This site has recently debated the desirability of for-profit making companies in the running of schools, (state maintained or private) and litigation taken by schools against the companies running them may be the American Nightmare - but it may well have already landed on our shores.
Days after the publication of James Croft’s Report for the Adam Smith Institute recommending that the government “should relax present constraints on the type of organisation that can set up and manage free schools”, here is an interesting article in
the Evening Standard on the latest in the row between parents and Cognita, Chris Woodhead’s for-profit company which runs the fee-paying Southbank International School and which is bidding to run state maintained free schools.
Five of the parents have now set up a campaign group in an attempt to buy back the school from Cognita, who they accuse of “milking the school for money, underpaying staff and failing to invest in it.” In a letter to parents, the group sent a letter to parents saying "Cognita have no serious interest in maximising the educational experience of our children if it impacts on their bottom line."
It appears that Cognita are not willing to sell “at any price” so the campaign group have “concluded that the only strategy that will work long term for the educational needs of our children is to take Southbank away from Cognita."
This illustrates what a disastrous policy this above all when it is introduced into state maintained schools. For-profit making companies really should have no role is running or even investing what James Croft calls “the added advantage of new source of capital funding (sic), which the Department for Education sorely needs.” Cognita’s disastrous relationship with Southbank International School mirrors the many cases of litigation in the US taken out by schools against their for-profit organizations who want to be liberated from the stranglehold that the company has them in. Such is the power that the company has over the school boards, that irreparable damage is being done to the students’ education but like Woodhead, these companies are trying to turn the tables by accusing the parents of jeopardising the school’s reputation and their children’s education.
Parents and schools governors in the maintained sector are waking up to the myth of free schools, so we can expect much more dissent once free schools have actually opened especially if Gove’s desire for them to be financed and run by private companies, as recommended by ASI comes to fruition.
But will our free schools boards have the freedom even to consider legal action, given that they will have to jump over the byzantine hoops of arguing directly with Michael Gove about if, how and why their schools have failed in the hands of a Cognita or an Ark, when it was the DfE who encouraged them to let them run their schools in the first place? The freedom to run your own school might prove to be an unbearable straightjacket.
Comments
You state that Cognita is bidding to run state maintained free schools.
Is this true ?
Can you name a free school project that they are currently working on.
Thanks.
As it's a private school, they are perfectly entitled to withdraw their children; as the parents in question are very rich people living in a large city, it's not as though making alternative arrangements will be difficult. They don't strike me as ideal poster boys for the state system.
Please re-read the last three paragraphs of my post. This should remind you what the issue is actually about.
In this context "A Cognita or AN Ark" is a synedoche, a figure of speech where a part (ie A Cognita) refers to the whole (ie for-profit chains).
This row, together with court cases and concerns by Congress in the US re for-profit education companies, serves as a warning about the possible consequences of allowing for-proft organisations to run education.
However, my advice to the parents at Cognita's schools would be to withdraw their children and place them in the nearest state school. It won't harm their education - they will leave university with the same class of degree, if not slightly better, than their peers who remain in the independent sector.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6077920
This report has been conveniently published at the right moment, just when the government has admitted to running out of money to support the expansion of free schools and academies, recommending that the government just needs to clear the final hurdle by allowing profit making companies to run free schools without the pretence of setting up as a charitable trust.
However, the example of the Southbank International School and many Charter Schools in America underline a fundamental disconnect between the ideologies of making profits and teaching children.
I did not make the point that parents (billionaire or otherwise) are better equipped to run a school than Chris Woodhead. The central point is whether the bottom line of profit making companies is compatible with providing the best possible education. It is not going to be as easy for parents in a state funded free school to move their children out if there are accountability issues with the company managing their school. Please read my final three paragraphs to remind yourself what the central point of this thread is about
"Chris Woodhead has managed to ruin Milbourne Lodge School in Esher. This magnificent school established by the inspirational Norman Hale boasted a record number of scholarships to Eton, Winchester and St. Paul's. Now Cognita have forced out the senior staff that made this possible and brought in barely qualified staff to save money. Thus, the School numbers are down by a half and there is little chance of repeating Norman Hale's success - no hint of the ethos or the magic of this wonderful school. All thanks to the doughnuts at Cognita."
