Opposition to a Hackney Free School Grows. Join The Campaign

Allan Beavis's picture
 70
An extremely well chaired and politely conducted meeting took place last week in a library in Hackney, organised by a group of local people opposed to the setting up of a Free School. The driving force behind this Free School is Andeas Wesemann, a financial services professional whose career appears to have profited from extensive experience in brokering deals in which the private sector acquires public owned assets and public sector contracts.

Some people came to hear about the objections to Free Schools because they did not understand what they were, or how their existence would effect existing schools. Some came because they were confused about how Free Schools would offer more “choice” in a borough which already has excellent schools. Some came because they wanted to share their views about why they were opposed to Free Schools.

Were there left wing liberals there? Yes there were. We also had parents and teachers who were members from the NUT and we had a speaker from the Anti- Academies Alliance. Was the agenda hi-jacked by the “loony left”, “Trots” and politically motivated individuals masquerading as parents but representing the views of unions? No it was not. Were they rude to Andrew Tetlow, who came to the meeting representing the Hackney Free School steering committee? No they were not. Instead, they listened to his comments and arguments and challenged them fairly, politely and without attacking him personally.

Andrew Tetlow, who apologised that he was not a parent or teacher and had no experience of schools, read out from his mobile phone the mission statement of the Free School, which is essentially that it wants to provide quality education and to give aspiration to the underprivileged. He also made the point that Hackney doesn’t have enough school places but a teacher present reminded him that her community school has places and that it was primary schools that faced a shortage. He had no response when he heard that Free Schools in Sweden and America had failed to raise standards overall, contributed to social segregation and to the privatising of state schools but gave the impression that passion and sheer alone will was going to establish the school and make it successful.

Tetlow gave no indication that they had any strategy beyond appointing an excellent head who would lead the school. There appears to be no plan for the infrastructure of the school - hiring staff, contractors, building, hiring or refurbishing buildings, legal processes – and currently no sponsor or guarantees from the DfE. The Steering Committee are digging into their own pockets to fund the project. He refused to tell the audience how much they had spent so far but presumably the committee members don’t have bottomless pockets. His justification that the school would be accountable to the local community rested solely on the fact that parents would be invited to join the governing body.

When questioned about privatisation, Tetlow seemed not to understand that no one was accusing the Hackney New School of itself making a profit, but that, when the committee were no longer able to fund the campaign out of their own pockets or were defeated by the sheer scale of work and planning involved, they would be forced to hand over the school to the control of an Academy education chain. He did not seem to acknowledge that companies are preying on the contracts for services now up for sale because the government has cut Free Schools adrift from LA support and thus empowered private companies. He ought to know, though – his colleague Wesemann has stated that they have been getting advice from Zenna Atkins, former Ofsted Chief, now Chief of Wey Education, which aims to run a for-profit chain of Academies and Free Schools in the UK.

It might have been a better idea if Wesemann had come to this meeting, if only to reassure the audience that his extensive connections in profit making companies had no bearing whatsoever in his commitment to found a Free School.

According to his personal profile on the website of his employers, Ashcombe Advisers, Wesemann worked on the acquisition of Northern Rock by Virgin Money, a transaction that resulted in a loff of £400-£600m for taxpayers, helped Virgin Healthcare to take advantage of the shake-up of healthcare provision in the UK and worked on the acquisition of the Lowell Group, a debt purchasing business, by TDR Capital. His altruism when it comes to helping poor children might be more persuasive if his achievements don’t ring overwhelmingly of decisions that tip the world into an economic slump whilst making a few individuals a fast buck out of the misery they have engineered.

Perhaps it is his way, though, of giving something back to the poor when the financial services industry, upon which he has enriched himself, has done so much to impoverish them further. Yet Wesemann has links via his former employers in profiting directly from schools. When he was employed at Quayle Monro, they “invested equity in Argyll & Bute schools project” on behalf of PFT Infrastructure Company plc. This 30-year deal will cost taxpayers £370m, for buildings worth £87m.

