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
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:01

Councils fail to keep figures on missing children in care
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/15/11/2011/117756/councils-fail-...

LGO highlights councils’ failings over legal duties to homeless people
http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2011/jul/lgo-highlights-councils-failings-leg...

Ofsted: Quarter of councils fail to protect children
http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=103584

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:12

Councils fail to collect £1.1 billion in tax while cutting services
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8371830/Councils-fail-to-collect-1.1-bil...

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:15

Local Government Ombudsman endorses Crisis findings
http://www.crisis.org.uk/news.php/273/local-government-ombudsman-endorse...

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:17

E-petitions buried as councils fail to offer citizens a right to reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2011/jun/21/councils-...

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:24

Daycare Trust reports that councils fail to provide childcare
http://www.parenta.com/2011/02/08/councils-lack-childcare-provision/

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:26

Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 21/03/2012 - 11:42

This list could go on forever (and would include failing in elderly care, failures in adoption, failures in care of disabled, failures in care of abused children etc. etc.)

I find it totally abhorrent that out of my whole posts on vulnerable people being let down by Councils, that you rush to the defense of LA CEO's salaries.

These are public servants for crying out loud.

They should only be in their jobs to serve the people. Salaries of £200,000 + are not commensurate to those values (£60,000 - £80,000 should be the very top salaries not the very bottom)
http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/news/press-releases/local-government-2012.pdf.

Maybe these salaries would be reasonable if Council's were drawing the best talent from the Private Sector - but as far as I can see they're not. These are people who've only ever worked in the Public Sector and bring with them that small world view.

And you make my point, Public Sector workers are more concerned about money, than the people they are paid to serve.

"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?"

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 16:19

Poor Poor Paul.

You say you are aware of the IFS. You even claim you have read the IFS report but it is not me who had made the claim that the the cuts in education were the severest for over 50 years. It is the conclusion of the IFS report. How did you miss this when you read it, given that it is the most important conclusion and one that was picked up by the national press? What we have established here is that your opinion of a well researched and analysed paper from the respected IFS is "indeed an advertising slogan. The language is intentionally incendiary whilst being intentionally vague." I can see the authors at the IFS wetting their pants (but not their fannies, that being an American term) reading that.

I have already placed the context of the 1% cut elsewhere on here, so I won't now comment much beyond on your attempt to misrepresent both me and the the IFS. Suffice to add that the IFS concluded the cuts would be deepest in higher education and capital spending,the latter being the main point about costs of setting up Free Schools, which is the subject of your post.

Difficult to know what else to say to you Paul. Apart from I bet the IFS are thrilled that you think they are an advertising agency. That just about sums you up I'm afraid. And shows why you really are not worth talking to.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:06

Paul –

I see you have belatedly skimmed over the IFS report in an attempt to pretend you were acquainted with it but you gave away your ignorance many posts ago.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but your hysterical attempt to "catch me out" has done no such thing but it has exposed how much you are floundering and sinking.

I never quoted that the IFS used the word “severest”. I was paraphrasing them. Are you seriously expecting anyone sane to think that, in this context, “severe” cuts does not mean that same as “largest” or “deepest” cuts since the 1950s? Are you yourself in a vortex of desperation so deep and so swirling that you would sink to defamation?

I am not sure what gleeful point you are now making about the four year period. Are you trying to say that 4 years is too long or too short? Surely any period of education cuts, especially at a time of mushrooming Academy conversions and Free School openings, is bad? To go back to the thread, the point is, at a time of “severe/deep/large” cuts to the education, should tax payers money be spent on a handful of expensive Free School serving a tiny minority?

This might just be about justifiable if the coalition had kept the education budget stable or increased it but the point is the have not.

The Report, in case you did not understand it, shows that the government plans to cut capital spending for education from £7.6bn over the last financial year 2010-11, to £4.9bn in the current year, and each year thereafter – bringing it down to £3.4bn in 2014-15 and spending a total of £15.8bn over the four years.

By contrast, Labour’s capital spending on schools between 1997/98 and 2004/05 totted up to £15bn in cash terms, or about £20bn in today’s prices, according to the IFS.

