Labels

Labels should help you find information. For example if you want to know when the next meeting is, click on "meetings".

For information about the pay campaign click on "pay"

Brighton Schools Not for Sale

People may remember how the Barrow Schools Not for Sale launched a campaign against Academies which unseated the mayor and came within one vote of unseating his deputy.

The Brighton Schools Not for Sale campaign is fighting proposals to bring in an Academy at Falmer. They aim to alert teachers and the local community to the known dangers of academies and the loss of democratic control when religious sects or big businesses take over from elected local authorities.

They have a meeting on Wed 16th July at Moulsecoomb Leisure Centre at 4 pm. Any members who live in Brighton might like to go along, particularly those with experience of the anti-academy campaigns in West Sussex.

There is also an online petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/FalmerAcademy

Contact brightonschoolsnotforsale@live.co.uk if you can help in any way.

Students speak out against Academy

This is an article/editorial written by two students of Midhurst Grammar School re: the proposed academy for the Rother Valley. They are currently sitting exams and took time out of their busy revision schedule to pen their thoughts, as they are very keen to make sure the young people's views get press coverage as well.

So many have presented their own views on an academy that it’s easy to forget the people who know the school best and who will be most affected; us students.

Our first issue is that Academies were never developed for wealthy, rural areas like Midhurst. Do we really want to be Guinea Pigs to a financially motivated scheme that is barely five years old? Where’s the consultation of students? Consideration of teachers? Contrary to how we’ve been interpreted, an acceptance of the inevitability of a two tier system does not equate to support of an academy. We now learn though that contrary to what they have said to us previously, that these ideas of an academy have gone back to even as early as May 2007. Most of the teachers we’ve approached have seemed reluctant to quote one way or another, honesty is not considered as important as the security of their job. This should not be the case.

Where is the ULT money coming from? Is it a non-sustainable fund? They say that neither they nor their affiliates profit, but how can that be so when they are funding such huge projects? Students feel questions have been fielded with promotional comments rather than answered.

We want to know what our friends and siblings will be learning under this business run regime. The curriculum is being presented in such a vague way; we can’t be expected to put our faith in this progressive, un-regulated set of subjects. Will we be taught creationism over Darwinism by this Christian society?

Not to mention the utterly unfounded claims that are being pushed left right and centre by politically motivated councillors. How can the low pass rates of academies even compete with results of 66% 5 A*- C for GCSEs? They say that the education of the youth in the Rother valley is key in the academy plans, but Robert Back is quoted in saying that the plan is money motivated in order to get a new building. We do not want our education to be placed in the hands of people who think like that.

So far, all we can see that is remotely better about this academy is the newer building, which may well be made available to us anyway, without losing control of
the school, through the Building Schools for the Future scheme. It will likely be in place for us within 3 years or so, which surely is a realistic time scale for the new academy to be built anyway? In the meantime, why not amalgamate the existing schools in the perfectly fine Midhurst grammar school site? With a new multi million pound sports hall and four very spacious buildings at our disposal, surely this is the
ideal solution for all, not more endless upheaval and disruption at such a crucial time in our academic careers.

In the last meeting, we had the chance to hear the words of the principal of Swindon Academy, who spoke to us about how similar a situation she was in and how it is good for her now. But she is very much mistaken by this judgement. She is from an inner city school, in heavy competition from others very close to her, rather than the very spacious catchment area of the Rother valley. She spoke about sending students on foreign trips and on expeditions. Excellent, we agree, but Midhurst Grammar already has many foreign trips running anyway. Examples include the school orchestra touring Germany, appropriate subject trips like Swanage Bay for Geography, and a fantastic school history of sixth form trips such as Paris and World
Challenge. She was speaking about finally being able to choose courses that are very good for special educational needs. We already cater to people who fit this description, with students attending courses at Chichester College and being supported by specialist staff. Yet another example of the consultation offering things in an attempt to persuade us we’ll be profiting, and avoiding the truth that these are things we already have.

Why then are the “independent” consultancy agency talking of their close relationship with ULT and dangling advertisement for the Academy in front of us? A company, whom we are told are completely unbiased, is running one sided meetings, giving more time to promotion for the academy than the very strong community feeling at the moment against the proposals. Are we meant not to question what is laid before us? The consultancy has worked for ULT on many other occasions to secure them an academy deal; this was always bound to raise questions on the validity of the so called consultation process running at the moment?

