Appendix 1A

EDUCATION, CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE SCRUTINY PANEL – 2010/2011

WEDNESDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2010

SECONDARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE BOROUGH

A SUBMISSION FROM EALING TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (NUT)

Nick Grant Ealing NUT Secretary [email protected]

Page 1 of 19

We respond in three sections: 1. The general situation regarding the Building Schools for the Future programme, including the specific issue of planning for a new school in Greenford. 2. New secondary Schools. 3. ‘Free’ Schools in general, and the specific proposal for a West .

PART 1

THE GENERAL SITUATION REGARDING THE BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF) PROGRAMME, INCLUDING THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF PLANNING FOR A NEW SCHOOL IN GREENFORD

1.1 NUT Policy on BSF NUT policy on the BSF scheme of the previous government was centred on the end game of the programme with the formation of Local Education Partnerships.

We were concerned that despite the undeniable dilapidation of so many school facilities across England and Wales, and the pressing need to replace, renovate, modernise or extend school facilities, the scheme was in fact a Trojan horse route for the wholesale privatisation of local authority schools. The private partner was being allocated 80% of places on the LEP, with a mere 10% for the LA and 10% for Whitehall representation.

In Ealing the NUT has sought to scrutinise the progress of the local BSF bid at all stages via the Education Joint Committee, termly meetings with LA officers in what is called the Trade Union Forum and occasional ad hoc meetings with officers including Simon Hurrell.

The NUT has never, of course, sought to decry the commitment of public money to the BSF programme, only to seek ways in which that investment could remain in public hands.

1.2 The New Situation It would be underestimating things to say that the post-election announcement by the coalition government to scrap 16 of the 19 parts of the Ealing second wave bid, leaving the other 3 in limbo at the time of writing, has been received with universal anger. LA and school staff have spent months and months of hard work on the planning stages, a few companies have invested significant sums in bidding for the contract and many families have had their hopes raised of improved learning opportunities for their children.

Not least of the illogicalities of this issue is the impact on employment prospects for many construction industry employees based in Ealing and beyond.

We note that the Secretary of State has appointed a task group of businessmen to determine how a replacement capital funding scheme might be fashioned instead of BSF, but within the constraints of reduced

Page 2 of 19

budget limits we cannot expect it to fulfil much of the aspirations enshrined in Ealing’s bid.

1.3 The New School in Greenford The additional complication of the recent announcement for Ealing is that it clearly still has to address not just the buildings and facilities question but also its response to rapidly rising rolls. Ealing NUT has always supported the proposals from Ealing to deal with these pressures in the short-term, especially in the primary phase, despite some difficult and inadequate solutions being required. Portakabins are not a welcome sight or fact of school life, not least because it inevitably means a loss of play space.

But at the secondary level a real crisis emerges.

We note that the LA still retains the ownership of the former Glaxo Sports and Social Club site and planning permission for an 8-form entry school on it. The NUT would always have wanted the LA to make a bid under the statutory measures for competition so that there would be a possibility of a Community Status school on the site. Our own research amongst potential feeder schools was very much in favour of this, in distinct opposition to Foundation, Voluntary Aided or Academy status. We still expect the LA to do all that it can to campaign for a new Community Status school in Greenford, and will certainly oppose any attempt to make it an Academy.

It is difficult given the range of current uncertainties to speculate where we may be by the new financial year in April 2011. Ealing’s current secondary schools have agreed through Schools Forum to retain the pot of investment money that they have set aside to pump-prime the new school under BSF terms. But we cannot expect each school to be happy to see useful funds lie idle if reduced DSG in 2011 forces cuts on their budgets.

PART TWO

NEW SECONDARY ACADEMY SCHOOLS

2.1 The Current Situation in Ealing

The DfE website on 23 July 2010 lists the following Ealing schools with a current ‘Outstanding’ OFSTED grade as having “registered an interest” in proceeding to Academy status: Berrymede, Blair Peach and Brentside Primary Schools, Castlebar Special School and Twyford Church of England High School.

