More confusion over free school risk assessments: incomplete, redacted and garbled

Janet Downs's picture
 0

2017 assessments even more baffling than those for 2016 openers

Two days ago, I highlighted puzzling aspects of impact assessments for free schools opened in 2016.      I found them contradictory, inconsistent and flawed.

Impact assessments for free schools opened in the academic year 2017/18 contained  more anomalies.    

Incomplete assessments

The impact assessment for Aspire Centre, Kings Leadership Academy, an alternative provision (AP) in Liverpool was incomplete.  The assessment was dated 19 February 2018 just before the centre opened on 1 April.  It showed signs of being rushed: eight of the eleven schools listed were given no risk assessment.

Redacted comments

Impact assessments for The Everitt Academy AP and SGS Pegasus School AP were not just incomplete.   All commentary was redacted. 

Garbled information

The layout of XP East’s assessment was mangled: wide columns morphed into narrow ones and text for schools rated at moderate risk was highlighted green on an amber background. 

Colour coding extended to inspection results

Inconsistently-applied colour coding in assessments for 2016 openers was at least confined to categories of risk.  But colour coding in the 2017 assessment for The Bridge Satellite Provision AP, used colour coding for Ofsted judgements.  These were illuminated like traffic lights: red for requires improvement, amber for good, and green for outstanding.  

This could catch on.  Similar colour coding could appear on Ofsted’s website or on the Department for Education’s database GetInformationAbout Schools.  But what colour would be used for inadequate?  Black perhaps?

Puzzling assessment

The Suthers School, Nottinghamshire, was judged to pose a high risk to Magnus CofE Academy.   Magnus required improvement and had surplus places.   But Suthers was judged to pose only a moderate risk to inadequate Newark Academy which was nearer to Suthers than Magnus and had proportionately more surplus places. 

Why the lower risk?  Suthers School was proposed by Nova Education Trust which had taken over Newark Academy.   Inadequate schools, are usually assessed as being at high risk from a proposed free school.  But this would be rather awkward if the free school was deemed to threaten a school in the same multi-academy trust.  Such a judgement would suggest the free school be turned down and the MAT concentrate efforts on its struggling academy.

Risk assessments need to be accurate and, more importantly, acted upon

If free school risk assessments are to be of any use, they must be accurate.  And the only accurate assessment is one based on existing school place provision.  If local schools already have numerous surplus places or there’s no predicted future growth in pupil numbers, there's no need for a new school and the proposal should be rejected.

Basing risk assessments on whether schools are less than good is shaky – schools can improve.  But that improvement could be put at risk if a new school sucks pupils from the less than good school. 

Free school risk assessments should be based on one criterion only: need.  If there is no need then taxpayers’ money should not be wasted on creating surplus provision.

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Add new comment

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