This government’s £15.8bn over four years certainly does not add up to more than £20bn over eight years under Labour’s first two terms.

The discussion here isn’t Labour’s record or the wastefulness of BSF but the deliberate attempts you are making to somehow try and show that there are no real cuts and not real consequences to schools starved of cuts.

Luke Sibieta, the co-author of the IFS report, has also said that the cut for the DfE’s capital budget is far deeper than other government departments – which are facing average capital spending cuts of 28 per cent. The DfE’s cut to capital spending comes second only to that of the Communities department’s cut of 75 per cent – funds which are mainly spent on social housing.

If anyone needs to apologise, Paul, it is you - for defamation, for misleading us and for supporting social injustice. Cuts to the Capital budget will impact on the most vulnerable and, coupled with the cuts to social housing which will force many families and young children our of their homes and out of the schools they are currently in. But then, these concerns would not elicit any sympathy from you since you have stated that “we” should all follow your example and set up Free Schools teaching the curriculum “we” want to children “we” wish to have in our schools. And you claim you want good education for all. Shame on you.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:29

You can keep on repeating that i am a liar but I have just proved that you are the one who has resorted to defending himself by defaming me. Anyone can read it for themselves. Believe what you want to believe, Paul, but everything you have said on this post and in all your comments have incrementally shown what poor grasp you have on the Free School issue, how naive you are and how desperate you have become to convince us of your intellectual prowess as you slowly lose both the argument and whatever tiny credibility you may have had at the outset. I'd rather not engage with a delusional Troll, to be honest. Some people have become so corrupted in their blinkered state that no amount of persuasion or reason is going to help them. Lambeth Council must be relieved.


Fiona Millar's picture
Tue, 20/03/2012 - 18:08

The salaries of Local Authority Chief Executives pale into insignificance next to that of some academy chain Chief Executives like Sir Bruce Liddington who gets almost £300 K a year for running around 15 schools and with very average results according to our recent analysis

By comparison I would say the average LA Chief Exec responsible for schools, housing, social services, leisure, libraries, roads and traffic at a much lower salary is rather good value for money.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 09:34

Janet,

Durand's biggest problem was with their Local Council (Labour run Lambeth). Who were doing nothing to support them when they were under LA control. They were like other schools struggling to repair things, insufficient budgets etc.

But rather than let down their pupils, they figured out ways around the problem.

Lambeth, as you can imagine, were not impressed. Which made them more intransigent.

So, what do you do when your LA is only interested in politics and not pupils.

You figure a way around them.

And that was the purpose of the PR Campaign. To by pass the LA, go directly to the Government and the people. A proper democratic response, wouldn't you agree?

As it says in your Coloribus link:

"- To tackle the difficult attitudes of local council (Lambeth) officers by shining a light in national media and political circles on Durand’s hitherto hidden amazing 25 year journey.
- Following this strategy would achieve the new positioning and understanding of Durand necessary to obtain approvals for the new school to be built.
- Parent power and the wishes of parents for choice in education were the base for all of Durand Primary School’s actions and ambitions."

The £400,000 is simply from generated income from utilising the school premises when it wasn't used.

It doesn't include contributions to the Educational Trust which as you say, has raised enough funds already to push forward with the secondary school.

As it says in the 1 per cent campaign link your provided:

"That’s why, in 2010, he set up the Durand Education Trust to finance a secondary education for his pupils. Progress has been rapid: a middle school opens in September and the West Sussex mansion will be a boarding school for 600 thirteen- to eighteen-year olds by September 2014. Pupils will get the support and benefits of a Durand education for their entire school lives — and their parents won’t have to pay a penny for it."

Now, I acknowledge this isn't a Free School, but nobody can say, that this school has been set up by pushy middle class parents for the betterment of just their children, nor sharp elbowed ones from any walk of life.

Nor that it isn't needed demographically, Lambeth Council are screaming they don't have enough Primary School places, and we all know they don't have enough secondary.

It's one of the largest schools in the UK handling a high percentage of FSM's (43% currently - http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/school-characterisics....).

And the charitable trust enables to benefit theses children in the someway as Private/Public Schools have been offering bursaries to disadvantaged children for centuries.

