s over 1,000 Children not going to their preferred school
City of London, Nearly 60% failed to get their choice (from only 18 Applications)
Southwark Nearly 50% failed to get their choice from 2520 applications, again over a 1,000 children.

So in London, we have over 26,000 Children not finding a place in a school of their choice. In a year when the numbers for pupils of 10-11 had significantly dropped.

In Manchester & Liverpool they’re still letting down approximately 15% of the population.

However, the real story is actually hidden behind the statistics. What I’d be interested in, is how many parents in the UK actually had choice (i.e. were they being forced to go to their local school with no alternative)? What was that choice based on, e.g. the educational attainment of the school or the geographical distance it was from their home?

And only then could we evaluate these figures with any detail and accuracy."

As for my feelings on Free Schools

Paul Atherton says:
06/03/12 at 4:32 pm

Alan,
I think you make some good points, especially in relation to how the DFE have eroded the ease by which parents could put together a proposal for a Free School. I agree that it defeats the object if this is not community driven.

But when it is, it’s great to watch.

But watching how people came together at these events over the education of their children was just brilliant. For many it was the first time that they felt they could ever be involved in the decision making process of what kind of educational offering could be given to their children...

...But that’s why I find the “notion” of free schools so exciting. Differing ways of teaching, values, curriculum etc. teaching children in differing environments and moving from this one size fits all – and everyone needs a degree nonsense, that has pervaded our lives for far to long.

I totally accept, that there are many flaws in the system that need ironing out and agree that Free Schools should not be run by businesses (including those that run academies).
But the dominant over riding theme, is parents getting involved and if the Free Schools movement gets momentum, then they’ll be an entirely different notion to education [completely]."

As for your final questions:
"That there is scant evidence that this policy will raise standards"
- a find this a misnomic question - some Free Schools are being set to deal with just special needs children or to teach kumoni - therefore a measurement of standards I would argue is somewhat irrelevant. And don't forget, I'm not advocating Government arguments or policy.

"that it is costly at a time of shrinking capital and revenue funding"? All the evidence so far presented would suggest the contrary - but I acknowledge that in another 10 - 15 years we'll be able to assess if that's actually true.

"that it is likely to have a detrimental effect on other schools some of which may be on the brink of viability" - that's a bigger argument than, that sentence implies, but Free Schools have been launched to save failing schools or ones that the LA were going to close.

"that it is completely with odds with the government’s stated aim that local authorities should be the commissioner of school places" - That's politics and not something I would comment on.

"that it lacks transparency in the funding being made available to it"

I'm not sure that's entirely true - I think the ease of access to that information maybe made easier, but generally I think that information is all publicly available. But with the advice of Jimmy Wales forthcoming, hoping to see some good changes there anyway.

"that it lacks any local democratic accountability" - All Free Schools to date have been born out of the communities there in. I never seen more democratic accountability. There has to be proven need, Parents have to want to put their children there and the school is then reliant on them for it's survival, answering to pupils, parents, teachers alike.

"it is appears to be a vehicle for under qualified and under experienced aspirant headteachers to circumvent a normal career path" - I've witnessed no evidence of that whatsoever.

As Fiona commented earlier,

"Fiona Millar says:
09/03/12 at 2:47 pm
...Indeed the senior management is so good that the deputy head has now been appointed head of the Bolingbroke free school in Wandsworth."

I hope that addresses all your points.

I clearly have no views on Free School Policy, whilst believing in the Free School Movement.

I have a hatred of Local Authorities based on their failures to protect the most vulnerable in society.

And I think I've answered all your questions. Hope that helps?