A banner on the Hackney Free School website proclaims that their “vision for Hackney New School is to provide students with access to the widest range of opportunities in life by fostering academic excellence and instilling self-belief, intellectual curiosity and responsibility towards others in society” as if this were not unique to them and not, in fact, the mission of every single school in the country. Wesemann has fallen into the trap of portraying his altruism as being under attack by politically motivated organisations such as unions and the AAA, but he and his group have not adequately explained why Hackney needs another secondary school and neither have they dispelled the suspicion that a profit motive lurks somewhere not too far down the line.

Perhaps they find public scrutiny unpleasant but they should remember that accountability in community schools means the passing of the buck ends with them, so more transparency from their side would make the whole enterprise look much more honest and democratic.

The meeting concluded with the panel inviting Andrew Tetlow, The Hackney New School Steering Group and its supporters to join us in a public debate. The debate will be organised so that speakers from each side can put their case, and facilitated by an independent chair. We hope they will accept.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 12:26

Ricky - I suspected that that's where the information came from. Hardly an unbiased source. The school says that the LA would withold up to 15% and IES will charge less than 10% for what they allege to be the same level of service. But the school is quoting the highest level of top slicing that could be kept. In Suffolk, the County Council only keeps 8%. And Suffolk County Council doesn't have the same level of control over the school as the education provider which recruits, buys resources and so on. LA maintained schools have this autonomy - a free school (or an academy in the same position) outsourcing everything to an education provider does not. So much for the much-vaunted freedoms.

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/suffolk_half_of_secondary_schools_will_become...

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 12:59

Janet

"a free school (or an academy in the same position) outsourcing everything to an education provider does not' the outsourcing is essentially a management contract, with the Sabres Educational Trust remaining the governing body, responsible for the school and accountable to the SoS/DfE. If the Trust doesn't like what IES is doing, it can presumably choose not to renew its contract and appoint some other organization to manage the school.

I'm not sure you are right in this assertion. As I understand it,

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 13:01

Janet
... sorry, my last comment got scrambled. It should have read:


"a free school (or an academy in the same position) outsourcing everything to an education provider does not'

I'm not sure you are right in this assertion. As I understand it, the outsourcing is essentially a management contract, with the Sabres Educational Trust remaining the governing body, responsible for the school and accountable to the SoS/DfE. If the Trust doesn't like what IES is doing, it can presumably choose not to renew its contract and appoint some other organization to manage the school.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 17:22

Ricky - in the case of IES Breckland the Trustees have handed over the entire running to IES. Even the name of the school has had to change. Presumably if IES lose the contract in due course then the name of the school will be changed again. IES took over recruitment - in LA maintained schools the Governing Body does the recruiting, LAs are not allowed to interfere - the only advise if asked - although they do employ the teachers. IES has also said it will purchase resources - they've said they want to centralise the purchasing if they get several schools for economies of scale. This sounds financial sense but they may be purchasing resources that the school would not have chosen for itself. The National Audit Office has warned that buying services from sponsors in the case of sponsored academies may not be best value-for-money. The same can apply with schools run entirely by education management organisations that supply everything.


Helen Jones's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 18:15

Janet I hope that you are not implying that only the LA can procure services in an efficient, non politically motivated and fair manner. We all read the papers, be them from Hackney or elsewhere and many including myself will have experience of dealing with their LA. There are many examples here but this is the most recent. Councillor Laing resigned after netting himself a few jobs from the taxpayer.

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2012/02/20/hackney-labour-councillor-alan-la...

The Learning Trust is another example. Education was deemed so poor in Hackney that responsibility for it was taken out of the hands of the council. The Learning Trust has been successful and now exists within the council’s umbrella. Only time will tell if the Learning Trust can maintain improvements in education under a new direction. They have kept the same staff but will the council’s influence change the direction? I suspect nobody can answer this, at the moment.