No other school in the borough has done what Durand has done, so why would they need to spend money on PR?

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 10:59

Paul - that is exactly the question: why would this school need to spend £200,000 over two years on PR? And you haven't addressed the £3 million to buy a property - how can that have been purchased out of the £400,000 you say is "simply" generated from letting school premises that weren't used? And if these premises were in such a delapidated state then how were they improved in order to make them fit to be let?

And after all that expenditure, there were still 19 primary schools in Lambeth where the KS2 SAT scores equalled or exceeded Durand's results without needing a massive PR campaign or feeling the need to expand in the secondary sector which the DfE persumably isn't going to fund in full (or why would Durand need to ask for sponsorship)?

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 12:02

Depressing that a school has to resort to PR, as if investment in media relations were a corporate strategy to maximize brand awareness and thus profits. Even more depressing that Durand Academy has at its disposal £200,000 to squander when numerous schools up and down the country can't afford books or repairing buildings.

Paul rather stupidly I am afraid makes the comment that this type of school needs a lot less money from the tax payer yet earlier he says he is against the privatisation of state schools. He clearly cannot see any correlation.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 14:59

Alan,

Of course, would be against charities using advertising or public relations to fundraise - rather in fact have no charities, no support for the poor, the needy, the disadvantaged. Let them all fend for themselves in his rather abstract eutopian world in which he lives.

Where people see money growing on tress to be plucked at will, where economics has ceased to exists, budgets are endless and you can spend all days on forums complaining about your lot.

Alan of course lives in a media free world, where Local Authorities are run by the brightest and most committed individuals in society, not caring about pay or pensions but focusing instead on the very people they are paid to serve.

In Alan's world, schools have been brilliantly maintained for the past 60 years, everyone has an equal, standardised education and have no need to pursue employment.

But of course in the real world, there is no correlation between a school that is state funded raising additional funds and the privatisation of state education and you'd be a fool to suggest otherwise. Unless of course, you're going to condemn every Tombola, Fete or other fundraising activity held by schools across the country as privatisation?

Alan on one hand complains about cuts to education yet on the other hand complains about the very solutions to lessen their impacts.

I'm kind of glad I don't live in Alan's world - seems a sad, lonely, confused little place.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 15:14

What has any of this nonsense and desperate diatribe got to do with redeeming yourself from writing off a serious IFS report as "an advertising slogan. Implies something, means nothing." I think you are also confusing "charity" with "charitable status". Do you actually understand the nuances Paul?

This is just another example of your appalling and tenuous grasp of education issues as well as your sad need to misrepresent me in order to prop up your incoherent statements. No problem with that, per se, Paul, but your arrogance and desire to trumpet your limited understanding and lack of curiosity under the guise of rational and informed debate makes your embittered and delusional world much sadder than mine. You got stuck way back when you got your knickers in a twist over fannies and pants, sweetheart.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 16:59

All charities have a Charitable Status but you could also set up a Charitable Trust which whilst not a charity has to behave like one and therefore benefits by it's registration with the charities commission (like an Education Trust - doh!!!).

You really got miffed when I showed up your lack of knowledge of history of the USA and culture didn't you.

Anyway, you've been outed as a liar. So anything that comes from you now can be dismissed for the falsehoods they are.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:27

Again. I don't engage with liars Alan. Your corruption of words, your lies, your dishonorable behaviour are all laid bare for all to see. Good Day sir.


Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:38

Paul Atherton says:
18/03/12 at 3:48 pm

"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.

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."

Allan Beavis says:
18/03/12 at 4:19 pm
...