They talk of designing a very clever building, to incorporate the gradual build up in the three tier system currently used. I would urge you to look at the other academies owned by ULT on their website; most will probably feel they would not fit in one bit in Midhurst.

Overall, we wish to ask the question: Why have the students been asked their views only ten days before the end of the consultation? Many of us have very strong views about the matter which seem to have been overlooked by ULT and the consultants as we are young. Do we not matter? Or do they know how we feel and want it kept quiet?

This article was written by Ella Lewis with the assistance of Alistair Gibson (both current students at MGS). They are both members of the Facebook group opposed to the academy whose membership now stands at 215, most of whom are current and ex students in the Rother Valley.

Midhurst or Easebourne – Democracy in whose hands?

From NAME Click here for their blog

NAME (No Academy in Midhurst and Easebourne) have expressed concern over who would exert the most influence in decisions about the siting of the proposed academy for Easebourne or Midhurst were it to go ahead. NAME spokesman Simon Boxley said this week,

“The issue of the site of the new school is tied up with the academy question. Do we really think that central government would have any interest in whether to go for Easebourne or Midhurst if this were a decision on a local authority school? Of course not. Partnership for Schools would be involved, but it would be a matter for local planners, councillors and communities. If we have an academy, it’s a different matter. The Expression of Interest for our academy is clear: the choice of site has to be acceptable to the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and subject to discussions with the sponsor as well as Partnership for Schools and the local authority.”

NAME fears that this is yet another feature of the academy process which will take democratic influence further from the community and place it in the hands of Westminster politicians and unelected bodies. Simon Boxley added:

“There is a real danger here that politicians in Westminster won’t understand the significance of re-siting the proposed academy in Easebourne. From the sponsor’s and the government’s perspective it looks very tempting: the area can be completely cleared to make way for new high-prestige academy-style architecture in a way the old Grammar School site can’t. But this entirely misses the point. We’ve said all along, our schools should stay a part of our communities. That means the choice of the site of the school should be ours, just as it should be our choice what kind of school we get. Erecting a shiny academy in Easebourne would be like dropping a spaceship in our midst, and just add to the sense of disconnection between the academy and the community it’s meant to serve. The only way to ensure that we have our say is to insist – no academy for Midhurst OR Easebourne.”

If the Academy were to be approved, a Partnership for Schools representative would make ‘recommendations’ regarding the site this summer, and the decision could be made as early as this autumn. By that stage the academy would be open and it would be too late for the community to say “what about us”? If we’re lucky we might get another ‘consultation’!

Denied A Voice

Denied A Voice
As the independent consultation on an Academy for the Rother Valley draws to a close, NAME campaigners renew their grave concerns this week that locals have “been denied a voice”. Further anecdotal evidence has been brought to the NAME campaign, raising worries over the structure, process and potential outcome of the survey as part of the consultation. “I am pleased that other parents share my concerns,” said Sally Payn, a parent interviewed in her own home. “This survey was meant to be a consultation and at no point was I asked whether I was in favour of it or not.” Her experiences echo those of others who have contacted NAME, complaining that the survey presents the academy as decided, and parents could only comment accordingly. “When I was asked where it should be built I replied that it should not be built. I was told that was ‘not going to happen’.” She was therefore deeply dissatisfied that her answer was entered in the “don’t know” box.
Midhurst Mother Helen O’Connell was approached in the car park in Budgen’s by a market researcher. However, she was dismayed to discover that her views would not be taken after all because her child was too young to count. “The lady wanted to know if I’d be willing to give a few minutes of my time to answer questions, but then it turned out she only wanted to take these down if my child was Intermediate or Grammar School age,” said Mrs O’Connell. “I was very irritated that I was denied the right to express my opinions, when asked, on a matter as important as this.”
So far, NAME has heard from concerned parents in Midhurst and north of Midhurst. “Given the wide geographical spread of those who could send their children to the proposed Academy, how much of this area has been covered by the researchers?” asked NAME campaigner Simon Boxley. “We worry that pockets of parents have not even been given the opportunity to have their say over something which will affect them for many years to come.” The NAME campaign has sought clarification and assurances from the market researchers ORB and the independent consultants DJB who commissioned ORB. The Associate Director for ORB has written, “As with all of our work this survey has been completed in a thorough and professional manner - which includes the conduct of our interviewers and the research materials employed”.
NAME has some sympathy for researchers asked to conduct interviews under difficult circumstances, with little or no information and in great haste. “However, the people of the Rother Valley should not have been three times denied a voice, once because their children were the wrong age, twice because of where they live, three times because their answers don’t match the one-sided questions” said Mr Boxley. “We are working hard on behalf of those who feel they have been denied a true voice as part of this consultation,” stated NAME campaigner Lizz Tinder, “We know that people want to have their say. 88% of nearly 200 respondents on our blog poll felt that West Sussex were not conducting a true consultation. We welcome an independent survey gauging public opinion, but we need assurances on the integrity of it.”
“This issue has been brought to the NAME campaign, and we feel it is our duty to press for transparency, so that people have confidence in the findings of the survey. For those people who feel that they have been denied a voice, NAME is conducting its own survey. We recognise that our findings are unlikely to be deemed valid in this consultation, but the public might be interested to know what people think. If you would like to participate, you can log on to http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/ or email a request to namecampaign@yahoo.com . If you prefer pen and paper, please contact Lizz Tinder in the first instance on 01730 821464”