The truth of the matter is more likely to be that some councils will handle procurement and management very efficiently, (I happen to think that Hackney do not) and some very badly. This will likely be the same for any company involved in education but a company has the added pressure that the people working for them are responsible for delivering and if they do not deliver good results, be that exam, procurement or anything else, they are likely to be replaced. All too often this is not the case with the LA.

I am not arguing that making profit from schools is correct but there seems to be a common theme here that one stance is correct and the other is not, black and white. The reality will probably be somewhere in-between. Some academies and free schools do and will probably continue to work very well and other will not. The fundamental advantage of having the Academy system is that parents can make the decision about what works best for their child.

I would be interested to know what the LSN would do with all of the existing academies including free schools if (hypothetically) they came in a position where they could determine the future of all schools in the country. Would you close them down, make them all into comps, or leave them as they are but stop further ones being built? Given the nature of this site, I’m assuming that you would not continue the academies programme.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 18:52

I am mystified that you believe that the Academy System ensures that parents can make the decision about what works best for their child. Since Academies opt out of local authority stewardship and support and are accountable only to central government, when the Trust makes all decisions and when the board of governors will automatically include unelected representatives of the company that controls them, parents will have little influence and, worse, have no recourse other than an unapproachable, already overburdened Secretary of State for Education when they have a complaint or a need for an appeal.

I'm sure Free Schools and Academies might work for anyone who never has any need to complain about the school. But when things go badly wrong for your child, who will take action on your behalf and for other children who have been treated unfairly?

Helen Jones's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 19:03

Allan,

I suspect you are aware of this but I was referring to Academies (to a certain degree) being able to prescribe their own curriculum, and have a specialism. LA not able to do so.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 19:18

Many community schools have specialisms, so this is not unique to Academies.

As for prescribing their own curricula, I don't see how how this works best to include all children when often the curriculum in Academies is much narrower. In any case, this does not empower parents in any way. The Academy is offering a limited curriculum that appeals to a cross section of already advantaged parents being offered the type of education they think their child needs or deserves. What about other children? Other parents? No parent is making a decision. They are having a product imposed on them and one that excludes the needs of many children.

Helen Jones's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 20:36

Allan,
Your argument is that an academy offers less than the LA. If that is the case and a parent likes that, then it should be the parent’s choice. You say that the choice should not exist and that the parent does not have a right to decide where their child is educated, which is preposterous.

I’m curious, did you choose where your children go to school, or just simply let the state decide?

You tie yourself up in knots with twaddle. Why would already advantaged parents send their children to an academy if it gave a worse education than an LA school. Surely these are the people that that are most engaged with the system. I imagine you have heard of Mossbourne, six times oversubscribed. That’s a lot of limited appeal!

If no parent is making a decision then why is the LT reviewing parental choices for schools that children go to in Hackney, be them Academies, comps or whatever. You have already stated that you think there is a difference in that in your opinion academies offer a “narrower curriculum” “appealing to the already advantaged.” What a completely idiotic statement you make.

The real answer is that you believe that the state should control everything and we should all work in left footed, size 5, women’s shoe factories, with their being no difference between any of us and simultaneously no aspiration either.

I assume you agree with all the other points about local authorities as you have not chosen to comment on them.

I await your answer regarding LSN deciding on the fate of academies and free schools.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 23/03/2012 - 21:52

Helen -

You don't appear to have understood the extent to which Academies have become completely rudderless from a locally accountable support system which oversees a group of schools, shares information and can step in to help all the schools under their care when it is needed. My point was that Academies do not necessarily give parents a choice in "what works best".

You also miss the point about why Academies appeal to already advantaged children. Because they pander to middle class fears that their children are not getting the rigorous academic education the coalition is telling them they deserve and because they are able to limit their curriculum in a way that is offputting and disadvantageous to any parent or child who would like to be taught a wider and more inclusive curriculum, where there is actually more choice as opposed to the one-size fits all curriculum dictated by Gove and the Academy.

