When the Collective Spirit free school opened in Oldham in September 2013, it was on land appropriated by schools minister Lord Nash from Oldham Council. The Council estimates that the loss to Oldham in land value and lost council tax is £4 million.
The Council told the Department for Education (DfE) there were already over a thousand surplus places in Oldham during the consultation for a second free school (Phoenix Free School) when it was at the proposal stage. It also warned that one or possibly two of Oldham’s sponsored academies could become unviable.
Collective Spirit is now open – it has 42 pupils and is being funded for 60.
Now Oldham Council is under pressure again to find land for another free school which has been given the go-ahead: the Phoenix Free School. Remembering what happened last year, the Council has decided to hand over land in Rosary Road in return for a “peppercorn rent” so the DfE won’t seize more valuable development land elsewhere.
It’s not the first time the DfE has used, or threatened to use, its powers under the 2010 Education Act to take over land. The King’s Leadership Academy, Warrington, was established on land which the Council said they had been pressurized to “release”. The free school opened in September 2012 with just 38 pupils. It now has 152 but is funded for 165.
The power provided by law for the DfE to seize land is unacceptable. It removes the ability of local councils to decide how best to use local amenities. If local people don’t like the way a council uses local assets then they can vote the council out. But neither they nor councils have any power to oppose a DfE land grab.
CCORRECTION 1 May 2018: Oldham Council's remark about a thousand surplus places was in the response to the proposal to open a second free school, Phoenix Free School. The opening of Collective Spirit had added to an already-existing surplus. The original article implied Oldham Council was responding to the proposal to open Collective Spirit. It has been amended.
Comments
We shouldn't forget either that much of the land owned by LAs was purchased with capital money provided by DfE (or its forerunners) through the schools capital budget. Councils should not be free simply to switch it to other purposes.
My fear is that the independence of Free Schools could lead to the sponsor being able to liquidate assets in the event of a school closure. This may well be irrational but having seem E-Act lose 10 of its chain, were they told to return the school to the appropriate LAs, no, they were told to find another sponsor. So Gove sits there saying heads I win (academising LA schools) and tails I win (failed academies switch sponsor).
The same thing is happening in Islington where DfE threatening to requisition land worth £10 million, which the council has earmarked for much-needed social housing, for a free school that will create surplus primary places in one of the few London Boroughs that doesn't 't need more primary provision .
Because the law requires LAs to manage school place supply, this meant when school rolls were falling LAs sold off school land for housing (it happened near me when two schools were amalgamated due to falling rolls - one was sold, demolished and is now a housing estate).
School rolls are now rising in some parts of the country and there is an urgent need for more places. But this isn't the case in Oldham.
The Government is making it impossible for LAs to manage school place supply if they allow free schools to open in areas with a surplus. And it makes the matters worse if they appropriate local assets to do so.
I also wondered what would happen in Lincolnshire when West Grantham Academies Trust decided to close one of its academies. Would the land, rented at what is described as a "peppercorn rent" (but wasn't so "peppercorn" in the case of Kings Science Academy), revert to its owner (presumably the LA)? As it happened the academy was handed over to another sponsor - I expect the same will happen to the former E-Act academies.
I think it was Keynes who said "In the long run, we are all dead." He might just as well have said: "In the long run, everywhere has a need for more school places."
Populations are rising and will continue to rise. Some day every council will need land for schools. It makes no sense to dispose of such land or to divert it to housing. The cost of buying it back (especially in London) could be prohibitive.
I must admit if I had an asset (such as land suitable for a school sometime in the future) I think I'd be tempted to sell it off if it was likely that at some point the Secretary of State for Education would simply confiscate it and hand it over to a private company.
The NAO estimated a minimum of 5% surplus places was needed in order to allow for parental choice etc although there was no statutory duty for LAs to keep this 5%. The challenge until recently was to remove surplus places - this trend has now reversed. But there is still a surplus of primary places nationally, the NAO found. The demand for places is in certain hotspots such as London.
Oldham is not one such hotspot. The Council said there were 1,000 surplus places yet the Government has opened one free secondary school and is allowing one more to open in September.
The NAO found "only 19 per cent of secondary places in Free Schools" are in area with a forecast need. Oldham is not one of these yet it could have two new secondary free schools in September.
The NAO estimated "total capital costs for Schools opened in districts with no forecast need for extra school places are at least £241 million."
