Labour MP attacks Bolingbroke Free School and shows real spirit in disagreeing with the Labour front bench

Francis Gilbert's picture
 136
Lisa Nandy's attack on Bolingbroke Free School is worth watching because she shows what's wrong with the free schools policy: it's chronically unfair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj4QrbYI4vw
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Jake's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 16:59

I've replied on this point above - Janet's interpretaion of the DfE doc is misleading. The DfE say the complex process of grant allocation is 'unsustainable' - not the money. The transition process is a zero sum game by and large albiet with a much smaller size pie.


Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 17:48

Sorry Jake. No mandate for these policies because the Tories gained power by hooking up with the LibDems but that is not the same as winning the election. Also Academies Act was did not form part of the coalition agreement and the LibDem manifesto was entirely at odds with what we have now. They have in fact remained curiously silent on the schools part of educational policy but this is not surprising given the roasting they got over their hypocrisy over winning over the student vote then betraying those voters over tuition fees


Sassy Puff's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 18:12

Someone has obviously hacked into your account, given that you appear to have given a link to a Guardian article at 11.17am.
Furthermore, I was wondering if you could indulge me by answering two questions?
Firstly, in an earlier post you say that you live in a part of London with a wide range of different schools. Given that you seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the NSC campaign and the Wandsworth school system, I was wondering if you could confirm if you live in the borough?
Secondly, my comment about primary schools was on a local website concerned with local issues. Comments do not appear as a result of an internet search, they only appear to logged in registered users. Therefore, given that my comment appeared on a thread regarding a primary school in Wandsworth, which had absolutely nothing to do with Bolingbroke, I would again ask if you would confirm if you are local to Wandsworth.

Jake's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 18:35

Allan - I'll cut out the sarcasm if you cut out the sweeping statements and lack of evidential back up to same.

Saskia - I live in south London. And I read the Guardian. I am a big fan of Marina Hyde, Zoe Williams, Simon Jenkins and Will Hutton. But I don't agree with all of what they say all of the time. Less fond of dear old Polly.

Jake's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 18:42

Wow, what can I say to that? Keep the red flag flying sister. I can almost hear the nightly wailing and nashing of teeth in the Campbell household about the unfairnes of it all. You should have kept Gordo away from the steering wheel if you had wanted to stand half a chance of getting back in last year.


Fiona Millar's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 18:50

It is even more depressing for the Tories that they couldn't win given the political context to which you rightly point.


Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 15/06/2011 - 18:48

Jake -

Plenty of evidence - just stop wasting my time asking for it when it so available.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 07:23

Jake: unfortunately, there is a widespread impression among schools that want to become academies that they will be financially better off despite warnings from the DfE that the extra money is only to pay for the services which the local authority provides. The DfE expects academies to provide these services at an equivalent level (see Allan's link to the original article and my further comments).

The impression that schools will receive more money if they become academies is given credence when it is discovered that academies have been receiving extra money despite Mr Gove's assurance that they would not. This is explained away as an accounting error:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8524470c-977a-11e0-af13-00144feab49a.html#axzz...

My previous post, which Allan highlighted, clearly said the DfE was overhauling the grant allocation to ensure comparibility over all maintained schools, so I fail to see how my interpretation was misleading. The purpose of my post was to warn schools hoping to convert to academies for financial reason that they may find the money is not as much as they had hoped for.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 07:32

Apologies to Sir Peter Newsam for getting his name wrong. Jake: local democracy is a cushion between local areas and national governance. If the local democracy element is removed, then this cushion is also removed. In the case of academies, parents will not be able to complain to the local authority if there is an unresolved problem with their academy - they have to complain directly to the Secretary of State. This is the difficulty facing parents in Thetford who are unhappy with the way their local academy is being run. Quite how the DfE will cope with nationwide problems is unclear.

I am not sure what you mean by "outflanking the LEA". Local authorities now have little control over schools, although you would not think so if you listened to the propaganda from Mr Gove and his supporters. Local authorities have responsibility for such things as admissions and special education needs. This leaves plenty of room for schools to be autonomous.

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 07:52

Having searched twice now, clearly Allan there is not 'plenty of evidence' that is readily available - to me at least. So I am still none the wiser in spite of asking for your help. Likewise you have simply ignored my requests that you detail the funding agreement clause(s) that allow Gove to 'chuck money' around at his pet projects. I am sorry that you appear to be getting so annoyed merely because I have challenged one of your sweeping statements - the tone of your comment above is speaks volumes for much of the lightweight posting on this site. All fur coat and no knickers. Sadly like Tony Hayward I have a life to lead so will not be posting any further on this page which is going round in ever decreasing circles.


Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 08:19

Why could you not find this for a start? http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/04/7m-bailout-troubled-acad...? It took three clicks of the mouse.
In any case, Gove's catastrophic incompetence means he won't have any money to chuck at Academies or anywhere else. Listen to his bluster here http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm and read the blunder here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8524470c-977a-11e0-af13-00144feab49a,Authorised=...

I'm not annoyed. Like you, I have little time as well and what time I have on here shouldn't go towards helping you get enraged when presented with evidence that your assumptions are wrong. My attitude towards you speaks volumes not about being lightweight (me or many other contributors here) but about your lazy assumptions and hostile attitude.

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 08:53

I am sorry but you do have to come back on this one in spite of my last post. Thank you for eventually posting the article. I have now read it with great interest. The fact of the matter is that it has nothing to do with Gove 'chucking money' at a failing flagship academy as you originally stated. The money was paid as the article itself said to address "long-term educational and financial failure" from when it was a maintained school. The financial and other failures stem from pre-transition. You have spun the content 180 degrees and willfully misrepresented what the article was about. Incredible.

And no, for what its worth, I don't think Gove did a great job on the radio today. That said, I do think that he has inherited an overly complex system of school funding from Labour and that he is trying to simplify the process - which in part is what the DfE doc that Janet posted about deals with with, making the funding calculations less complex. In doing so I have no doubt mistakes have been made by someone, either the LAs or DfE officials or more likely both. I dont see it as a hanging offence.

There is nothing lazy about my assumptions and if you are put off by robust debate with someone who doesnt take everything posted on this site as gospel then thats your problem not mine. Next time it would help if you didnt misrepresent an article - as I said, you take the moral high ground but underneath you have a grubby little agenda.

Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 09:04

Nope. Not taking the high moral ground. Just a reaction to insidious propaganda from thje government and your good self to promote social divisions and education for the deserving at the expense of the undeserving. The tone of your personal attacks here shows that you don't just have a grubby agenda but that perhaps you are just plain grubby. I hugely admire the other bloggers here for the restraint but, like you, I cannot claim the moral ground there either.

On a more serious note, it is interesting to note how the pro-school "reform" and right-wing contributors are reacting to criticism with higher levels of hysteria and abuse. Even more interesting - and heartening - is the increase in the swell of people not just here but up and down the country who are questioning government education policy and making their dissent heard. The shouting down now seems to putting a lid on a creeping sense of fear. Goodbye Jake.

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 09:21

I think any neutral reading this page would make their own mind up about the pack mentality and bluster on this site. Although there are few neutrals - if any at all - that frequent this lonely corner of the internet. To paraphrae Johnson (not Boris) ideology is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The biggest mistake you make is to believe your own propoganda instead of looking at the evidence of how for too long we have been failing our kids. And don't forget the academy programme was a policy that gained traction under Labour a decade ago - or are you too far left of Team Blair to even recognise that? Not goodbye, more of an au revoir. We'll meet again.


Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 09:47

The Academy programme as initiated and implemented by Labour had quite a different ideology than the one bastardized by the current coalition. They were being set up in areas where there was a genuine need to provide quality education for everyone in some of the most challenged areas where education was failing. They were not encouraged to position themselves in direct and hostile competition with community schools and were not set up up and down the country with the express purpose of making maintained schools fight for survival.

It is a sweeping statement to claim that kids have been "failed". Focusing on bad schools does not mean that there are not good and excellent ones. Failing schools can also improve, given the right investment and support. They do not have to be forced into becoming Academies. That expensive and high-handed approach is Gove's way of saying "Academies will guarantee sustained excellence". Well they can't guarantee that just as they - and maintained schools - can't guarantee that they won't fail either. As far as the DfE is concerned, maintained and VA schools no longer exist as they have been left off the website, so Academies will be the norm. They will face the same challenges that state schools face today. Nothing Gove has said has reassured that these reforms are in any way radical and that they will solve the problem of providing quality education to all children, and especially the most vulnerable children.

All Gove has reassured us of is his incompetence, his reliance on failing American and Scandinavian models, his lack of foresight and vision and, in tandem with his colleagues in the Cabinet, a badly disguised desire to create a two-tier society where the vulnerable become more vulnerable and the advantaged have greater access.