In addition, the following schools which do NOT have a current ‘Outstanding’ OFSTED grade have apparently “registered an interest”: Wood End Junior School, Drayton Manor High School and Northolt High School.

Page 3 of 19

From investigations undertaken by Ealing NUT to date the following real situation pertains on the ground:

Blair Peach, Castlebar and Northolt merely made enquiries of the DoE for more information though there is no intention to pursue the matter further.

We understand that Twyford has sought more information from the DOE

The head teacher at Brentside issued a letter to parents on 6 July stating that there were no current plans to seek Academy status, and that there would be full consultation before doing so if the school governors changed their minds.

At Berrymede we understand that consideration is being given to seeking Academy status.

At Drayton Manor the staff have been issued with a discussion document to which the NUT has replied. The school has assured staff that no decision would be taken until the autumn term and after full consultation.

We have had no firm response of any kind from Wood End.

The general picture then at the time of writing is that only one of the borough’s primary schools is positively seeking Academy status, and one secondary - though Drayton Manor is not ‘Outstanding’ and likely, according to the DoE criteria, to have to wait for the country’s Outstanding schools to be dealt with before having its application considered.

2.2 The General and Future Situation in Ealing

The fact that no schools are likely to achieve Academy status in Ealing in 2010 should not deter us from commenting on the general and future situation.

Firstly, we believe that the refusal of most of Ealing’s schools to join a lemming-like rush to register a serious interest in Academy status, reflects their respect for each other as a family of schools operating within the orbit of the Local Authority. Despite being a mixture of Community, Voluntary-Aided and Foundation status schools we believe that all of them value the actual or potential benefits of involvement with Ealing’s central services to differing degrees.

Secondly, this local reticence in the face of concerted Ministerial and media propaganda, is reflected on a national scale. The vast majority of all types of schools have failed to register an interest. This is something of a problem for a Secretary of State who has repeatedly claimed that this is a popular policy deserving of a recklessly truncated passage through Parliament for his Academies Bill.

Page 4 of 19

Thirdly, we are mindful that this situation – locally and nationally - might change radically once the full ramifications of a whole package of measures are analysed by school managements from September 2010 onwards. Such measures will include:  The final details of the Academies Bill itself once it has received Royal Assent.  The full details of the Public Spending Review, due on 20 October, and its specific proposals for the operation of maintained sector schooling.  The review of staff pay and conditions for 2011 onwards including the two-year pay freeze for public sector workers announced on 22 June by the Chancellor.  Any implications from the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament.  The arrangements for the funding of capital spending in the wake of the scrapping of the Building Schools for the Future programme once the Secretary of State’s task group report back to him early in 2011.  Any additional operational implications that may be contained in the second education act due to be set before Parliament in the autumn, especially if there are features enabling so-called ‘Free’ schools which add to the measures contained in the Academies Bill.

2.3 NUT’s Core Objections to the Academies Bill and Academy Status To begin with, it is extremely difficult to see what justification there can be for fast-tracking this Bill through the Commons and by-passing the usual democratic process in this manner. These are not matters of national security or economic melt down. The last time any Government attempted something similar was in 1991 when they passed the Dangerous Dogs Act1.

One of the NUT’s main concerns is that very few of the interested bodies or organisations have had an opportunity to scrutinise or effectively influence the legislative process in this case.

If this Bill is enacted as it stands there will be little opportunity for the public examination of legislation governing Academies in the future and so it is vital that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny during the remaining stages of the Bill.

Commenting ahead of the final scheduled day of debate in Parliament on the Academies Bill on Monday (26 July), Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union, said:

“What ever people’s views on the Academies Bill, there is great distrust at the way the Government has rushed this legislation through.

“The Bill is an attack on the very existence of democratically accountable, free state comprehensive education. It is privatisation on a grand scale

1 ‘Fast-track legislation: constitutional implications and safeguards’ (HL 116 2008-09) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/116/11602.htm

Page 5 of 19 and it is unacceptable that such a significant Bill has not been allotted sufficient time to be properly scrutinised.

