Money, Money Money

Emma Bishton's picture
 104
The DfE, it turns out, must have lots of money after all. As it has apparently approved the opening of two Seckford free schools in Suffolk - in Beccles and in Saxmundham.

As has been shown many times on this site before, there is overwhelming opposition for these schools in the area - in Beccles in particular, proving the Free School consultation process to be nothing but a paper exercise. These schools aren't needed. Suffolk are already mid-way through a schools reorganisation which these new schools are disrupting totally. The educational offer at these schools is excessively narrow and offers nothing (unashamedly!) for those pupils who don't feel happy in a solely academic environment. The establishment of these new schools is clearly to the detriment of existing schools as there just aren't the numbers of pupils to go around in this ageing population, and the County Council has announced that it cannot continue to provide transport as it does now to catchment schools in these areas, because the DfE insists that it must provide transport to the free schools. In the case of Beccles, the Tory leader of the council and the Tory MP even opposed it. The headteacher-designate of Saxmundham resigned this week even before the school got approval. And to cap it all, the Seckford Foundation has been derided widely for its inability to engage in meaningful consultation or debate locally or indeed to answer basic questions about its offer.

Nothing in these bids offers an interesting education proposal, a provider in whom we can be confident, or an opportunity to meet rising demand for school places. Aren't these requirements of free school applications? Surely, in the number of proposals received by the DfE, there were at least some that met the need for increasing capacity in other areas of the country, and didn't require funding to support them opening with numbers expected to be a third of their PAN? So much for austerity.

The Seckford schools do of course represent the opportunity for Michael Gove to introduce a competitive market and an unashamedly old-fashioned education - without the inconvenience experienced in other areas of there being no available spare school buildings with which to conduct his experiments. If the Suffolk situation shows anything, it is that planning to meet educational demand in a way which is cost-effective to the pupil and the taxpayer, and takes account of local opinion, is no longer on the DfE's agenda. Suffolk County Council have been complicit in all this, as it would not have taken much to stand up and say "Please spend the money on free schools where more schools are actually needed". But they didn't, sadly, and their ability to plan for the needs of the children in this county will be lessened all the more because of it.

The Seckford Foundation have tucked away the announcement on the free schools page of their website, and the regional newspaper (EADT) has run the story. But there's nothing on the DfE website. Are the DfE perhaps embarrassed to be seen, at this time of cuts, spending millions on unproven schools no-one needs just because they can?
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Ellen's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 08:34

Andy, you don't seem to be very well informed about the situation in Suffolk. Suffolk has taken the decision to move to two-tier as part of the solution to underperformance - you might not think this was the best way to do it, but that is the decision that was made. The county is half-way through this change already, and SJL will take its first Y7s in September. That cohort won't have results for another 5 years. You advocate a different solution that isn't now available so continuing to argue for it is pointless.

And these schools are very expensive. The one in Clare cost £5m to refurbish. Add to that the cost of funding the same group of pupils twice for the first year - both the free school and the existing school are funded for their PAN as both are offering new provision. Add in the diseconomy funding for the free school that has allowed it to recruit a full complement of managers for a tiny number of pupils. Then in Beccles the additional cost of refurbishing the temporary site for the school at Carlton Colville. And the additional costs of providing transport to two sites. And finally, the LA won't get a capital receipt for the sale of the empty school that it has given to the free school. Hyper-expensive indeed

andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 09:47

Ellen: In the context of the chronology and change of government I would suggest that the decision to move from a 3 to a 2-tier system was taken too late. Undobtedly delayed because of a variety of vexed issues - not the least being vested interested in the status quo. Thus, and as unplatable as this next comment is going to be for many, it can be likened to crying over split milk.

In terms of the costs involved, while it may appear to be disproportionately expensive to fund the Free Schools, it is not hyper-expensive.

Yes, it will take SJL 5-years to reap any benefits from becoming an 11-19 school but so too will it take the Free Schools 5-years. As I have indicated several times this is the battle ground that the existing schools must fight on if they are to counter the perceived threat of the Free Schools. Steering clear of personal and political agendas if this leads to a significantly improved educational offer and markedly improved range of performance to the benifice of the students then perhaps the price will have been warranted.

Ellen's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 10:11

I've no idea what you mean by "chronology and change of government". The decision was taken in 2007. You can hardly blame SJL for it having taken this long to implement - that is because moving the whole county to 3-tier has been phased because there wasn't enough money to do it all at once. And "the vested interests in the status quo" were the middle schools, not the high schools, obviously. And it is these very middle schools that have given rise to the free schools. You really need to read a bit more about the context here as you seem to have got it all the wrong way round.