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 10:15

I think you need to check your facts again - this is a recent quote from Lord Adonis "Neither I nor Tony Blair believed that academies should be restricted to areas with failing schools. We wanted all schools to be eligible for academy status, and we were enthusiastic about the idea of entirely new schools being established on the academy model, as in Michael Gove’s Free Schools policy". Plus the obvious point one would make about why would you not 'provide quality education' (your words) under the academy model to all pupils? Blair was stymied by the statist Brownites and unions - as Adonis says, Gove is only carrying on his own vision. As are the likes of Peter Hyman. I'm afraid yet again the facts don't support your case.


Sassy Puff's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 10:16

Don't bother wasting your breath Allan. I am pretty sure that Jake is posting under a pseudonym. Here are some links that might shed some light on things....
http://www.balhampeople.co.uk/schools/choice-Healthcare-Education/story-...
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/8724376.Protestors_to_descend_o...

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 10:30

Absolutely incredible. You have zero proof that I am another person and yet you are 'pretty sure'. Talk about smoke and mirrors and distraction tactics. You seem a little obsessed with this other person. Are you who you say you are? Is everyone on this site an imposter? Rather than deal with issues when you are challenged you drum up some conspiracy theory. Ridiculous.


Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 10:50

Thanks for those links. It's fine. I enjoy winding him up and smelling the fear. I am smirking at the comment about "smoke and mirrors" and "distraction tactics" since this is all Jake has been doing. Oh - the Gove of course, who wriggled with his smoke and mirrors this morning and tried to distract but giggled nervously. What trust can one have in a politician whose record, performance and stature is so embarrassing?


Sassy Puff's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 10:56

You are treading on very thin ice accusing others of being obsessed. You claim to have found out information I had written about my son's primary school by doing an internet search. However, that information does not appear on any internet search, it only appears when you are logged into and registered with a local website. In addition, your knowledge of the Wandsworth secondary school system and the NSC campaign goes way past that of a casual observer or even supporter of the Bolingbroke free school.
On other websites, I post under the name Malantha or sometimes Joan Holloway. However, given that I have a very distinctive writing style and my posts are more or less identical, it is obvious to anyone who I am. I am very honest about who I am and what my motives are.
Now, I could be very wrong and there could be someone else out there who;

Uses exactly the same phrases that you do
Resorts to exactly the same insults when challenged
Has exactly the same line in bellicose hectoring
Fails to give a straight answer to anything and responds by asking irrelevant questions or making nasty personal attacks
Dismisses other people's evidence, whilst failing to give sources for their own
Goads people with nonsensical statements - Exhibit A, your comments about The Guardian, whilst claiming to be a Guardian reader.

I could go on, but I'll let the links speak for themselves.

Sassy Puff's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 11:01

Hi Allan,
I always look forward to your comments, especially when you have heated debates with Smithers. Keep up the good work! You are so right about Gove.

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 11:01

'Smelling the fear'? Who are you - Raoul Duke? I have to get back to the land of normal people now so will leave you with that memorable quote from Lord Sugar last night - "what I've forgotten about bullshit you aint even learnt yet".


Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 11:08

Bye Jake. Enjoy putting your feet up in the company of the normal people inhabiting the dark dank cave of the Telegraph blogs, which is where I guess you dredged up the Adonis story below (I see the Toadmeister seized on it with the passion of someone in the throes of witnessing a conversion of principles and holding it aloft as if this were proof of or excuse for his own paucity of principles).

Quick Nota Bene darling before you go - difference between being "eligible" or "forced" or indeed "bribed"

Jake's picture
Thu, 16/06/2011 - 16:27

You accuse me of 'belicose hectoring' but you are trying to discredit me or attack me by saying I am someone I am not. Pots and kettles. And when I look at your first link above it appears that you Saskia accuse the website of actually deleting one of your own comments because they are biased in favour of the free school. Remarkable and a little sad. This isnt Watergate. The links do indeed speak for themselves.


Jane Eades's picture
Fri, 17/06/2011 - 15:16

One of the underlying problems in the Bolingbroke argument is that "facts" etc which support Ark, the NSC and Wandsworth Council are flaunted, whilst those which argue against are either ignored or labelled loonie left.

It should be remembered that Ark only included Falconbrook after: considerable campaigning; evidence that one "feeder" primary was further away than Falconbrook; use of the deprivation figures for each school and reference to Ark's own stated aims which were clearly in conflict with their actions. The campaign was supported by a petition of over 2000 signatures in favour of local authority planned school places and in opposition to the expenditure of over £13 million to buy a building to give to the Bolingbroke Academy.