Norman Hale was a monster. He
Norman Hale was a monster. He was capricious, vain and violent. My name is engraved on one of the panels in the main entrance hall of Milbourne Lodge as one of those former pupils who won a scholarship to a top public school, but the price I have paid for that scholarship has been a lifetime with generalised anxiety disorder. Milbourne Lodge was where I really learnt that doing your best isn't good enough.
Ah, so the measure of a school's success is how many scholarships to exclusive public schools it garners? For fans of the state system, that does seem a somewhat odd metric to use.
I am one of Norman Hale's victims. I got one of those scholarships to Eton, but at the cost of such fear and anxiety that by the time I left I had completely lost the ability to relax and enjoy free time. There is nothing worth preserving about Norman Hale's legacy and I spit on his corpse.
I was at Milbourne Lodge with
I was at Milbourne Lodge with Hale and thought it was a great school. Hale was a legend too. (I also went to Eton, hated it, still hate it and got expelled.)
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/download/(id)/127674/(as)/125335_361358.pdf
The comment under the Evening Standard story (reproduced by Allan) says the school is employing "barely qualified staff" to save money. This subjective comment may or may not be accurate. However, Mr Gove thinks that the use of unqualified staff is acceptable in free schools. This may be one way, therefore, that schools reduce their costs despite the fact that the OECD Economic Survey 2011 stressed the importance of teacher quality in raising pupil test scores (OECD 2011 page 102).
It is unclear how putting in additional "required" hours allows teachers to spend more time with their families. And can we conclude from this statement that schools employing "second income earners" can pay them less because they are subsidised by the wages of their partners?
Or how about plonking the pupils in front of a computer with little classroom teaching? Adam Smith again: "A key strategy in this regard, notably among school chains, has been to migrate curriculum delivery to on screen and online formats, with a view to developing more efficient pedagogy" (page 20 ASI report).
So this is the formula in the brave new world of free schools wanting to reduce costs: unqualified teachers + lower wages + longer hours + pupils being "taught" by computer = the Govegrind curriculum.
Here is another comment on the Evening Standard site, this time from an ex-student, which suggests that the for-profit schools may well be failing themselves and students:-
"As a former student of an educational institution run by Cognita, I must clearly say there is a drastic need for reform of this particular ownership. As cognita is a private, profit-driven firm, the main objective is for it to cut costs and expenses to generate highets possible earnings. This concept does not suit many educational institutions as their main priority should be investing every possible resource into the children/students attending these facilities. Cognita's substantial inflow is not fairly distributed to their working staff, sadly and consequently resulting in a poorer student performance and future outlook. I have seen many teachers leaving and considering leaving my school due to unfair payments and compensation for their efforts. A fair proportion of the potential some of my classmates had has therefore not been fully utilized. I am glad that this has finally been publicised and amendments are underway to fix some of the many problems clearly evident under cognita."
Sadly, this is old news in America, but new here (but so new that the Adam Smith Institute didn't flag it up?) and, so far, confined to private schools. Are profit-making free schools really the solution and alternative to LA maintained schools? America suggests not - and the signs are that Gove will not be learning from the American mistakes...
Awkward moment when you go to this school and now you find all this hate about it...
I suggest parents visit the school prior to making decisions based on the comments here. Current Head, Mr Illett is doing a great job and has done wonderful things for my children.
Re State vs Private
The one thing that always seems to be forgotten in this debate is that once something is in the private sector, you can complain, go to the courts, decide not to use the service etc, ie change can be forced upon the supplier.
You do not get these choices in the state sector. Users have little or no influence and usually the staff/unions are far more important than the user.
Add new comment