And you are playing with semantics if you think we should distinguish between "disproportionately" and "hyper" expensive.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 10:32

Georgina

I certainly do not mean to intimidate and am generally too like a pussycat to be considered in the least aggressive. If, however, you were to scroll up and take a cool look at your first comment on this thread aimed at me, I think you'll find that it is hectoring in its rhetorical structure, aggressive in its tone and downright rude by the time you got to the playground jibe.

So maybe we should just both say sorry and make up?

(... and since you say you don't even know what Building Schools for the Future is/was, then I can be pretty sure you're not ideologically motivated!)

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 10:35

Tabbers

You have put your finger on it.

But maybe we can have it both ways. It seems to me that it if the prevailing culture of a comprehensive school favoured academic rigour, high expectations and so on.... then it might be possible. But if the street doesn't stop at the gate, then it isn't.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 10:49

Rebecca


Actually Stockwell Park's results can't be explained by fancy new buildings etc. as these were only completed a short time before the 2011 cohort took their exams. To a large extent, these kids should be seen as having achieved outstanding results despite spending much of their schooldays in temp accommodation on a building site.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 10:59

The money argument is overplayed. Suffolk did very nicely out of the latest Priority School Building Programme and its schools are certainly not suffering as a result of free school bids being approved. In the longer run, Suffolk will save itself millions by not having to build further schools at >£25m a pop if the free schools work out.


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:12

andy

When Rebecca says things like:

People defending Michael Gove’s policies have organised campaigns to systematically discredit people who post about reality..

I'm reminded of that totally unwarranted Mossad attack on her motherboard....

Ellen's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:16

Suffolk didn't do very nicely out of PSBP - two schools refurbished, but I fail to see the relevance of that in any case.

And as has been said so often Suffolk doesn't need any more schools - it has falling rolls and 10,000 spare secondary places already. If anything it needs fewer schools. Why do supporters of free schools think this is an area of expenditure where wasting money is OK and we can forget about the deficit?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:37

Ricky I have never thought or suggested that Mossad have attacked any of my computers. Your instance on trying to pretend that I have is extremely disturbing.


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:38

I recall reading somewhere that the council has acquired land adjacent to a large housing development with a (long term) view to establishing a new school on it - one that would be unnecessary if a nearby free school proposal went ahead.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:43

"It seems to me that it if the prevailing culture of a comprehensive school favoured academic rigour"

It's perfectly possible for a large comp to favour academic rigour and do a lot of other great stuff for students who aren't thriving on a diet of 100% academic rigour too. It becomes much harder for them to do that if the students who are academically strong at 11 are being creamed off.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:47

And the funding differential? And doubtless the ability of the school to attract the best staff away from other schools based on the funding, investment, buildings and the school being on the up?


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:52

Have you actually read the report/seen the data for SJLHS Ricky?

It really is very good for a rural comp. Honestly it is. In urban areas you always get the preferred schools and the not-preferred schools and this leads to greater extremes in the Ofsted reports.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:52

Ellen


Has anyone done the basic maths? What is the average size of maintained comprehensive schools & academies in Suffolk today? What would the average size be if all the mooted free schools went ahead?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 11:53

Have you got a link to the info on that Ricky? I'd be interested to know more.


Fiona Millar's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 13:04

Do you work for Michael Gove?


andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 13:19

Ricky: Absolutely. The one she spoke of on Linkedin and elsewhere LSN and now denies. I'm reminded of an old record by an artist called Tiny Tim, called Tip Toe through the Tulips ...

I even more immediately minded of her attacks on me over the last couple days on LSN: Telling people that I'm pro Free Schools and wilfully imposing her interpretation on what I'd said. And her rash statement that the 11 year olds who pass the 11+ and go to Grammar Schools are the only good academic 11 year olds - the rest simply aren't good and this means that non-grammars can't set or stream their student groups. Wonder what odds I'd get from the bookies on her denying these things too?

Indeed, she is currently peddling her distortions on Linkedin through a discussion called Room 14 (e.g. TES is riddled with Govian trouble makers and teachers are being muzzled because genuine comments are being moderated and taken down etc, etc). She neglects to say that TSL felt it neessary to ban her and threaten her with formal legal action. That is fact the rest is fiction.

andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 13:29

Ricky: You over looked the differentials and teacher brain drain to Stockwell! Not quite sure what the evidence is for these comments, well other than substantiated speculation. :)


andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 13:37

Its ok Ricky, I read the SJLHS (now converter Academy) DFE performance results:

http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=12...