You boast of Mossbourne's appeal. Yes, Mossbourne is oversubscribed but so are many maintained schools. And for every successful Academy, there is a failing one. Henry Stewart's analysis of DfE data shows that overall Academies do not outperform maintained schools by any measure. Mossbourne is therefore no representative of the Academies policy.

You make assumptions about many things, including what I think. The real answer - and you might share this with James Donnington and David Jacobs - is that I recognise that everyone is different but that everyone, in a civilized and just society, should be treated equally so excellent education should be accessible to all, not just the sharp elbowed and selfish few. The fact of the matter is that children from well off families will be ok. It's the ones from chaotic and deprived families where we need to intervene and a narrow curriculum in a school system where parents are given no voice or appeal but are dictated to by a Trust and a Secretary for Education is not the best solution for them.

I imagine your abuse is triggered by frustration but I am appalled by your accusation that I somehow hold back aspiration. This is the same old tiresome "twaddle" that has been spewed out ever since the school reform debate began. Have a look at the best performing nations, Helen, and you will see that systems which do not segregate, offer no choice apart from the outstanding local school, high quality teaching, real school autonomy, mixed ability teaching come out at the top. In other words, they are doing exactly the opposite of what countries like England, America and Sweden are doing. This is what is, to use your phrase, "completely idiotic".

Finally, you tie yourself up in knots with attempting to show that an Academy offers choice. What if you live in a community where the only school is an edu-chain Academy offering a narrow curriculum, boot camp discipline and unsatisfactory results? What choice does a community have when an Academization has been forced onto the school, despite the protests of the school governors and the parents? Choice is a red herring.

I chose to send my children to the local maintained school. We are in the catchment area, the schools operates fair admissions carried out by the local authority and my children's friends and neighbours go there. So to answer your rather crass question, no the state did not decide. Our proximity to the local school was the over-riding factor. I wonder if you would be so passionate about "choice" if your local school was not somewhere like Mossbourne but a failing Academy? Would you instead play the faith card or tutor your children to win a place at a grammar school miles from Hackney? Few poor children get into grammars. They don't have the advantage of well off parents who can have them tutored to work the system to pass the 11+.

The less advantaged have fewer choices than the affluent. It's a good job that a bunch of people branded "Trots" are fighting their corner don't you think?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 24/03/2012 - 11:32

Allan

You say: "The less advantaged have fewer choices than the affluent. "
Absolutely right under the 'local schools' arrangement.

Affluent parents can use their economic power to buy a home in the catchment area of a good school. (Just look at the way estate agents feature catchment areas in their property particulars for proof this is going on.)

Meanwhile, families in areas with a high concentration of social housing are left stranded, with no other choice than the local sink comp.

Academies and free schools offer a way out of that.

Sarah's picture
Sat, 24/03/2012 - 13:32

You talk as though the Academies and Free Schools policy will magically overcome the impact of geographical based admissions policies on parents ability to move close to popular schools. Precisely the same thing will happen in respect of Academies and Free Schools if they are popular - so where is the 'way out' that you believe they offer. The answer to it would be to insist on fair banding or random allocation for all school admissions - but the government have ruled that out. Academies serving more disadvantaged populations are very likely to have lower exam results and will therefore suffer precisely the same fate as maintained schools do in becoming considered the local 'sink' school, to use your words. There is no logic to your position.


Allan Beavis's picture
Sat, 24/03/2012 - 13:39

Ricky -

Your response is way too simplistic and relies far too much on repeating the government mantra that Academies and Free School guarantee better results. They don't. The anaylses of DfE data by Henry Stewart on this site shows that maintained schools still outperform Academies.

When you speak of families stranded in areas of high concentration of social housing, you actually mean a bubble of middle class people trapped with the choice of a sink school? And that a Free School would offer these more affluent people a way out? I think we are agreed that you support Free Schools because they offer choice to the deserving few.