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne
PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – 08:00 Tuesday April 8, 2008
Consultation ends. Time to think again
This week marks the end of West Sussex County Council’s Second Phase Age of Transfer Consultation on Restructuring Rother Valley Schools. NAME campaigners against the proposed Academy are claiming to represent the public opinion which has formed during the consultation period.” We defy anyone to deny that the overwhelming majority at the two public consultation meetings on the Academy (at MIS and Lodsworth Village Hall) were against this privatisation plan” said spokesperson Simon Boxley, “WSCC cannot claim to have won the educational argument. This should not be about politics – it should be about children.” However, he continued,
“We must not be complacent. In other parts of the country Academy consultation results have been swept aside and ignored. In an online poll conducted by NAME during the consultation period, 88% of the nearly 200 respondents voted ‘no’ to the question ‘is West Sussex County Council conducting a true consultation?’ We must hold them to be true to the spirit of dialogue with our community. It’s time for the decision-makers to turn back from this process and consult us with real options.”

The NAME campaign has revealed findings that shed light on the Local Authority’s drive towards the Academy proposal. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, and subsequent follow-ups, the picture that emerges of the motives and process behind the decision is at odds with that portrayed by Council representatives, such as Robert Back’s claim of February 5th that the plan had only recently taken shape. When local headteachers met with the Director of Education in November 2006 in order to plan for the future of schooling in the Rother Valley, Robert Back stated “there is no immediate push from us, but we may well respond if there is pressure to push for system change.. Unless there is a clear steer that change is really desired, we would not come to you.”1 At that stage County claimed that any proposed changes would take three years to implementation2. Six months later, an Academy for Midhurst was being discussed by the West Sussex Cabinet3, and here we are 17 months later with wholesale restructuring planned for September! Pressure has clearly been applied and politically motivated decisions taken. The Department for Children Schools and Families acknowledge meetings between a few key personnel in the West Sussex system and the Minister in charge of Academies, Lord Adonis: “we know that Academy plans were discussed at these meetings, contradicting County’s claim that this was a ‘lucky last minute coincidence’” said NAME campaigner, Lizz Tinder. The DCSF have denied NAME access to minutes of these meetings, saying “The disclosure of early stage discussions [between Adonis and WSCC] is likely to have an impact on the potential Academy projects and so the success of the Academies programme as a whole.”4 We say, what is there to hide?
With the proposed Academy’s national significance, the stakes are high; but we resist the role of subjects in a political experiment.
A new NAME poll gauging public opinion is available online at http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/
All enquiries to Simon Boxley, 01730 821464. http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/

Conference Blog: Academies

Jenny Howells:

It was very interesting to listen to the debate about Academies. I now have a much better understanding about these schools. I am worries about the prospect of Academies for a number of reasons.

* higher rates of exclusion among pupils
* building land that taxpayers own being handed to businesses without knowledge of cost.
* covert selection
* sponsors being able to dictate the curriculum which will be taught.
* Teachers' pay and conditions being changed for the worse.
* lack of union recognition

It seems to me that we should be giving the millions set aside for academies to these co-called "failing" schools to properly resource and staff schools.

A blind pig in a poke?