“After extensive lobbying by the NUT and others, the Government has been forced to make significant concessions. One of which is the requirement for consultation, albeit limited, prior to the establishment of an Academy or a free school. Schools that are seeking to convert may well have to start over again or leave themselves open to legal challenge from parents and staff who have not been consulted on such a significant change to their school.

“The NUT is supporting amendments to the Bill, which will be debated on Monday, to improve the provisions on consultation, in particular to remove the clause which allows consultation to take place after an Academy order is granted.

“It is completely against any common sense understanding of ‘consultation’ for parents to be asked if they want their school to become an Academy after the decision has already been taken. It will bring the whole Academies programme into further disrepute and will make a nonsense of Government commitments to a ‘big society’ with maximum public involvement in decision making.

“The NUT will continue its work across the trade union movement and with parents, Governors and MPs to build on the huge support there already is to defend our state education system and to ensure that all children have access to a good local school for every child.”

Nevertheless, the House of Lords were able to force a number of concessions which have improved the Bill to some extent.

Consultation Prior to the Establishment of an Academy or a Free School The Government amended the Bill at the Lords Report Stage to allow that the Governing Body can choose to consult after the Academy Order is made with “persons thought to be appropriate”. Simply to consult after the event is nonsense and would not, in any sense, be proper "consultation".

At Third Reading a subsequent amendment was made and the Bill now requires the promoter of a free school to consult those it saw fit.

The Union has argued that there must be full and meaningful consultation on the initial application with "parents, children, staff, the local authority and such persons as they think appropriate" and will continue to lobby on this point.

Special Educational Needs Provision Academies will now need to:  inform parents that their child has SEN and explain the special educational provision being made;  admit a child to the Academy if it is named in the statement, subject to the right of appeal to the Secretary of State; and

Page 6 of 19

 appoint a special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) who should be a qualified teacher and should undertake prescribe training.

At Third Reading, the Labour Peer - Baroness Wilkins, pushed to a successful vote an amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill which sought to ensure greater certainty over funding and service provision arrangements for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

Freedom of Information The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been extended to now apply to Academies.

Land Transfer In response to pressure from the Catholic Education Service the Government made technical amendments to the Bill on land transfer. According to Lord Hill, the DfE Minister, these amendments ensure that public investment in all cases of possible land transactions will be protected.

Impact of ‘Free’ Schools The Government amended the Bill so that when the Secretary of State considers whether to approve proposals for “additional” schools (i.e. a new ‘Free’ school) he would be required to take into account the impact on the other schools and colleges in the local area. (More on this in Part Three.)

Annual Report to Parliament on the Academy Arrangements The Government accepted Baroness Williams of Crosby’s amendment to require annual reports on academy arrangements and the performance of academies.

However, the NUT’s main concerns remain and are as follows:

Consultation The NUT considers it of the utmost importance that any decision to change the status of any school and control of its assets should involve proper consultation with parents, pupils, school staff and the relevant local authority. The changes brought about through transfer to Academy status are so far-reaching that it is not appropriate or justifiable for such a decision to be taken without full and meaningful consultation with all key stakeholders. Any such decision should also take into account the impact on neighbouring schools.

The point that must be made is that without consultation the local community’s relationships with its schools will be nullified. Schools are at the centre of their local communities. The lack of adequate consultation clauses within the Bill drives a wedge between schools and their communities.

The Expansion of Academies to Primary, Special and Grammar Schools The extension of the Academy programme to the primary and special schools sector will be particularly damaging to the ability to plan and manage educational provision on an equitable basis. Most small primary

Page 7 of 19 schools simply do not have the capacity to provide for themselves the services delivered across the family of schools by the local authority.

That grammar schools will be allowed to become Academies is of very serious concern. 60 per cent of selective schools have already expressed an interest in doing so. Selective Academies will be able to expand in a way that grammar schools at the moment are not allowed to – and with limited consultation with the local community. Whilst this does not apply directly to Ealing’s situation, it is illustrative of the general purpose of the Academies Bill.