You say you are aware of the IFS. You even claim you have read the IFS report but it is not me who had made the claim that the the cuts in education were the severest for over 50 years. It is the conclusion of the IFS report. How did you miss this when you read it,

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:48

se·vere/səˈvi(ə)r/
Adjective:
(of something bad or undesirable) Very great; intense:

deep/dēp/
Adjective:
Extending far down from the top or surface

argestsuperlative of large (Adjective)
Adjective:
Of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:20

Wrong again Paul, on all counts. I think you will find that I did not quote the IFS verbatim and severe cuts are the same thing as deepest, or largest, cuts. As for me getting "miffed" about the shared culture between the USA and Britain, I have already got back to you about your delusions here. In fact, the similarities between the two nations are so obvious that it actually doesn't need spelling out. You were the one insisting that the differences were incompatible, you who illustrated, by way of proof, this yawning chasm by throwing up fannies and pants as having different meanings on both sides of the Atlantic and that this was proof that we did not share language, culture or history. I'm afraid this is both risible and puerile and adds nothing to your argument that we need to dismiss the failure of Charter Schools as being a local problem which cannot be applied in any way to England. If Gove himself did not think American Charter Schools were a model to promote (albeit dishonestly) here under the guise of Free Schools, then why on earth did he?


Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:30

Again, I have proved I am not a liar but I have proved that you are libellous. You can keep on repeating this smear, but the fact remains I did not say the IFS used the word "severe" but it is nevertheless true that in that context, "severe" has the same meaning as "deep". The fact is, these cuts ARE the worst since the 1950s and you are mendacious by trying to deny this.


Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:41

Paraphrase Paul. Paraphrase. Severe has the same meaning as deep. Are you now reduced to splitting hairs over semantics as you were over fannies?? The IFS HAVE concluded that the cuts are very bad. So bad we haven't seen the likes since the 1950s!! And thanks for reminding us that you confused the IFS with an advertising agency.


Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 11:16

Janet,

What?

I've just explained in detail why they needed to spend that money on PR (as indeed do all your links) - to avoid the blockages of the LA. The PR campaign was clearly hugely successful. Raising massive funds and giving them enough capital funding to provide an extra 1,000 pupil places for Lambeth.

The Headmaster of Durand raised money and invested in improving buildings, rented those buildings and with that revenue bought other buildings that benefitted the school and the community.

I didn't say the £3m was purchased out of the revenue of £400,000 I said the capital expenditure was raised by the Trust Fund (which raised money in excess of that).

The results of the other schools are not in contention.

It's the model of Durand that is entirely different.

It's self funding - which means it needs a lot less money from Tax Payers to grow & sustain itself which had it not been, as you rightly point out, wouldn't have been able to benefit all those children in desperate need.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 11:56

Paul - we can't check whether Durand is "self-funding" - the figures aren't available on the school performance tables because it's an academy. Fiona has pointed out on another thread that academy spend-per-pupil is not published whereas income and expenditure is available for non-academy schools.

When Mr Gove et al praise Durand they always mention its academy status and throw this status up as a model. That's why it's necessary to compare the results of Durand and non-academy schools.

If Durand is "self-funding" as you say (and I don't believe it is) then it's a worrying precedent. Will all state schools be expected to be self-funding?

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/03/the-pm-needs-to-get-his-fa...

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 15:02

Janet,

Before moving on, are we agreed that Durand spent PR money in order to side step Lambeth Council?

And

That Durands earns an income of £400,000 per and has a Trust that fund raises £ millions in its own right?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 16:41

Janet
Even without any figures being published, you can work out how much taxpayer income goes to Durand.
It (like all academies) gets what it says in its funding agreement:

1. A fixed amount per pupil.
2. Pupil premium for those on FSM
3. Standard Lambeth LASCEG

...and that's it. What's the mystery?
Any other money it happens to raise itself isn't taxpayer money, and so is none of our business.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 17:08

Sorry - not good enough. If the figures are easily available for non-academies then they should be equally easily available for academies. It should not be necessary to go searching for funding agreements, LASCEG and so on, plus work out how many are FSM.

This raises a general question about schools raising their own money - how much time is it reasonable for senior management to spend on this (bearing in mind that time spent on fund-raising isn't time spent on the core business of education? How easy is it to find out how the money is spent and who benefits?

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 17:50

I take it we are agreed then Janet.

But surely teachers teach and managers manage.

As Ricky says, it's only the state funding we should be concerned about. Any other monies will be down to how well schools raise funds for themselves, as its always been.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 18:38

Paul - I don't think you have thought through the implications of it being nobody's business what schools do with any money they raise. Really? So if the head of St Trinians successfully raises money and then uses it to pay for a staff holiday in New York, that's OK is it? Or if, as Margaret Hodge said in the recent Liaison Committee meeting, an academy federation buys a property in France and pays the governors' travelling expenses, that's a legitimate use of funds is it providing the Academy Trust raised the money itself?