There is a solution to "sink schools" and it is not changing by changing the structure. As with all these arguments, the educated middle classes will do fine. It's children from chaotic and deprived families that need the concentration of resources and help, from social welfare to improved facilities in their local school. Many maintained schools overcame these problems before Academization. Many Academies have made no difference to poor results. All the coalition are doing with challenging schools is kicking out the head, imposing a board and hanging over control of the school to chains like Harris Federation, Mr. Harris being a substantial donor to the the Tory party. The rich get richer at the expense of the poor.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Mon, 26/03/2012 - 08:34

Allan

You are SO wrong on so many levels that it is hard to now where to start.

1. Let's first address Harris. Your "the rich get richer" remark suggests Philip Harris is making money out of education. The opposite is true. Harris is an incredibly generous philanthropist who has given tens of millions of his own money to help educate kids. Harris didn't make his fortune from dodgy derivatives, but from the honest business of making well-made, but affordable carpets.

2. You write "When you speak of families stranded in areas of high concentration of social housing, you actually mean a bubble of middle class people trapped with the choice of a sink school? " No, absolutely not. I mean (and indeed said) poor people who (unlike the affluent) cannot afford to buy a house in the catchment area of a good school. The idea that free schools are mainly aimed at the middle class is your own prejudice. Look at Birbalsingh's website and you'll see that Michaela School is absolutely aimed at serving deprived communities and its ethos & branding are all deliberately calculated to be welcoming to Black British/Caribbean and African families. The same goes for the free schools in Greenwich, Newham and Feltham. Even Toby Young's West London Free School (serving a somewhat more affluent area) is mainly working class in its intake, racially diverse, and has 26% of pupils on free school meals. Hardly a "little Eton". One of the main criteria used by DfE in assessing free school applications is the contribution the school will make in narrowing the achievement gap between kids from affluent and poor homes.
3. You also blithely state "the educated middle classes will do fine." Actually, they don't do all that well in much of the State sector. Middle class kids who go to private schools have a massive advantage in terms of access to good universities compared to kids of equal intelligence and ability in the worst comps. Hence the popularity of grammar schools etc.

4. You write: "The anaylses of DfE data by Henry Stewart on this site shows that maintained schools still outperform Academies." I haven't yet read Henry's research, but from reports about it I get the impression that what he purports to show is NOT that maintained schools generally outperform academies, but that really poorly performing maintained schools improve as fast (or faster, though this is contested) as academies which were similarly poorly performing. Important though these seriously challenged schools may be - this is a niche position. More generally, the national average improvement in 2011 (5 GCSEs including E&M) was 3%, while in academies it was 5.7%, and in Harris academies it was a remarkable 13%. 55% of Harris students eligible for free school meals hit the same target, compared to 33.9% nationally. On the GCSE target, seven Harris Academies now have 90% or more students gaining five good passes, with four at 100%. 80% of Harris Academies are judged outstanding by Ofsted, compared to17% nationally.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Mon, 26/03/2012 - 11:10

sarah

Just look at the Harris Academy Peckham to see how wrong you are.

Helen Jones's picture
Mon, 26/03/2012 - 14:29

Allan, if you look around you, is everything white and padded?


Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 26/03/2012 - 16:04

No. the view is clear. But then I am not a "useful idiot" of the Trotsykites or the Conservatives.


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 27/03/2012 - 08:50

Allan

Are you sure? Perhaps, if you have a free moment, you might read Max Frisch's play, The Fire Raisers (Biedermann und die Brandstifter).

In case you are not acquainted with the work, here (courtesy of Wikipedia) is a brief synopsis:

"This dark comedy is set in a town that is being regularly attacked by arsonists. Disguised as hawkers, they talk their way into people's homes and settle down in the attic, where they set about the destruction of the house. Written in the years following World War II, as a metaphor for Nazism and fascism, the play shows how "normal" citizens can be taken in by evil.