However, one question that both Ark and the NSC have refused to answer is how, if they have the comprehensive intake they claim, the following is achievable: "the normal expectation in all ARK schools is that at least 80% of pupils will achieve at least five GCSEs at A*-C including English and maths, with all transition ARK schools working towards this goal." This is taken from the Ark website. Are they intending to provide a downgraded curriculum; are they suggesting that GCSEs will get even easier; do they fail to understand what an average is; or are they admitting to selection?

Ark is presented as an experienced education provider but they have only been running state funded schools in the UK since 2006. However, this does mean that they can claim credit for the exam results for Burlington Danes but have not achieved the 80% there, although an impressive 67% (20% grade c+ in MFL). Given that every teacher would aim (and, normally, fail) to get a 100% pass rate, I wonder why Ark think that, without selecting, they have an answer that the rest of us don't.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 17/06/2011 - 16:01

The same question that Jane asks could be applied to The West London Free School which claims that it will "Ensure that 100 per cent of pupils pass at least 6 GCSEs or IGCSEs at grade C or above, including Maths, English, English Literature, History, Science and a Foreign Language."

No school can "ensure" that all of its pupils will get 6 GCSEs C or above - unless, of course, children of below-average ability are weeded out.

Jake's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 12:20

Not that you Jane as a member of the AAA executive are in any way ideologically biased against academy providers? As I am sure you well know, the ARK model is based on high expectations for all pupils, excellent teachers, depth before breadth, exemplary behaviour, extended school days and use of small schools. You may well say that all schools aspire to that but clearly they do not. Where is my evidence for saying that? 25% of primary school kids can barely read or write and 40% of secondary school kids leave with rubbish qualifications. This is a direct causal link to the poverty cycle - poor qualifications, lead to low incomes, leads to child poverty, leads to poor educational attainment and so it goes round. And if people like you were left in charge with your defence of the status quo mantra that cycle of deprivation would never break. ARK is the most successful academy chain in the UK, with their schools improving at a faster rate than any other. If you want to look at the 80% model, then you only have to look at Mossborne Academy where the results there give lie to your comments above. I am sure you will come back with some silly little reason why Mossborne is the exception to the rule.

In terms of the Bolingbroke school, the £13 million is yet more spin - the money has only passed from the local authority bank account to the NHS account. There has been no net loss to the taxpayers pot. In fact, the money has gone to help improve health services across the borough. In addition a state of the art new GP surgery will form part of the work on the site. I am not sure why investing money in basic need provision and childrens education is seen as a bad thing.

And the Falconbrook issue is a red herring - the school was inclusive with the likes of both High View and Wix as feeders. Adding Falconbrook has only made the school a bit more inclusive. Ironically you seem to be taking credit for the pupil intake of a school that you fundamentally oppose. Bonkers really but there you go.

Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 13:27

Jon,

Whilst you are correct in pointing out that there is a causal link between low attainment and poverty, it is also worth flagging up that the American Education Reformers, which Gove is so enthrall to and which he has based many of his ideologies on, have not solved the problem of the cycle of poverty and low attainment either.

There is not doubting that Mossbourne is very successful, but so are many maintained and VA schools. There are Academy failures, as there are LA schools, and there will be more.

Gove has praised the reforms of Joel Klein, when he was in charge of Education in New York City before moving abruptly to join News International to become CEO of Murdoch's Educational Division, but he has been criticised, along with Michelle Rhee for artificially driving up results, closing schools against their will and using results not to appraise students but to penalise and punish teachers. Rhee's tenure in Washington DC is also steeped in scandal as there is evidence of widescale cheating in schools under her jurisidiction, perhaps a result of the tremendous pressure schools there are under to publish data to show they soar well above the floor level of acceptability.

In any case, New York is a wealthy state, so Gove's quoting of figures does not begin to take into consideration the failure of Charters, across the board, to significantly improve education in America and especially not in poorer rural states such as Mississippi or even Florida where the "reforms" have not increased achievement amongst the poor black or hispanic communities. Worse, many of the profit making organizations in these states are being sued by individual schools and states for not only failing to improve results but making them worse and lining their own pockets in process! For every successful story there are many more failures so, to quote your sneering little comment back at you - the "cycle of deprivation would never break". Well, it hasn't in America despite all the Race to The Top bribery so what is Gove doing here that is going to brilliantly different?