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release – 10:00 Tuesday March 25th, 2008
A blind pig in a poke?
Confused about proposed change to an Academy for the Rother Valley? Do you know all the details you should? Do you know to whom you have the chance to respond and when?
NAME regards it as totally unacceptable that important decisions that will affect generations and could have a negative effect on the communities involved are being rushed through pell-mell, with inadequate information, and via a series of "consultations" so overlapping that one could legitimately wonder if the process is deliberately intended to confuse.
"We now have two booklets that do not cover anywhere near all we really need to know to make truly informed responses," said NAME spokespersons Janet and John Newman. "A new building apart, what information are we given about how ULT will provide a better education than a good local authority can? The booklet simply states aspirations with which we would all agree and which are not new. There is no detail, for instance, about how the curriculum will change – which surely we should know, if we are to be able to agree that things might be better. What information is given about a considered analysis of the effect of change on communities? How can a headlong rush be justified when the decisions involved are so important? Have even the county councillors been fully informed of all the issues involved?"
Curiously, one of the few details we are given in the second booklet, which interestingly was available to the public only the day after the opportunity to discuss change with local councillors at Lodsworth, is that "A key characteristic of the ……. Academy will be it work in partnership with schools from the independent sector as well as the public sector". The expertise of a selective private boys’ school with small classes, even Winchester College, is not obviously well matched, let alone central, to the very different skills required in a mixed comprehensive.
Neither booklet publicly states where the new Academy will be sited. Surely this is of critical importance to Easebourne, Midhurst and Petworth, and NAME demands that all of these communities be properly informed and consulted before any decision is made.
There are presently two overlapping consultations – the WSCC consultation, which closes on 8th April, and that run by DJB Consultancy, which closes on 10th May. It is vital that as many people as possible, both for education and community reasons, respond to both, so that the authorities have to make a decision based on knowledge of what local people really think.
NAME plan to hold further meetings in both Midhurst and Petworth so that as many as possible can come and find out and discuss what is really afoot and what effect the proposed changes will have – in so far as the authorities have told us enough to know. These meetings will be on:
Monday 31st March 7.30pm Garden Room, Grange Centre, Midhurst
Wednesday 2nd April 1.00pm Methodist Church Hall, Midhurst
Thursday 3rd April 7.30pm Leconfield Hall, Petworth
'All enquiries to Simon Boxley.01730 821464 http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/'

Action against Academies

This is information from NAME for members and supporters, it will also be of interest to those fighting against Academies elsewhere.

At the beginning of this crucial week for the future of all schools in the Rother Valley, NAME would encourage you to contact Robert Back directly (Robert.Back@westsussex.gov.uk) expressing your concerns.

Why is this so important? We know that the consultation will offer us little room for manoeuvre. We are told "it will not be a 'referendum'", which means that majority opposition to the Academy will not alone be sufficient reason for County to change its plans. However, we know that there are doubts among some even at County Hall about the wisdom of this deeply controversial proposal. In addition to attending the consultation meetings, and filling in the forms, we should therefore also consider going directly to the people who make the decisions.

If e-mailing Robert Back, you might ask him to address these points:


* Academies were designed to bring 'choice and diversity' to urban areas. For instance, North London parents might choose a Christian Academy, or a Business Academy. The Rother Valley represents an untried experiment: as the country's first rural Academy, it does not offer a choice to parents, but demands that their children comply with the sponsor's ethos.
* Although rolls are falling in the Rother Valley, West Sussex as a whole does not have anything like the ‘surplus’ of some local authorities, and the privatisation of the secondary school system seems a rather desperate way of addressing an issue which other authorities are finding different ways to tackle.
* If the ‘consultation’ we are to be offered only allows us the ‘option’ of a privatised Academy for the Rother valley, what kind of a ‘consultation’ is this? A ‘preferred option’ is one thing, a fait accompli is quite another.

To our disbelief, the man who actually makes the final decision, cabinet member for education Cllr Mark Dunn has 'gone on leave' for the period of the consultation, presumably in order not to have to field the kind of inconvenient concerns which are sure to be expressed by local communities. Nevertheless, NAME would urge you to copy your e-mails to him (Mark.Dunn@westsussex.gov.uk); you might also consider sending your questions to your local County Council elected member (and /or Midhurst's councillor Nola.Hendon@westsussex.gov.uk), or simply copying Ms Hendon in on your questions to Mr Back.

Please forward this e-mail as widely as possible to friends, colleagues or anybody who you feel might wish to contribute to this debate. If you receive a reply from Mr Back, Mr Dunn, Ms Hendon or anybody else at County Hall, please forward it to us at NAME (namecampaign@yahoo.com): we are intrigued to see what kind of responses you get!