Funding of Academies There has been a significant amount of discussion on the level of funding schools would receive following conversion to Academy status, in respect of money that would formerly have gone to the local authority to pay for central services, and at the accuracy of the estimates presented by the (DfE).

Local authorities retain part of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for provision of a range of central school services and functions. Existing Academies receive a grant to replace this element, and much of it is recouped from local authorities. Academies will need to purchase these services, from the local authority or elsewhere. If a lot of schools become Academies, the loss of funds could threaten the viability of services for other schools.

Concerns at the calculation of academies' funding emerged after the publication of the DfE's academy funding "Ready Reckoner" in early June.

The DfE has since disclosed (following pressure from local authorities) that academies' funding includes elements for local authority statutory and regulatory duties - which are not spending on schools in any real sense - and for local authorities’ central funding for matters like school improvement - where allocating this to academies on a pro-rata per pupil basis will simply shift resources away from schools in need of support towards already 'outstanding' schools.

This raises the question of whether academy funding does in fact meet the DfE's principles that “Academies should receive the same level of per-pupil funding as they would receive from the local authority as a maintained school” and that “becoming an academy should not bring about a financial advantage or disadvantage to a school”. It also raises questions about the DfE's future intentions towards "recoupment" from local authorities and their future ability to provide services to LA schools.

For example, we have heard that as much as £300K might accrue to an Ealing High School, were it to achieve Academy status, as additional funding representing funds otherwise held by the Local Authority. We believe that this estimate is derived from the DoE Ready Reckoner, and that it is based on false calculations.

Page 8 of 19

However, were these calculations actually forced on Local Authorities as payments mandated to a new charitable trust as part of the conversion to Academy status, this would impact unfairly on other schools’ funding or other LA services because it represents a sum far in excess of what is customarily paid. On the other hand, a legal challenge by a LA disputing the accuracy and total amounts of such directed payments may result in a school’s governors regretting their decision to seek Academy status in the first place, were they actually to receive considerably less than the DoE’s estimated additional income.

There is absolutely no doubt that this whole question of additional funding coming into any school were it to convert to Academy status is the prime subject of debate in all Ealing schools at the moment. The NUT does not believe that the DoE should be free to be so cavalier with its estimates on the initial funding bonanza schools might accrue as Academies, especially as the stated intention of The Chancellor in his emergency budget on 22 June is to reduce overall spending in education by 10 – 20% in the next three years, which Ealing Council itself has announced it will try to model ahead of the Public Spending Review announcements.

It goes against all current governmental financial reason to believe that school budgets, irrespective of management status, are going to increase in the coming years. The NUT deduces from this that de facto the push to establish Academies is partly about passing the buck down the line to school level for making the cuts in staffing and resources that central government dictates.

Academy Admissions Although the Government has given assurances that Academies must abide by the admissions code of practice and selection will not be introduced, we remain concerned that banding arrangements in Academies could introduce new terms of selection and that the likelihood of admitting vulnerable children or those from deprived backgrounds could be reduced.

Governance of Academies Governing bodies, in Academies with an external sponsor, may include just one local authority governor, one elected parent governor and possibly no staff governors; the majority of governors are appointed by the Trust. In outstanding schools becoming Academies, a small group of governors who form the Academy Trust will appoint the governing body. This is a much less accountable model than that for maintained schools. In addition, it is unclear how governors’ succession and terms of office will be regulated.

The NUT and the National Governors Association (NGA) believe provision for a third of governing body representatives to be parent governors, is the best and most democratic means by which parents can influence a school.

Page 9 of 19

Impact of Academies on Inclusion and Equality During the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords the Government did concede that Schedule 19 of the Equality Act will be updated before the duties come into force in 2011 and they accepted that academy schools are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act.