Their headline stats look good until you scratrch the surface and look at VA Best 8, then the %age of pupils making expected progress in Eng and Maths (spot the substantial discrepancy) and of course the attendance stats. The the gloss falls away. See my comment 27 May @4.29.

Bit like their Ofsted, which starts with Good but when you read it through states that pupil attainment and quality of learning for SEN and disabled pupils are only satisfactory. This suggests their good was unwarranted - T&L against results under the new regime would probably have pushed them toward notice to improve ...

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 13:43

What is so grotesque about Ricky Tarr is the cowardice. Nothing wrong with people using different names to protect their identity on websites but when they use psuedonyms for no better reason than to troll or make personal attacks under the cover of anonymity, then that is both cowardly and creepy. He's best left ignored.


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 13:49

I'm not sure this sustained comment has anything to do with the original post does it? We've read about these allegations from you and quite frankly, they are tiresome and irrelevant. What has been so good about Local Schools Network is that they do NOT moderate and so give the chance for anyone, when they agree with posts or not - to come on and debate. It would be really regrettable if, despite warnings, people continue to abuse this facility.


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 14:57

Allan


The 'cover' of anonymity is only really relevant if someone is breaking the law or being defamatory. Otherwise, whether one uses a screen name or posts under one's given name is purely a matter of preference. It makes no difference to me (nor, I dare say, to anyone else) whether you sign yourself as Allan Beavis or Coco the Clown.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 14:58

I object to Andy's comments.

I have concealed his identity - referring only once to his strong defence of the free schools initiative on other forums. I have written to him privately to give him proper insight into the issues he has raised questions about to fully allay all sorts of groundless concerns he has raised about me and I am now heartily sick of this.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 15:41

This isn't about defamation or criminal behaviour - it's about your preference to conceal your identity to attack those who are open about their identities and the issues they feel passionate about or represent. This is pretty much the equivalent of a masked intruder in your bedroom. It's abhorrent and cowardly. I imagine you have to conceal your identity because you are actually - what? - on the payroll of Gove?


andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:01

I have no recall of any private message from anyone on this forum site. In polite word, fanciful is how I would describe your assertion.


andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:12

Rebecca: The adage about people in glass houses comes to mind. I have deliberately not engaged with you until this top story and then because you interjected. Bottom line is that if you leave me alone I won't feel the need to defend myself. You frequently call for others to provide evidence. When they do if you don't like it you go off on tangential thread. When others ask you to provide evidence to support some of your comments you fail to and still attack their views. A case in point here are your attacks on Ricky who provides the evidence upon which his comment is based but you reject and come back with unsubstantiated supposition. I commented to you some weeks ago on another LSN strand that you should practice what you preach, and that comment still holds good today.


Guest's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:17

Allan,

Correct me if I am wrong but were you guilty of this behaviour yourself on the LSN?
I cannot remember the thread so perhaps someone else could highlight it.
From memory you created a new identity to attack a poster who disagreed with you. Following this being found out you stopped posting for a few months.
Please correct me if this was not you or the original thread was incorrect.

That said your bullying and insulting behaviour is all over this particular website for everyone to observe, so please try not to take the moral high ground.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:36

Firstly, you are wrong so please stand corrected. You are now repeating an accusation which has been dealt with beyond the limitations of this website so I will ask you to withdraw your accusation or I will refer it.
Secondly, what you deem my "bullying" and "insulting" behaviour has been a robust defence of my opinions in answser to often outrageous assertions and were in my name. This is not the same thing at all.

andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:39

Ellen: The chronology is that the LA started its overall review in 2006:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/education-and-careers/schools-and-support-in-e...

The Beccles consultation was September to December 2008:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Education%20and%20Career...(SOR)/Background%20and%20Archive/Beccles%20SOR%20Consultation%20Booklet.pdf

The consultation was just that. It was not an advisory notice to inform people of a concrete predetermined position. It was a consultation (see page 13). The proposal that was subsequently accepted was that SJLHS would take Y7 from September 2012 (see page 18).

Labour lost the general election in 2010 and the Coalition Government was formed.

There's the chronology leading up to a radical change in education policy and for better or for worse the new Acadmies and Free Schools programmes.