The Big Give Away

Statement from NAME


We couldn’t make it up. Under plans to be revealed on Wednesday, West Sussex County Council will announce its intention to hand over the land and buildings on the Midhurst Intermediate School and Midhurst Grammar School River sites to a charity, United Learning Trust, as soon as this summer. These are assets paid for out of your council taxes, yet ULT will be allowed to sell off the River site and keep the cash! This scheme bears all the hallmarks of other rushed privatisations. Like Railtrack, this can only end in disaster.



You might not like the way that West Sussex County Council have run Rother Valley schools, but at least in theory you could vote them out: you get the council you elect. However if WSCC washes its hands of the schools, they will be beyond the electorate’s control for good. In a desperate bid to gain disappearing funding, West Sussex intend to open the new Academy on the existing MIS and MGS sites in September 2008, as a temporary measure before a new school is built. New ownership – same old buildings. We say why not wait and fund the school rebuild out of the public purse, retaining democratic control over the use of our taxes.



NAME have consistently argued that the ‘consultation’ is anything but a serious effort on County’s part to gain the public’s views. Sadly this view has been confirmed this week by West Sussex’s refusal to abide by its outcome, merely to ‘have regard for views expressed’. However, we urge everybody to attend the meetings, return the forms and let West Sussex County Council know that Rother Valley residents will not see their heritage, their taxes and their democratic influence thrown away in this manner.



E-mail Robert.Back@westsussex.gov.uk and Mark.Dunn@westsussex.gov.uk and share your views!

NAME update - campaign against Academies

NAME spokesperson Lizz Tinder said

“We are delighted that people are starting to vote in our online poll. Perhaps it’s no surprise that 96% of respondents felt that the consultation we are to be offered in March is not a real consultation at all. But we should still engage in the process. In our responses we must send a really strong message to County that it’s time they looked into alternatives – and if they would take the time to ask us, we have plenty of ideas.”

NAME has called a public meeting, appropriately in Easebourne, in the Refectory on February 28th at 7 PM. Come along and help save our school, save our old town centre and oppose the Academy. “We’re hoping for a great turn out” said Ms Tinder, “be there!”

All enquiries to Lizz Tinder, 01730 821464. http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/

Have your say on the future of Boundstone

Click here to see an article by the former head and to comment yourself.

Teachers and Parents oppose academies.

Teachers and Parents oppose academies.

150 parents and teachers concerned about the threat to turn Littlehampton, Boundstone and King’s Manor into academies attended a meeting organised by the WSTA on Thursday 7th February..

The local authority's spokesman Robert Back was listened to in polite silence. He argued that although Academies had been corrupt and inefficient in the past they would be very different now. He also argued that the academy was “the only game in town.” The private sponsors Woodard Corporation declined to send anyone to speak to us.


Alistair Smith and Hank Roberts spoke on behalf of the NUT and got a very positive reception.

Alistair pointed out the dangers of Academies where historically the Local Authority has lost all say in the running of the school with the LA having one governor and the sponsors having the lion’s share.

He also stressed the social divisiveness of Academies. “Academies,” according to Lord Adonis, “are the 21st Century’s Grammar Schools.”

Hank Roberts pointed out that sponsors generously donating two million pounds can get upwards of 18 million pounds of public money for their trouble and frequently excessive profits are made through “consultancy fees” and the provision of equipment for the school. “They are not sponsors but spongers.”

Private businesses are colonising the state funded education system.

Everyone who spoke from the floor was opposed to privatisation and not taken in by any of the promises.

They rejected the arrogant assertion that "there is no alternative". This is not a spirit in which to conduct a consultation. It is undemocratic...and anyway it is something Margaret Thatcher used to say a lot.

There was also discussion about the spread of religious schools without any popular demand. Hank warned of the proliferation of separate schools for children whose parents have different religious views and the potential divisiveness this will bring about.

After an hour and half’s lively discussion people left the hall clearly disturbed by what they’d heard and still deep in discussion about the issues raised .

NAME online vote

NAME (No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne) invites you to take part in
their online vote on an Academy for the Rother Valley. Ahead of the
consultation, Cllr Mark Dunn, West Sussex cabinet member for education
has said that the Academy 'option' is 'the only show in town'.

