Hostile takeover
Education Guardian has seen a transcript of a gathering for oldsters at a Croydon primary school wherein attendees got an insight into what critics see because the dictatorial nature of the method of forcing some institutions into academy status.
The school is Roke primary, in prosperous Kenley, Surrey, which, because the Guardian revealed two weeks ago, is on the centre of a brand new row over Michael Gove’s move to show more schools into sponsored academies. The previously “outstanding” school was identified for closure and re-opening as an academy under the Harris chain following weak test ends in 2011 and a single “notice to enhance” verdict from Ofsted here May.
The governors’ meeting for folks was told that the school’s head, Caroline Phillips, and chair of governors, Malcolm Farquharson, were summoned to the dep. for Education in September, where they were told of the Harris plan. Following better test results last summer and what it sees as a concerted improvement effort, the faculty reportedly asked the DfE to attend until a follow-up monitoring visit from the inspectorate, expected later inside the autumn, had taken place.
The transcript records Farquharson as telling parents: “On the meeting [with the DfE], we said, ‘Don’t you’re thinking that it is advisable to wait until the Ofsted monitoring visit takes place’ They usually said, ‘No, we wish to move now … and in the event you don’t agree we’re going to get the local authority to fireplace you, all of you, all of the governors. If the local authority don’t do it, we can. We’ll installed our own board of governors who will do what we are saying.’ “
The DfE also reportedly told the school’s head and chair of governors to not share with parents details of the DfE meeting. They didn’t accomplish that until the DfE decision was reiterated in a letter received at the final day of last term. Ofsted inspectors didn’t arrive until this month.
A vociferous campaign against the plans was launched by parents.
The DfE said that no final decision had yet been made at the school, although academy sponsorship under Harris remained its preference. However, on Friday came news that Ofsted now deems the faculty to be making “satisfactory progress”. Watch this space.
An give you might refuse
Staff on the centre of an extended dispute following the hole of a free school in Sefton, Merseyside, were facing an agonising choice as Education Guardian went to press.
Following a disagreement we first reported on last year, around 80 former staff from St George of britain engineering college (formerly St George of britain highschool) and St Wilfrid’s Catholic highschool were left without redundancy or jobs last September when The Hawthorne’s free school opened of their stead.
Five months later, the dispute took what the local authority hopes would be its final turn every week ago, when Sefton council and the free school – which have been at odds over whether jobs within the new school or redundancy were owed to the workers – came forward with a proposal to their unions.
But a source among former St George’s staff said the move was compounding the tension for lots. The offer letter sets out separate terms for many who managed find work shortly after the recent school opened and people who didn’t, while even as asking that unions refuse to support anyone who fails to agree terms. The letter gave unions just a week to make a decision. Sefton council said the offer could see a settlement for the workers without the need for litigation.
Transparent as mud
Three weeks ago, we cited that the DfE had still not published minutes of its board meetings since September 2011, despite a page existing for this purpose under the heading “Transparency”.
Lo and behold, eight days later, summary minutes of 7 meetings appeared. But they may be seen as lower than illuminating.
Each set of minutes runs to not more than four tantalising bullet points, similar to “The board received an update and discussed problems with industrial relations”, and (our personal favourite, offered with none further information) “Ministerial priorities – it was agreed that the policy and delivery objectives indicated were the proper ones”.
Perhaps this page must be filed under “Opacity”.