I will take your word on the Middle Schools being the focus on the vested interests. It was the same in Northumberland - and to the best of my knowledge also in Worcestershire in 2000-2003. That said, Northumberland also met resistance from several First Schools.

I would beg to differ on the semantics issue. The cost of a new build school is significantly more than a refurbishment and thus the latter is not hyper-expensive by comparison. So rather than "playing semantics" I was in fact differentiating between the funding required for refurbishment v new build v adapting existing schools to merge First and Lower-Middle and Upper Middle with Secondary schools.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:44

It appears that even the UKIP county councillor is against the free school - the wrong time, the wrong place.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/mp_admits_surprise_over_free_schoo...

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:52

In that case we can be certain that the free school proposal is an excellent one.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:49

Andy, would you like to confirm you are not the Andy who posts on linked in in conversations I have been involved in and with whom I have been corresponding in private?


andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 16:53

I am somewhat confused by the position adopted by several contributors re how Free Schools take away funding from LAs as well as schools. I fully appreciate that if a schools roll falls its bums on seats funding reduces and that this causes issues (e.g. can reduce the curricular offer and can lead to shedding staff and/or other economy measures). I do not understand the stance on the LA funding. Yes, like Academies Free Schools the funding is direct to the school, which avoids top slicing etc. Yes, a reduced %age of top slicing leads to ecoomies in what the education department within the LA can provide to its maintained schools. But, how is it that the Free Schools get criticised to hell and back for this and yet SJLHS has just converted to Academy status and will - just like to Free Schools - get its funding direct. So SJLA will be the cause of money being taken away from the LA. Are they not just as wrong for converting to academy status when they are all too well aware of the impact?

In a similar way, and I accept this was on a different top story, the same posters have criticised Academies for being selective about the SEN/Disability students they are prepared to admit. Please bear in mind that SJLA now has exactly the same perogative on its SEN/Disability admissions.

Perhaps someone is going to tell me/evidence for me that SJLA will not make full use of its new freedoms to innovate and drive up performance on the back of the tactics other Academies have been critised for.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 17:21

Andy

Yes, I find all that rather puzzling too.

Yet another inconsistency is the way they keep brandishing the statistic that Suffolk has "10,000 surplus places". On other threads the same people fall over themselves to agree with sarah that "central planning" of provision is both good and necessary..... and use that need for central planning as an argument against free schools.

Well, if Suffolk really DOES have 10,000 surplus places, then the education department of the LA obviously can't centrally plan its way out of a paper bag.

andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 17:10

Rebecca: Please don't twist things again.

We have swapped views in open forum i.e. Linkedin.

We engaged in swapping 2-3 emails in February 2012.

What this highlights is just how you wilfully twist and distort things for your own ends: "I have written to him privately to give him proper insight into the issues he has raised questions about to fully allay all sorts of groundless concerns he has raised about me and I am now heartily sick of this."

Well I too am sick of your coniviving contrivances. So as I said earlier you leave me alone and I'll not feel the need to respond. Practice what you preach.

Guest's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 17:41

Of course I withdraw any accusations if you say they are untrue. The original posts I refer to started on 16/01/2012 and are still on this Website. Could you shed any light on what happened, also does the original exchange need to be removed by the moderators?
Apologies.

andy's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 17:54

Ricky

On that basis the LA has wasted a significant amount of taxpayers money perpetuating a 10,000 surplus of student places with all that this entails for surplus teachers, surplus fabric, surplus maintenance costs.

Emma Bishton's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 18:23

Just to clarify:

Yes there have been problems with SOR. There was much resistance expressed at both the initial consultation on the principles of reorganisation and at the subsequent area-level consultations on arrangements for individual school pyramids. And there have been big problems since the withdrawal of BSF about how to fund some of the capital work required in the upper and the primary schools, causing delays. But ultimately, as a senior SCC official agreed in a meeting the other day, the re-organisation should have saved funds - though this was never the stated purpose of SOR. Middle schools are closing and the free schools do not change that. And it's happening, so there is no point in going over old ground.

Emma Bishton's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 18:24

Surplus Places:
There are around 95 surplus places across years 7 and 8 alone in Sudbury Upper School, as a direct consequence of the opening of Stour Valley Community School. That's against an expected PAN for those year groups of 120 combined (which is low because of the phased school reorganisation. I've left out the detail of why to save space here).

Suffolk has an ageing population in a predominantly rural county. There are some schools which are full to capacity, but there are to my knowledge no free school bids near those schools (from memory the fuller schools tend to be in the central bit of Suffolk which has been two-tier for years).