Deprivation didn't break in New York because there is no widespread deprivation to break in New York State and New York City so the modest success there of Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ), like Mossbourne, cannot be held up as an example of why Charters and Academies should not have the monopoly on great provision and ideology because no school sets out to fail it students.

Charters have not broken deprivation in poor areas. Why? Because of investment. Or lack thereof. HCZ's funds of $200m does not just provide cash for teaching but it also takes care of medical issues, social problems and family problems. Is Gove doing this? No. Neither are the other government departments. HCZ is buzzing with philanthropists, celebs and Wall Street bankers keen to publicise their philanthropic image by attaching themselves to a sexy success story. But are they giving their cash to anonymous schools in rural America where both poverty and the Obama administration are failing the poor? No, they are not. As Washington DC may have manipulated data, so did a Charter in I think, the Bronx, New York, which took the step of excluding underperforming kids before exams were taken.

The conclusion therefore is that the American model shows how funds are selectively doled out to high achieving Charters, most of which are located in rich areas; that education by Charters in poor areas has not improved, thereby suggesting that the programme has not reformed American education and has thrown up more problems and that Charters, like Academies, don't have the magic bullet to solve the desperate cycle of poverty and low educational achievement. Worse, the obssession with results and data in America (which you and Gove share) has led to a culture of fear, drive, cheating, covert selection and exclusion. And that's just the schools that have "succeeded". Easier to trumpet about a handful of successes and punishing schools and teachers than addressing and talking about how to tackle the real problem, which as you pointed out is the cycle of poverty and low school attainment. If your school is successful, will you give such a damn about poverty in rural areas? I doubt it.

Sassy Puff's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 17:39

"In fact, the money has gone to help improve health services across the borough".
Evidently, the money didn't go very far...
http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/manage...

Laura Brown's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 13:05

I am hesitant about getting involved in this but have to put forward the facts which are that Falconbrook school was originally excluded as a feeder school despite being further away from the Bolingbroke site than Wix school - the parent group cherry-picked this school over Falconbrook and, it just happens that Falconbrook is in a considerably more deprived area with many more kids from Black and Minority Ethnic groups and many more entitled to Free School Meals.

Changing admissions criteria to include Falconbrook is expected to increase both % BME pupils and % FSM pupils by around 5% with BME still far below the Wandsworth Borough average and FSM then moving closer to the Borough average (see details below).

I am against the creation of the Bolingbroke Academy for the reasons discussed endlessly on this site - nonetheless, it is slightly more palatable that the organisers have been stopped in their tracks from excluding the more deprived children in the Borough through the campaign that we mounted to bring this to prominence.

Details on pupils in feeder primary schools:

Black and Minority Ethnic, % of pupils: Borough average = 57.2%; 4 original feeder schools = 37.5; adding Falconbrook = 43.1%

Source: http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/committ/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13405

Free School Meals, % of pupils:
Honeywell = 6%
Belleville = 14%
Wix = 31%
High View = 42%
Falconbrook = 62%

Source: Edubase

Jake's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 13:20

Yet again someone else claiming credit for a school they oppose. As I have been at pains to point out above the BEM profile for 10-19 year old secondary school kids in Wandsworth is 36.7% - that is the most accurate and relevant 'like for like' data set. The new academy will be above that figure. The FSM scores for High View and Wix are both in excess of the borough average and counter those for Honeywell and Belleville. At the end of the day the free school policy is about choice and diversity. The current education system is failing large swathes of our children. No free schools have actually opened yet but they are all nonetheless condemned. As I said - bonkers.


Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 13:44

Jon -

I think the Free School is not really about choice and diversity but about Gove, misguided and somewhat incompetent, embarked on an idea which, although not the success story he and his advisers have tried to spin in US and Scandinavia, would add lustre to his time in the Education Department. All politicians crave recognition and a page in history and Gove is no exception but we shall have to see how history judges him. So far, the numbers of gaffes he has committed doesn't promise that a blaze of glory awaits him.

Choice is not a word I would choose to describe an enforced closure of all schools that are not Academies or Free Schools. Choice being the result of negative competition between local schools and a fight for surivival is....no choice. Choice in a school offering no or few technological subjects is, well, a selective curriculum. Choice is not choice when a Free School opening threatens the resources of other surrounding schools. Is see no choice when the DfE wesbite ignores the very existence of maintained schools but promotes only Academies and Free Schools. Choice is not available when the education system has been prescribed and enforced by central government, with no transparency, poor consultation or local accountability.