The evidence tabled in the Department’s Equalities Impact Assessment on the Academies Bill is, however, fairly damning in terms of the progression of pupils in Academies. It shows that the rate of progress for girls, pupils with statements and pupils from black and mixed backgrounds in Academies to be lower than in a comparable schools’ group. The rate of progress for pupils from Asian backgrounds in Academies is lower than the national average. In fact it shows that the only higher rate of change in the proportion of pupils receiving at least 5 A* to C grades is for white pupils in Academies – and there is no breakdown in terms of how many of these received free school meals2.

Given the evidence above, it is difficult to see how the DfE has arrived at the conclusion in paragraph 31 which states, "We believe that the Academies programme is already working towards promoting inclusion and equality to the benefit of all pupils in the programme." The assumption in paragraph 2 also contradicts the evidence “we expect standards across the education sector to rise through the creation of more Academies.”

The refocusing of Government policy away from providing additional facilities and regulatory freedoms to underperforming schools in deprived areas towards outstanding schools and free schools will lead to a stratification of parental choice. That will impact on poor families, single parent families and first generation minority ethnic group families who are less likely to have the resources and knowledge to compete or make choices on an equal basis.

What the Equality Impact Assessment does not even begin to address is the negative impact of such proposals on the surrounding non-academy schools and their communities. It is not enough to assess the performance of existing or new academies in terms of equalities (which is arguable enough as it is), but an equality impact assessment has to look at the potential damage that an increased structural fragmentation of the school system have on large numbers of less advantaged pupils, families and communities.

Democracy We are particularly mystified that currently ‘Outstanding’ schools are being prioritised for Academisation, when they are already by definition performing well. How more ‘Outstanding’ can an ‘Outstanding’ school get? As they say in the USA, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!”

2 http://www.education.gov.uk/~/media/Files/lacuna/academiesbillequia.ashx

Page 10 of 19

Why, if the government believes so passionately that Academies are a good thing, has the new Bill not taken on a transformative as opposed to enabling mode? In other words, why are schools being left to choose to apply for Academy status rather than all being transformed into that status? The answer can only be that a two-or-three tiered overall provision is envisioned. And it seems that the Secretary of State alone will be gate-keeping the applications, saying yea or nay to each as it arrives on his desk. And they call this democracy?

We can only conclude that there is little by way of educational criteria displayed here and more to do with an ideological determination to break-up local authorities’ role in education, as part of a wider ‘public bad, private good’ government motto. The irony is, of course, that all Academies will be funded and administered directly from Whitehall rather than local Town Halls. In a letter to our General Secretary of July 13 assures the NUT that, “ Every school that registers will have a named official as their contact point to assist with the conversion process and issues that arise”. That sounds to us like a distinct growth in centralised bureaucracy at the expense of local accountability.

The NUT wishes to see a completely different direction of travel for educational provision. We want a good local school for every child, provided by reinvigorated local authorities which need many of their former powers restoring, and funded by greater not lesser investment especially at a time of expanding rolls, with greater autonomy for teachers and parents to determine the really useful nature of schooling.

Lastly, the Academies Bill signifies yet more evidence that the views and experience of professionals in the field of education remain of extremely low esteem in the minds of politicians and the media. Renewed propaganda from both sources about the numbers of allegedly failing teachers and the apparent unavailability of good local schools tends to cement a view that yet more governmental tinkering is required. It isn’t! These stories do not bear up to honest scrutiny.

PART THREE

‘FREE’ SCHOOLS IN GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR A

3.1 The Swedish Model The National Union of Teachers is seriously concerned at the prospect of introducing the Swedish free schools model to the UK. Groups setting up their own schools, irrespective of local planning needs, would be a retrograde step that would create planning gridlock and social division.

The Secretary of State said whilst in opposition that Sweden’s free schools have broken “the bureaucratic stranglehold”, and that, far from “driving segregation, these schools have driven up standards for all”. Yet the National Agency for Education (NAE) in Sweden points to a system that shows, “fairly unambiguously, that segregation has increased”. The Secretary of State has referred also in the past to “higher than average”

Page 11 of 19

numbers of ethnic minority pupils in free schools but the Agency found that many were children from “foreign backgrounds” whose parents were relatively well-off.