Paul Atherton's picture
Tue, 20/03/2012 - 09:50

Sarah,
I hate local authorities.
What they were before the Local Governments Act 2000, were admittedly amateurish, but nonetheless you could usually find some good people in them (many more before councillors were paid allowances and worked voluntarily).
Since then, they’ve turned into training grounds for politicians with chief execs who are paid ludicrous salaries – which make bankers bonuses look poultry by comparison. I wouldn’t mind that so much if they were there for the interests of the people – but they are clearly not.
A million LA workers went on strike for their pensions, but where were they, when the disabled people took to the streets a week later, to protect their care?
You may remember me highlighting the fact that I started a campaign to protect these people
“Paul Atherton says:
06/03/12 at 10:51 pm
Alan,
… Highly educated people would not be employed in sectors that they challenge – the adage of “over qualified”, “not suitable for this environment” or “the role is beneath you” will get rolled out time & time again. And with enough uneducated (not in the academic sense) drones, who can repeat the same thing over and over without ever losing their soul, why would any employer risk someone who would say – “this isn’t fair”?
What would happen to the insurance industry, banking industry and the entire Public Sector without these folk.
And the public sector hates change, so anybody that comes in with fresh ideas and “look what I can do attitude” never gets employed.
Perfectly illustrated by Gerry Robinson’s OU series http://www.open.edu/openlearn/whats-on/ou-on-the-bbc-can-gerry-robinson-...
I’ve set up a campaign to deal with the heartlessness of the public sector from Social service, NHS & Local councils because these people are so appalling and are letting down the people they are paid to serve. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/apr/01/soup-runs-homele...).”"
Well that campaign receives between 100 – 300 emails a day from people failed by their LA’s UK wide. That’s nearly 15,000 a year and we’ve not even launched yet.
I’m not anti-local management though as I said:
“‘Paul Atherton says: 06/03/12 at 3:59 pm
Hi Rebecca,
… I find the democratic argument in relation to schools (actually, even general politics) somewhat moot. We don’t have a democracy. If we had non-political Local Authorities then maybe, that argument could hold water, but we don’t.
So if you’re in a Labour controlled borough such as Lambeth – the council decisions will all be for Labour initiatives regardless of who is in Government and likewise in say Conservative controlled Wandsworth.
These seats are so strongly entrenched, that the LA’s are not interested in the views of the general electorate, only those that have their values.
We need swing vote councils who are genuinely interested in the needs of all those in their communities or apolitical ones (my preferred choice) before any notion of democracy can be seriously engaged with.”
We addressed the school place issue:
“Paul Atherton says:
12/03/12 at 3:02 pm
Sarah,
Thanks for those statistics.
As it says 1 in 3 pupils don’t get to attend their chosen schools in London. That’s 1/3rd!!!!
Area’s where they have fewer density of children, then clearly it’s easy to manage.
But the areas of most density, they fail across the board:
Lambeth, Nearly 45% failed to get their choice (Where Katharine Birbalsingh wanted to set up her school) from 2421 applications – that’s over 1,000 Children not going to their preferred school
City of London, Nearly 60% failed to get their choice (from only 18 Applications)
Southwark Nearly 50% failed to get their choice from 2520 applications, again over a 1,000 children.
So in London, we have over 26,000 Children not finding a place in a school of their choice. In a year when the numbers for pupils of 10-11 had significantly dropped.
In Manchester & Liverpool they’re still letting down approximately 15% of the population.
However, the real story is actually hidden behind the statistics. What I’d be interested in, is how many parents in the UK actually had choice (i.e. were they being forced to go to their local school with no alternative)? What was that choice based on, e.g. the educational attainment of the school or the geographical distance it was from their home?
And only then could we evaluate these figures with any detail and accuracy.”
As for my feelings on Free Schools
Paul Atherton says:
06/03/12 at 4:32 pm
Alan,
I think you make some good points, especially in relation to how the DFE have eroded the ease by which parents could put together a proposal for a Free School. I agree that it defeats the object if this is not community driven.
But when it is, it’s great to watch.
But watching how people came together at these events over the education of their children was just brilliant. For many it was the first time that they felt they could ever be involved in the decision making process of what kind of educational offering could be given to their children…
…But that’s why I find the “notion” of free schools so exciting. Differing ways of teaching, values, curriculum etc. teaching children in differing environments and moving from this one size fits all – and everyone needs a degree nonsense, that has pervaded our lives for far to long.
I totally accept, that there are many flaws in the system that need ironing out and agree that Free Schools should not be run by businesses (including those that run academies).
But the dominant over riding theme, is parents getting involved and if the Free Schools movement gets momentum, then they’ll be an entirely different notion to education [completely].”
As for your final questions:
“That there is scant evidence that this policy will raise standards”
- a find this a misnomic question – some Free Schools are being set to deal with just special needs children or to teach kumoni – therefore a measurement of standards I would argue is somewhat irrelevant. And don’t forget, I’m not advocating Government arguments or policy.
“that it is costly at a time of shrinking capital and revenue funding”? All the evidence so far presented would suggest the contrary – but I acknowledge that in another 10 – 15 years we’ll be able to assess if that’s actually true.
“that it is likely to have a detrimental effect on other schools some of which may be on the brink of viability” – that’s a bigger argument than, that sentence implies, but Free Schools have been launched to save failing schools or ones that the LA were going to close.
“that it is completely with odds with the government’s stated aim that local authorities should be the commissioner of school places” – That’s politics and not something I would comment on.
“that it lacks transparency in the funding being made available to it”
I’m not sure that’s entirely true – I think the ease of access to that information maybe made easier, but generally I think that information is all publicly available. But with the advice of Jimmy Wales forthcoming, hoping to see some good changes there anyway.
“that it lacks any local democratic accountability” – All Free Schools to date have been born out of the communities there in. I never seen more democratic accountability. There has to be proven need, Parents have to want to put their children there and the school is then reliant on them for it’s survival, answering to pupils, parents, teachers alike.
“it is appears to be a vehicle for under qualified and under experienced aspirant headteachers to circumvent a normal career path” – I’ve witnessed no evidence of that whatsoever.
As Fiona commented earlier,
“Fiona Millar says:
09/03/12 at 2:47 pm
…Indeed the senior management is so good that the deputy head has now been appointed head of the Bolingbroke free school in Wandsworth.”
I hope that addresses all your points.
I clearly have no views on Free School Policy, whilst believing in the Free School Movement.
I have a hatred of Local Authorities based on their failures to protect the most vulnerable in society.
And I think I’ve answered all your questions. Hope that helps?

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 09:46

So what are your feelings on Lewisham Council paying one of it's primary head-teachers - £100,000 who's looking after the running of just one school and helping out with projects outside the school

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7886642/Primary-schoo...

Or

"A survey by the GMB of head teachers' pay found that Jacqueline Valin, the head of Southfields Community College in Wandsworth, South London, received a pay rise of £20,594 in 2009/10, taking her salary to £198,406, and her total remuneration package to £226,381."

FOR JUST ONE SCHOOL - AND SHE"S NOT EVEN IN CONTROL OF THE FINANCES???

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 09:49

Fiona,

Unfortunately a detailed response, although showing in my posts under my account is not displayed in this thread. Be grateful to the moderator if they can ensure it's posted in ful.

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:00

Fiona,

Why do you attempt to defend the salaries of Public Servants when the very people who fund their salaries and they are paid to serve are consistently let down?

Councils fail to spend £1m earmarked for people at risk of homelessness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/01/councils-spend-families-ri...

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.