Added to this is the loss to Councils such as Oldham by the appropriation by the DfE of land which could be used in other ways than adding to an already oversupply of school places.
In any case, there are other ways of finding more school places - it's not necessary always to build new provision. Extra places can be found by extending existing schools, providing "bulge" classes, increasing PAN etc.
NAO reports here and here.
Barry - Surely the point is that as LAs have responsibility for planning and providing for school places, they have to control their land and property assets.
Barry - Surely the point is that as LAs have responsibility for planning and providing for school places, they have to control their land and property assets.
The SEN page there is criminally bad.
Chris - Tom Burkard posts extensively on this thread, starting 01/01/14
Your comment struck me as somewhat forceful. So I had a look at the Phoenix SEN page.
The url is here:
http://phoenixfreeschool.org.uk/special-educational-needs
I find it difficult to credit!
Yet this is a school which will receive taxpayers' money.
The ASA has censured the school for giving the misleading impression that one of its founders was a Professor at Derby University - but he was only a Visiting Professor which is not the same as being a permanent member of staff.
Perhaps the ASA should look at another of the claims: that the Reading Scheme promoted on the site and which will be used in the school (written and published by the same Visiting Professor) is " rapidly gaining recognition as the most cost-effective means of preventing reading failure."
Now it's true the material (called "Dancing Bears") was reviewed positively by the Gloucestershire Supporting Reading Pilot but it wasn't suggested that this material was the only one recommended:
"Supporting Early Reading Pilot successfully demonstrated that a well-founded
Wave 3 programme, such as Dancing Bears can significantly improve the outcomes
for pupils identified as having reading difficulties in Year 1."
But that was in 2009 - so it probably doesn't fit the description of rapid recognition. And being successful in Year 1 doesn't mean the same programme would be effective in secondary school.
http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/schoolsnet/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=34381&p=0
http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/education-ski...
http://www.cps.org.uk/experts/tom-burkard/
He was a main player in Mr Gove's reduction in the scope of SEN
He, as Janet points up, was a main player in Mr Gove's single minded focus on Phonics first and fast
Whether one likes or loathes the seemingly shallow and apparently dismissive articulation of his views of SEN and Differentiation on the schools website, it is true to say that prior to Gove the SEN industry was self multiplying exponentially. There was little regard given to substantiating the spiraling SEN categories let alone ways of filtering the genuine from the truculent or those slow to mature into learning.
https://www.gov.uk/children-with-special-educational-needs/overview
And Gove uses the SEN card when it suits him although it ended up with his looking rather silly:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/10/dfe-confirms-gove-has-visi...
A key issue is the assessment process that filters the genuine cases from those simply wanting to find a social label and additional funding for children whose formative years had been blighted by poor parenting skills (there is a link here to the Blairite 'Sure Start' programme). Literacy remains a core obstacle for a substantial minority of pupils (and a large number of parents). This is often cited as being at the root of many of the disaffected pupils. Likewise in maths. Lack of or weak parental structures and guidance at home has also been cited as a foundation for the BESD and to some extent ADHD. There is also evidence to support the impact of poor dietary options and ADHD. I will cut it short here but suffice to say that whereas genuine SEN must be addressed and appropriate support put in place, I feel strongly that the smoke and mirrors of the wider SEN industry has to be blown away and broken. Perhaps the renewed focus on character, personality and resilience should be used at the school-face to challenge both parents and their offspring. In this regard I have a feeling that the assessment process at the overview link you provide is a starting point.
"a very special special needs policy"
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/03/a-very-special-special-nee...
Which does create a slight overlap as some of the comments here, may also have relevance there.
Absolutely, and there have been a number of posts on this site about this case. See:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/?s=ashmount
for a listing of these.
Of particular interest is the proposers of the Free School are a for-profit company, Bellevue Ltd who run a number of fee paying schools, both in the UK and Switzerland. The main shareholders of Bellevue are a hedge fund based in Zurich.
I don't quite get your point. Sure, poor parental structures often bring on behaviour we call "SEN". But they're sill real enough. The school has to cope with them.
For me there is a real difference between a child demonstrating dysfunctional behaviour patterns that impedes their learning which have been grown/learned through weak/poor parenting and the child who - for the want of a better description - has been born with a genuine obstacle/impediment to their ability to learn.
Add new comment