You can vote on their website:
Click here

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne
PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – 08:00 Tuesday February 5, 2008

Following West Sussex County Council’s disclosure of its plan to close three schools and open an Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne, some concerned members of the community – teachers and parents who recognize that an Academy is not the best solution for the Rother Valley – have formed a campaign group. NAME (No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne) is gaining momentum daily and welcomes new members. It will engage in public meetings and produce literature, and it has established a website where the public can contribute their thoughts in a way that doesn’t have to fit into the standard ‘consultation’ boxes: http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/ .

NAME Spokesperson, Chris Boxley commented this week:

“In their briefing to the Press, West Sussex County Council claim that the idea of an Academy for Midhust ‘emerged’ during December. Strange, then that the minutes of the council’s cabinet show that they discussed the matter in May!

WSCC Cabinet member Councillor Dunn also claimed that an Academy is ‘the only show in town’. It’s true! An Academy is the only option to replace Midhurst Grammar, Herbert Shiner and the Intermediate if we demand closure of these schools now and their replacement in the next three years. This is not what the community wants. Before December, nobody was clamouring to shut these three schools immediately, despite some increasingly outdated accommodation.

If, on the other hand, we hold out for public funding to be made available (either through Building Schools for the Future, or other targeted capital funding as it comes on stream), or for County to raise the revenue, we can get the school we want, where we want it, using the detailed plans seen by governors at MGS, creating a better school around Whip Hill, Lambert’s Lane and including the existing brand new sports centre. We say, why throw away a 336 year historical legacy for a slightly longer wait?”

Academies are bad for communities, bad for school staff and bad for parents and children. Why?

1) Bad for communities because, despite what County say about representation, the rules for Academy governance are clear – even when the local authority is a co-sponsor, the private sponsor must have an absolute majority of governors to maintain control of the school: this is undemocratic and unrepresentative;
2) Bad for school staff because only existing staff will be protected by TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) – new staff may be employed at a lower rate, eventually forcing downward pressure on wages and conditions for all workers in the Academy;
3) Bad for parents and children because there is growing evidence that established Academies carry out methods of ‘back-door selection’ – in the end, the school chooses its parents and children, not the other way around.

The real choice is not the one offered in the consultation – Academy or nothing! It is
either buy into a privatized Academy now; or
buy time for the community to debate its priorities and get the publicly funded, publicly run, publicly accountable school it deserves.

You can visit their blog:
click here

WSTA oppose academies

Teachers in West Sussex are planning a campaign against proposals to turn three of the County's secondary schools into Academies, starting with a Public Meeting on Thursday 7 February at 7.30pm in the Assembly Rooms, Worthing. Dave Thomas, local Secretary for the National Union of Teachers, said:
We are opposed to Academies in West Sussex because:
they undermine democratically controlled Local Authorities,
they put schools in the hands of unaccountable sponsors,
they threaten teachers' pay and working conditions,
they will introduce three more schools of a faith character, with minimal consultation and a reduction in parents' choice.
At a meeting of West Sussex NUT held on Wed 16th Jan, the following motion was passed unanimously:
'WSTA is opposed to the establishment of Academies in West Sussex. It further deplores the lack of consultation by the Woodard Corporation and WSCC with the staff and their representatives in the schools concerned, namely, Boundstone CC, Kings Manor CC and Littlehampton CC.'
The meeting was attended by NUT members from all three schools and from other schools throughout West Sussex.
The public meeting is open to parents, teachers, support staff and others with an interest in state education to allow them an opportunity to air their concerns.

Local Voice October 2007

Click here for a Word document version of Local Voice (which can be read using Open Office free software)

Click here for an HTML version.

Academies threaten teachers and education

Copies of the NUT document on Academies are on our website as a Word or Open Office document. Download it, print it out and discuss it.

http://wsta.org.uk/ACADEMIES_BEYOND_SPIN.doc
ACADEMIES: LOOKING BEYOND THE SPIN

The NUT’s Opposition to the Government’s Academies Initiative

Academies Put Schools in the Hands of Sponsors

Creating Academies involves the transfer of publicly funded assets to the control of an unaccountable sponsoring body, set up as a company limited by guarantee. Sponsors receive the entire school budget directly from the Government.

Sponsors have responsibility for all aspects of the Academy, including staff appointments, pupil admissions, curriculum and governance arrangements.

For a £2m stake, sponsors receive enormous benefits, for example school buildings and grounds, Academy supply contracts, advertising, developing the kind of workers they need.