The NAE has found that free schools have higher results on average than municipal schools, but the Agency says a significant factor for parents who opt for the former is “choosing a particular desirable social context”. In other words, free schools are a magnet for the middle class. Results reflect the differing social composition of both types of school.

In order to promote Free Schools, the Conservatives said while in opposition that a number of barriers will need to be removed:  Some of these relate to the ability of the local authority (with which such schools will be competing directly) to place constraints on the formation of the new schools.  It will be made easier for parents and school provider organisations to obtain the information and take the steps necessary to form a new school.  Planning law and building regulations will be reformed to make it easier for those wishing to set up their own schools.

In a speech (Thursday 17 June) to the National College of School Leadership, Secretary of State Michael Gove stated:

“In Sweden, the old bureaucratic monopoly that saw all state schools run by local government was ended and the system opened up to allow new, non-selective, state schools to be set up by a range of providers.

It has allowed greater diversity, increased parental choice and has seen results improve – with results improving fastest of all in the areas where schools exercised the greatest degree of autonomy and parents enjoyed the widest choice.”

However, the Swedish education minister Bertil Ostberg said just a month before this that free schools in Sweden have been a failure and warned the British Government not to introduce them. Mr Ostberg told the Sunday Mirror:

“We have actually seen a fall in the quality of Swedish schools since the free schools were introduced”. He added: “The free schools are generally attended by children of better educated and wealthy families making things even more difficult for children attending ordinary schools in poor areas.” He said the priority for policy makers should be “improving the quality of teaching across the board”. (Sunday Mirror, 30.5.10)

3.2 Why Does the NUT Oppose Sweden’s ‘Free’ Schools?  Sweden’s experience shows categorically that standards of education have declined dramatically in the last 20 years – a decline that coincides with the introduction of Free Schools.

Page 12 of 19

 Michael Gove has said that the parents in Free Schools will be allowed to pay a management fee to the companies running the schools and the companies will be allowed to make a profit. There should be no place within education for private companies to profit. These profits can only be made at the expense of funding and investment in children’s education, and through the specific measure of employing as few qualified teachers as possible because of their higher salaries.

 Teachers have not benefited from increased pay, as was expected. Instead we are likely to see the abolition of national pay and conditions.

 The number of qualified teachers in Free Schools is lower than in municipal (state) schools. (Whereas 85 per cent of teachers in municipal schools are qualified, just 64 per cent of those in the independent schools are). The same is likely to happen here. Increasing numbers of children will be taught by unqualified staff.

 The proportion of teachers with a teaching degree has decreased by approximately 9% since the early 1990s – from 94% in 1991 to under 85% in 2007/08.

 The pupil teacher ratio in Swedish Free Schools is lower than in municipal (state) schools - almost 8.5 teachers per hundred pupils in municipal schools; just over 7.5 teachers per hundred pupils in independent schools. Partly this is because in Free Schools children are more likely to work on ‘individualised learning programmes’ on a computer – one of the factors the NAE has attributed to the decline in standards of attainment in Sweden.

 Coupled with the Academies Bill proposals, Free Schools will result in planning chaos. Local authorities and the strategic role they play in planning and coordinating services will be seriously undermined.

 A voucher system will create havoc with education funding and planned provision and financing.

 The resources required to fund and assist with Free Schools will take funding and personnel away from other strategic education needs.

 What David Cameron describes as a “state monopoly” of our schools is in fact local democratic involvement in education. He fails to understand that the framework of local authorities enables schools to work together in an educational community which places the achievements of pupils, not profit, first.

 Of course parents want a Good Local School for Every Child; this is something the NUT has long been arguing for.

The political impetus for independent free schools in Sweden began in the early 1990s and was based on widening parental choice of schools.