The central character, a businessman called Biedermann, is seen at the outset reading newspaper reports of arson, convinced that he could never be taken in. Within minutes, the first "hawker" has appeared (Schmitz), and through a combination of intimidation and persuasion he talks his way into spending the night in the attic. As the play unfolds, a second arsonist appears (Eisenring), and before Biedermann can do anything to stop it, his attic is piled high with oil drums full of petrol. He even helps them to measure the detonating fuse and gives them matches, refusing to believe the full horror of what is happening. He soon becomes an accomplice in his own downfall."

What is striking is that the arsonists are so blatant; nevertheless, the householder refuses to acknowledge the awful truth that is so plain to see.

Ken Muller is as open as Schmitz and Eisenring about his political affiliations and objectives. But you seem determined to play the Biedermann.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 27/03/2012 - 09:43

Ricky -

Thank your for the Wikipedia link but I am very familiar with the play. I have no determination to play Biedermann at all but you show a marked lack of talent as a casting director in trying to mis-cast me in a role for which I am unsuited and for which I cannot feel the "motivation".

John Bird's picture
Mon, 02/04/2012 - 13:49

It is I believe unfortunate that a combination of personal attack, dogma and political posturing seem to have become more important in the exchanges I have read on this site than the fundamental issue of education. It is little wonder, therefore, that for the same reasons successive governments of all political persuasions have made such a pig's ear of our educational system over the past 60 years.

My headmaster at Bishop Wordsworth's School in Salisbury, wrote a book in 1942 entitled "Towards A New Aristocracy" in which he argued that the evolution of new techniques had created conditions in which man was faced with the choice between a planned society and chaos. Since I left his tutillage in 1955 I have observed the ebb and flow of educational policies descending into the chaos he predicted. Unfortunately the only apparrent avenure of escape for thinking parents has increasingly been investing in private education for their children. This in turn has further embedded the problem of inequality in this country now reflected by a cabinet of wealthy pubkic school boys who see the resolution of our problems, particularly education, being better cured by increasing the level of chaos rather than working through the unenviable task of unpicking the mistakes of their predecessors and moving towards a proper cohesive solution.

In his book Freddy Happold suggests that the problem of education is a socialogical one whose consideration must begin with a diagnosis of present conditions, then go on to enlightened anticipation. Only then will it be possible to decide how education can best carry out its fundamentsl task of training the sort of men and women the age needs.

In a civilised societycitizens need to understand and value that society which requires training in the fields of its heritage, its history, geography, economics.and sociology. An appreciation of its aesthetics is also necessary including literature and drama, music and art. In order to understand the scientific world in which we live, a synthesis of biology, chemistry and geology, physics and mathematics is required. Communication outside one's own area is necessary, so some language skills outside one's native tongue is important, as also is the need to encourage and facilitate the development of handwork skills for the work to be done and as a counterbalance to the intellectual.

Such a full programme is needed by all children, and the mix of skills and abilities both with the hands and the intellect is not only beneficial to the individual but also develops an appreciatiuon among children of the strengths and weaknesses of both themselves and their peers..

For this to be achieved we need not to create more and more differing types of schools with more and more devisive ambitions, but rather to apply all of our collective thinking and creativities to the honing of the best possible educational system through which all of our young are developed and nurtured, and which fulfills and exceeds all of the hopes of their parents.

Woulkd it not serve our De Beauvoir, Hackney and our nation better if all of you were to put your heads together and approach the government to start looking at putting a stop to increasing diversity in our educational system and rather producing a cohesive and a progressive service for the whole of the community?

As a foot note, I am opposed to Free Schools, Faith Schools, Public Schools, and any other institutional educational establishment which diectly or indirectly causes or encourages division, prejudice or inequality of opportunity for our children.

Pages

Add new comment

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