A great many of the surplus places are in rural areas/small market towns with very slow population turnover. The only way to avoid having surplus places in such areas is to deprive those communities of schools altogether, or to combine schools and make children travel very significant distances. Instead, the Seckford Foundation have chosen to open additional schools in these areas.

SCC deserves much criticism for many of its actions. But it has maintained schools in areas because communities without schools aren't sustainable in the longer term. Surplus places are an inevitable consequence. But because they have allowed the free schools in, their capacity to minimise the impact on existing schools of this surplus of places is now considerably reduced in many parts of Suffolk.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Tue, 29/05/2012 - 21:06

This is open discussion Andy. I'm not trying to attack you and you feel I have attacked you I apologise for that.

I suggested you were pro-free schools simply because I was trying to help some nervous posters settle in. Your reaction to me was inappropriate and would make the situation I was trying to mollify worse. If you are not pro-free schools then simply say so.

I'm afraid this is free discussion and I will continue to interact with you if I feel I have a point to make. If you feel I am attacking you then I suggest your first step should be to consider that I may not actually be attacking you - I may have a different purpose (which I always have as I don't attack contributors to this forum). If you can't work out what my different purpose is then please ask.

I really care about free speech taking place here and that includes your right to contribute. But I do find your attacks on me disturbing, both for the kinds of reasons I have written to you about privately and also because if you attack me as a person rather than engaging with points you could well end up banned from this forum and I don't want that. I think you think I'm attacking you and that justifies you attacking me but I am not attacking you and personal attacks on other posters are never justified.

Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 06:30

Very few locals want these schools. There has been a petition signed by 2000+ people which surely outweighs the "expressions of interest" when the schools were proposed. The opposition comes from all political parties so it can't be dismissed as lobbying by left-wing agitators. Local heads are against the schools. The audience on Question Time was hostile.

Yet the DfE ignores this. When it comes to choosing between Government policy and the wishes of local people then it appears that the former will win.

Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 07:18

I think it would be a great shame if off post and sustained personal spats prompted the site administrators to start moderating comments. As we all know, this is not the policy here and it would be a huge shame if this policy were introduced.


Fiona Millar's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 07:51

I have deleted this recent exchange which appeared to be more about personal axes to grind than schools policy.


andy's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 07:56

Fiona: Thank you. I will endeavour not to get drawn into the mesh in the future.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 08:46

Please be reassured I have no personal axes to grind at all Fiona.

If any participant writes abusive comments about me such as alluding to my mentally unstable I will object.

If any participant complains about my behaviour and I cannot identify a cause for that complaint I will ask for that complaint to be made specific so that I can address it.

I will continue to participate in discussion even if I feel there are points to be addressed even if other participants order me not to. Such direction is appropriate for Twitter (through blocking responses) or for Facebook (where individuals control who can comment) but not for public discussion. I am perfectly happy to take direction of this kind from moderators or the opening poster.

None of these modes of behaviour are specific to any individual or related to any kind of vendetta and I am sad that it has appeared that they are.

andy's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 19:52

In which case it can be argued that money has been and is being wasted by SCC and DfE. However, if it is a defensible position for SCC to have used money to keep communities together by dint of keeping surplus school capacity open then it is surely a comparable strategy to satisfy sections of the community that have expressed a desire for a Free School. There again it could just be that no number of wrongs make a right ...


howard's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 20:55

To which waste the DfE is now adding, by spending more taxpayers money on increasing this surplus even further!


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 21:38

I wonder if Suffolk have suffered from any of the issues we've faced here in Cumbria in getting rid of excess secondary places. For example the decision to merge two schools in Workington was taken and plans were agreed for this. However this decision was first suspended and then reversed by central government who have decided to refurbish both schools involved instead of merging them.


Arsinh's picture
Wed, 30/05/2012 - 21:49

Two small schools recently merged to form a larger one in Felixstowe. The Headteacher who led this merger was Rob Cawley and he appeared on local TV to extol the benefits of a single larger school. This is the same Rob Cawley who led the "independent" consultation into the Seckford Free Schools and was subsequently appointed as thier Principal. He is employed to convince people that small schools have many advantages over large ones and he appears perfectly happy to do (so long as the money is right).

Amusingly, it now looks probable that the vacant building in Felixstowe will be turned into yet another tiny Free School. The DfE interviewed the proposers earlier this month and approval to the next stage is inevitable!

Pages

Add new comment

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