Academies Threaten Fair Admissions Procedures

Academies are independent schools operating under the national Government’s oversight. This national structure has the potential to disrupt fair and efficient admissions arrangements within local authorities and in neighbouring authorities. Academies have the ability to effect schools’ capacity to achieve a balanced pupil intake through the provisions enabled by central Government.

Academies are responsible for their own admission arrangements, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. This ability to undermine the operation of a comprehensive education system could re-introduce a damaging selection process. Pupils with special educational needs, those who are learning to speak English as an additional language and those whose home circumstances are difficult, could be further disadvantaged in these situations.

The facility to give priority to children of a particular faith means it is possible for Academies to refuse places to local pupils.

As Academies receive considerably more capital funding than community or foundation schools, they have the potential to destabilise local admissions by sending the message that they are better than maintained schools.

Academies Have a Damaging Effect on Other Local Schools

Academies are designed to replace schools facing challenging circumstances. The initiative is based on the idea that to close and re-open schools will automatically remove the problems that existed.

Local Authorities may have to make up any shortfall in funding from the sponsor or DfES. This is likely to be at the expense of other local schools, many of which are in need of substantial funding. Academies have already received more money from the DfES than was originally planned.

Academies cost more than comprehensive schools - £21,000 per pupil place, compared to £14,000, according to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee.

Where originally sponsors were asked to provide up to 20 per cent (capped at around £2m) of the capital costs for each Academy, this is now providing only 8 per cent or less. All future costs are guaranteed by public money.

Academies may undermine the support local authorities can give to other schools by refusing to participate in collaborative projects organized by the authority to support learning.

Academies damage the operation of local democratic accountability and make it difficult for parents to make representations or seek advice on educational issues from their elected councillors who have no responsibility for academies.

Academies Threaten Children’s Entitlement to a Broad and Balanced Curriculum

The Government has said that Academies, “can combine a greater flexibility over the curriculum with the sponsorship and expertise of religious, private or voluntary sector contributors...” The curriculum in Academies is therefore likely to be susceptible to being influenced by the ethos of the sponsoring bodies.

Very few of the announced Academies have an arts subject as a specialism and the NUT is concerned about the influence of some faith groups on the curriculum, in particular on sex and relationships education.

The facility to give priority to children of a particular faith additionally means that it is possible for Academies to refuse places to local pupils.

Academies Undermine the Independent Role of School Governors

The constitution of the governing body of an Academy is not prescribed and the DfES advice suggests that a typical governing body of an Academy might consist of 5 or 6 sponsor governors, 1 Local Authority or council governor, 1 staff governor, 1 teacher governor, the head teacher and 1 or more parent governor.

Sponsors may want to ensure that sponsor governors have a majority on the governing body.

The Times Educational Supplement’s investigation of the accounts of Academies highlighted the influence that sponsors have over the spending of school funding and the governing body. In several cases the accounts showed that the majority of directors of the company, which manages funding from the DfES and the sponsor, and are also governors, have been appointed by the sponsor.

Academies Threaten Teachers’ Pay and Conditions of Service

Academies, as independent schools, can operate outside the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document. It is the responsibility of the Academy to agree levels of pay and conditions of service with its employees and to employ appropriate staff numbers.

Whilst teachers in Academies which replace existing schools have their conditions protected on transfer, newly appointed teachers are often placed on separate contracts that involve longer working hours and less favourable working conditions. Having teachers working on different contracts can lead to a divided, two-tier workforce.


WHAT TO DO IF AN ACADEMY IS PLANNED IN YOUR AREA

Teachers

In the first instance, contact your NUT Division/Association or your NUT Regional Office for further information.

Look on the Privatisation section of the Union’s website at www.teachers.org.uk for further information.

– For further advice on admissions, governance, and curriculum issues contact the NUT Education Department on 020 7380 4717, for guidance on pay contact the Salaries and Conditions of Service Department at NUT Headquarters on 020 7380 4774.

Parents

Contact your local branch of CASE (The Campaign for State Education) www.casenet.org.uk.

Talk to the parent governors of your school about your concerns.

Look on the Privatisation section of the Union’s website www.teachers.org.uk.

Parents vs. Academies

Parents in Merton have opposed the setting up of academies in their borough.

The Legal Team, acting for parent Rob MacDonald, was successful in their application for a Judicial Review at the Oral Permission Hearing on Wednesday 5 July, on the basis that parents were not properly consulted about the council's proposals or provided with sufficient information

They have a website where you can keep up to date on this campaign which has implications for every Local Authority in the country.

Campaign Against Academies in Merton