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 16:03

The statistics argument was aired above and highlights the problem of whose stats do you believe. Jake says the Black and Ethnic Minority (BEM) profile in Wandsworth is 36.7%. However, as I pointed out above, Wandsworth Council were given a figure of 57.2%. This is the figure used by Laura. There is 20% difference between these figures. Perhaps the true figure is halfway between the two. Or not.

Mr Gove's reforms will do little to help disadvantaged children. The OECD warns that the free school/academy programme will need monitoring to avoid impacting negatively on disadvantaged pupils, and more resources should be targeted at these children. The free school/academies programme risks doing the opposite.

Jake's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 16:38

If you want to keep calling me Jon instead of Jake then thats fine. Does that mean I can call you Butthead instead of Beavis? I will let the man speak for himself - Gove's speech at the Policy Exchange this morning. I think he cogently argues against every point you raise on this page. See here - http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a0077948/michael-goves-speech-to-the-policy-exchange-on-free-schools


Jake's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 16:42

I really dont know how many times I can say this - the BEM figure I use relates to the age group attending the new school. Its a like for like comparison. Its not a question of whose stats one believes - you can look for yourself via the links I gave above. The evidence clearly shows that Wandsowrth 10-19 year olds have a BEM profile of 36.7%.


Laura Brown's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 13:06

Ooops - Clearly I meant that Falconbrook was excluded despite being nearer to the Bolingbroke site than Wix school!


Katy Johnston's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 13:33

I thought that there was a public consultation about the admissions policy and as a result of this consultation it was decided that Falconbrook should be included. Isn't that what consultations are for? You make it sound as if this group refused to listen to anyone. I've read the report on this and although there were a few people who suggested that Falconbrook should be included it wasn't in the thousands or the hundreds even. Incidentally most of these people also suggested a lottery system so I'm not really sure what their motivation was. As I said at the beginning of all this, I cannot see why the Bolingbroke Academy is being given such a hard time other than it is a free school which a lot of people are ideologically opposed to. Nobody has convinced me otherwise.


Laura Brown's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 15:14

Honeywell and Belleville would have claim on two-thirds of the places without Falconbrook so they hugely skew the average to the lower end of FSM %. I think the Equalities Impact Assessment by Wandsworth Council on the school (who as you know are in support of the school) is the most obvious source of any data on BME figures and that is what I am quoting from.

It was excellent that there was a public consultation which came to the right conclusion after a considerably less public first round of consultation. We should be clear that the 2000 signatures on the petition called on the Council to halt the whole project altogether but many of those who signed were especially shocked and motivated to sign by the shocking attempt by the parent group to exclude children from the most deprived school in Wandsworth.

This schools gets a hard time as there are 4 existing schools within 2 miles (including the nearest school which is outstanding) which are currently shunned by parents from this area with only 27% of children of secondary age attending Wandsworth state schools at all. The parent group chose a small site slap bang in the middle of a super-affluent area and specified a small number of schools excluding the most deprived in the Borough. If there is either something wrong with the existing schools (that we are not aware of?) or a need for extra school places, why not have a larger school with a more inclusive admissions policy/location that benefits a broader portion of our community? Why not indeed? Because the free school policy directs resources towards those who can shout loudest as opposed to those most in need.

Jake's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 16:36

More of the same tired old agitprop classwar rubbish. A complete inability to see beyond the narrow confines of the politics of envy and even begin to look at the 'basic need' issues in the borough or indeed the vision of the new school to welcome pupils from all backgrounds and abilities. If the parents had only wanted a "super affluent" cohort then surely they would have opted for a simple straight line admissions policy? The fact is they did not.


Kate Johnston's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 16:00

Hello Laura. As I said before, statistics are all very well and can be used to demonstrate pretty much whatever you want! I can only speak from experiences which friends have been through where they have not got into any of their preferred schools (yes including Chestnut Grove) and have been offered schools on the other side of the borough. The fact that 2 primaries in the borough (Belleville and Alderbrook) have been forced to take on extra classes surely means that this situation will only get worse. Do you know of any larger buildings in the borough which could be used for a new school? With Chestnut Grove and Geaveney becoming academies, they cannot be forced to expand. Bolingbroke is a solution which will have pretty much an immediate effect. If something isn't done in the borough then we'll be in the same situation as we are with primaries at the moment where schools suddenly have to start taking on more students.


Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 18:58

JAKE / JON -

Jake/Jon – please accept my apologies. It was a genuine mistake, my calling you “Jon.” I must have confused you for someone else. I’m happy for you to call me Butthead, if that makes you feel better. I don’t mind at all, but you are the latest in a very long and unimaginative list.

I read Gove’s speech at the Policy Exchange before posting, which is why I wrote, above, of the criticism levelled at and failures of the American Charter system which Gove here promotes. As you can see he concentrates his illustrations on the New York and Chicago models – hardly great examples of poverty. You also brought up the correlation between poverty and low attainment as well, which is why I said that Charters had not solved this problem either. Gove focusing on a handful of charters in less than deprived areas does not prove that copying the model will work for Free Schools here does it?

I’m sorry your apparent self-interest or lack of curiosity leaves you happy to swallow and applaud wholesale the musings of Gove without question but I see that in his speech, he urged us to read an article by Joel Klein, the very ex-Chancellor for Education in New York who I referred to above as having a less than clean slate in his drive to reform schools in the city. Gove’s promotion of Klein, now a Murdoch stooge, had already been fanfared by Gove’s own stooge, Sam Freedman, and you can read more about Klein and what Gove doesn’t want us to know here http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/06/should-a-political-adviser.... I suspect though, you are happy, like Gove, to ignore the dark side of the American dream just as you are happy to ignore the likely consequences of this type of reform in the hands of an Education Secretary who has demonstrated a vigorous ability to get things wrongs, to not plan ahead and, most recently, embarrass his daughter by revealing her struggles with history to tell the rest of us why things much change. Not all of us are so gullible. I may be Beavis but I think you may well be Butthead.

Jake's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 21:07

Frankly it is a little bizarre to say that places like Harlem or the Bronx are hardly great examples of poverty. And whatever you may or may not know about education, I will give the benefit of the doubt to people like Michael Wilshaw or Peter Hyman who do certainly know a littke bit about education. Or even your own Francis Gilbert who today has come out in favour of the academy model. And lets not forget that academies faced the same criticisms ten years ago. One can only begin to wonder why there has indeed been a "very long list" of people calling you Butthead.


Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 20/06/2011 - 22:00

* Yawn * Already explained that NY is very wealthy and developed state with only pockets of poverty unlike other states which are desperately poor, with little wealth and black/hispanic ethnicity. What I may or may not know is irrelevant but what is amusing is watching you here spluttering and floundering. No one said Willshaw or Hyman don't know about education. Where not talking individuals here. What I'm asking is - why have you not considered the failure to address the poverty-low attainment cycle you first brought up here? You either are in denial of it, like Grove and his cronies or you are just ignorant and witless and even when faced with the possibility of balancing your prejudices, you walk away, shouting. You pretend to care about teaching the poor but you'd rather focus on the middle class. It's all a smoke screen and your denial of the failure of the American model reveals what a fraud you are. At least everyone knew who Beavis and Butthead actually were.


Sassy Puff's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 17:47

I can't speak about the Bronx, but Harlem is a very different area to what it once was;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 11:45

You just seem like a very angry person. Or are you still winding me up so I smell the fear? One cannot separate 'people and process' - so I mention Sir Michael Wilshaw and Peter Hyman as two respected individuals who both advocate the academy and free school process. The primary goal of accelerating the academy model and introducing the free school policy is to tackle the attainment gap and the poverty cycle that I mentioned above. So there is both a macro and micro element to Gove's reforms. The bigger picture is looking at the structure of the education system (introducing choice and diversity) combined with the smaller reforms of empowering heads, SLTs and teachers at a local level. The overall goal is to drive up standards across the board, including existing schools. Whether these reforms will work only time will tell. But given our stagnation in the recent PISA rankings they are worth a try. If you keep doing what you always do you will keep getting the same outcome - we need a step change and that is what Gove is trying to do. Even Francis Gilbert now recognises that with the support of his local school to transition to an academy. He has been big enough to look at the evidence and change his mind. Unlike the other usual suspects on this site who prefer to get bogged down in the ideological debate.

In terms of areas like Harlem and the Bronx, are you saying that because they sit in a wealthy state they are less deserving? Thats a bit like saying an area like Wapping (which has one the highest child deprivation indices in the country) doesnt count because it borders the City.