My link to Coloribus, which you have read, said that Durand felt it was necessary to "To tackle the difficult attitudes of local council (Lambeth) officers by shining a light in national media and political circles on Durand’s hitherto hidden amazing 25 year journey. - To isolate any voices ranged against the school by using positive PR and political lobbying to build an unstoppable coalition in support of the school, its achievements to date, and what it wants to do in the future."

The fact that Durand felt it was necessary to "side step Lambeth Council" doesn't mean that it was actually necessary to do so. I have no idea one way or the other.

Back to Durand - Minutes of the local Parish Council Public Meeting re the proposed boarding school on 9 Jan 2012 reveal concerns of Parish Council - access, water, security, financial sustainability, waste disposal (the present school is not on the mains system) and whether the "government" has chosen the right site (it was suggested that the "government" hadn't visited the site). It appears, then, that £3 million has already been spent, nearly £18 million committed by the Government, for a development which is throwing up problems according to the Parish Council.

And, Paul, silence does not imply agreement - rather disingenuous of you to suggest it.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2kA0vBADRcQJ:woolbedingwithre...

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 20:14

Janet,

Seeing as both points were irrefutable facts - don't see how one could be disingenuous to conclude you'd agree with them?

My point about there being no obligation for the school to disclose their money publicly, does not mean that those who should know where there money is going, be denied access, which of course they wouldn't be.

You've acknowledged they're a successful school, so clearly the headmaster was correct in taking the routes he took. Which included avoiding being undermined by Lambeth Council.

And as the school has been so successful at managing property it seems a little ludicrous to suggest they want get this right?

An LSN Guest's picture
Sun, 18/03/2012 - 21:05

I have been following Paul Atherton's exhibition of his own stupidity and distortions especially in his exchanges with Alan Beavis and Janet Downs. Some of it has made me laugh but much of it has filled me with fear. How many morons like him have been duped by Gove and Cameron? Keep up the good work Local Schools Network. You are reaching more and more people. Atherton is an irrelevance.


Paul Atherton's picture
Tue, 20/03/2012 - 08:52

Janet,

I'm sure you picked up on the story about Head Teachers informally expelling students yesterday. A salient warning not to believe all statistics are facts.

But, what was really interesting, whilst investigating that story I came upon an example of an academy head, that instils all the virtues I've been seeing at the Free Schools we've seen.

"The arrival of an American principal has led to the number of pupils expelled or suspended at a new academy school being cut in half.

Nicole McCartney took over as head of the Ormston Venture Academy in Gorleston in Norfolk one year ago.'

"High expectations, praise & excellence, could happen in a tent. It's about a change in culture, a change in identity and a change in the way you do things, It's not about money"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15153451

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 20/03/2012 - 09:20

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found as long ago as 2008 that when schools improved they used similar methods: outstanding leaders and stability in leadership were “critical” to improve standards. PwC said these methods were not just found in academies but in any improving school.

The head of Ormston Venture Academy is demonstrating these methods to great success and she rightly deserves to be praised. The principles she holds are not exclusive to either academies or free schools.

It is insulting for supporters of academies and free schools to say that these "virtues" are only found in academies and free schools. They are found in thousands of successful non-academy schools.

http://www.employers-guide.org/media/21007/academies_annual_report_pwc.pdf

Paul Atherton's picture
Tue, 20/03/2012 - 09:38

Janet,

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Being Pro something doesn't automatically insinuate that your anti something else.

I've not suggested these virtues are limited to Free Schools.

Though I don't recall seeing a comment on this site from those of the anti-free schools debate. not bringing in the cuts in someway and suggesting that will have an impact on education.

Nicole McCartney's quote, seems to be in stark contrast to that:

“High expectations, praise & excellence, could happen in a tent. It’s about a change in culture, a change in identity and a change in the way you do things, It’s not about money”

And that I haven't seen in the LA arguments yet.

Pages

Add new comment

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