As for myself, I am the co-founder of an education project to help disadvantaged children. You can keep doing the politics. We'll keep trying to make a difference.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:04

New York is a terrific city and the main reason for this is it's pot of ethnic, social, sexual and cultural diversity. It's an incredibly liberal city made safer in the past two years first by Major Giuliani, then Bloomberg. With safety has come a lot of "sanitization" which in some respects is a shame, but the underground movement has moved into borough like Brooklyn and Queens. West Village and East Village and whole swathes of the formerly poor downtown are now home to bankers, artists and wealthy Bohemians.

Real estate is shockingly high in New York so gentrification has extended not only into the outer boroughs but uptown and Harlem and Spanish Harlem both have now a mis of have and have nots. I don't know if Harlem benefited from state funds but the Bronx, once a no-go area is in the midst of regeneration that is paying dividends to the communities that have lived there for a long time and to newcomers.

You're right Saskia. Both these areas are not the terrifying drug dens of crack smokers, hookers and gun violence as portrayed in Bonfire of the Vanities. This is why i said there were only pockets of poverty in New York. This is why holding up New York as a model of charter schools doing miracle work for the disadvantaged panders to prejudice and is an untruth. Shocking that people still trot out this nonsense as gospel.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 12:03

Nope. Not angry. You're the one busting out of your costume here turning green and frothing.

I take your point about Wilshaw et al but these "Reformers" exist in America as well. Yes, take a step in the right direction to improve education but take the right steps. What Gove has done is a series of U-turns at the head of a series of embarrassing gaffes. He still praises the Amercan model, yet conceals it's vast deficiencies and abject failures. They - and you, as one of their disciples - don't want this flagged up because it is uncomfortable and could show that vast amounts of money (which we don't have in a recession) may well be going into a project that will not significantly improve education and increase life chances for the poor. The evidence is America pretty much proves it.

And no I am not saying Harlem and Bronx are less deserving - I'm not the educational elitist here - but what I am saying if Gove and Hyman were honest about the American model and if they wanted to see how difficult reform is by way of implementing plans NOT to make the same mistakes as the Americans, they would have gone to charters in way more challenging states with a higher percentage of poverty then come back with their experiences and showed us a real strategy for how it could work here. They have focused on the minority of adequate charters and are trying to convince us that this is the strategy. Well it isn't.

Look at the site where Francis posted. I think many of this would agreed he is supporting Academization because he had no choice and because it has basically be enforced from above. Exactly the type of dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest and greediest that the Academy programme bastardized by this coalition has spawned. Let's see how many of the disadvantaged kids your educational project end up as US/KIPP style attrition rates data.

So - what and where is this great education project you are co-founding? Got a website we can see, out of interest?

Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 12:24

I wasnt aware I was green and frothing but there you go. I think the point you are missing, which is a fundamental one, is that (as we agree) there will be good and bad examples of each different school type - in the UK, States, Sweden, Finland, wherever. Therefore one selects the 'best in class' (excuse the pun) and models ones own school on that model - in other words, you replicate what is successful. Personally I quite like the Finnish model. However the UK is not Finland and so one will not dismantle the indy sector over here. Or at least not in my lifetime. My own project is currently at pre start up and sourcing seed funding so there is no website to look at for the moment.


Laura Brown's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 06:57

Hard to keep track here but to answer the point about appropriate stats - the BME % of current 10-19 year olds is irrelevant as the school will start with 1 year 7 intake in 2012 and build from there each year taking children in from each year 6 that leaves primary school - therefore the feeder primary school, BME % (as used by me above and Wandsworth Council) is clearly far more relevant. I totally disagree that stats can be used to prove anything - that is the argument always used by those who don't like what the very basic stats show!!


Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 11:19

I have read a lot of guff on this site but the above comment is beyond surreal. Because it suits your purpose, you unilaterally decide to discount 86% of the pupil intake - years 8 to 13 as being 'irrelevant'. You cannot just ignore looking at the school as a whole and focus on a single year only. Its a bit like saying because your team scores a goal in the 1st minute of a game, we'll all just ignore the remaining 89 minutes as irrelevant. Amazing. The fact is that when the school fills up, the forecast BME profile will be higher than the average Wandsworth secondary school. Its FSM profile will be one point off the borough average. Not bad for a school sited as you say in a 'super affluent' area. It evidentially proves that the parent promoters have bent over backwards to ensure an inclusive pupil intake. If you have to spin and twist stats as you do then it serves no purpose other than to undermine your case and this site as a whole.


Pages

Add new comment

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