Page 13 of 19

Until that point, most children attended their local state school and there were just a handful of independent schools with a lower level of state funding which was topped up by parental fees. In 1994, the Government raised the amount of funding for independent schools to equal that of state schools.

In Sweden, the voucher system and free choice between public and private schools was not introduced to raise standards but to create choice in the system where previously all children had attended their local municipal school.

There was cross-party political support for an increase of choice which it was believed would improve the education system through a wider range of schools; stimulate innovation and new teaching methods; revitalise the system through competition and be more cost effective.

The Swedish teachers’ union Laraforbundet was positive about the proposals initially, largely because it believed the development would stimulate competition for the best teachers and raise salaries in the long term. However this has not proved to be the case.

The reforms resulted in a huge expansion of privately run schools in Sweden but have also coincided with a dramatic fall in the academic results of Swedish children and increased social segregation.

 In 1990 just one per cent of pupils attended independent Free Schools whereas now independent schools account for ten per cent of the pupil population in compulsory schools (ages 7-15) and 20 per cent of the pupil population in upper secondary schools (16-19).

 The pupil/teacher ratios in independent and municipal schools are significantly different (almost 8.5 teachers per hundred pupils in municipal schools; just over 7.5 teachers per hundred pupils in independent schools).

 Whereas 85 per cent of teachers in municipal schools are qualified, just 64 per cent of those in the independent schools are.

 Seventy five per cent of independent schools are run by profit-making companies. So the large amount of public funding expended in the Free Schools through the state funded voucher system has not been reinvested in education but instead is making profits for the private companies.

 Teacher salaries have not increased as a result of school competition.

 The Free Schools offer very similar programmes to public schools. Instead of presenting alternatives in terms of the curriculum, independent schools have become very similar to municipal schools.

 Parental choice is limited to those in urban areas with many municipalities not having a single independent school.

Page 14 of 19

 Most Free Schools lease building such as disused factories, factories and offices rather than using dedicated schools sites. This means many Free Schools lack facilities for sports, playgrounds, lunch halls and libraries. Whereas every public school in Sweden is obliged to have a library, Free Schools are not.

 According to Laraforbundet, there is no sharing of good professional practice, or admission of any problems, so there has not been a revitalisation of education.

 Far from being cost-effective, municipalities had not been able to plan their education provision properly.

 Some independent schools have closed and have not been able to provide ex-pupils with examination records, etc.

 The growth of Free Schools has resulted in increased social segregation, particularly in relation to class.

Educational Attainment in Sweden Since the 1990s At the beginning of the 1990s, Swedish pupils fared well in international comparisons but in the last 20 years their performance has declined. This decline is most notable in maths and science but is evident also in Reading Comprehension. In addition to average grades having worsened, the spread of grade point averages (GPAs) has widened over time, in other words, the variation in results between schools and between various groups of pupils has become more pronounced.

To examine the causes of this, the Swedish National Agency for Education published a review of factors affecting Swedish Educational Attainment, ‘What Influences Educational Achievement in Swedish Schools? A systematic Review and Summary Analysis, Skilverket (Swedish National Agency for Education), September 2009.

This Review found that since 1993, and particularly since 1998, there have been increasing differences in grades attained by various groups of pupils (differentiated by social background, gender and ethnicity) but most particularly between groups differentiated by parents’ educational background. Researchers conclude “that an increasing differentiation of levels of attainment coincides with comprehensive changes in the Swedish school system that have occurred since the beginning of the 1990s”.

The Review examined the impact of Segregation, Decentralisation and the Individualisation of Learning on pupil attainment.

The Impact of Segregation on Pupil Attainment The 2009 Review confirms that differentiation in attainment has increased during the 1990s. The evidence shows that parents’ level of education is the one factor that most heavily influences grade-point average outcomes, having approximately double the explanatory value of pupils’ gender and ethnicity. The analyses also showed a marked

Page 15 of 19 increase in between-group differences in grades, once again explained predominantly by parental level of education.

The link between parents’ levels of education and school’s results is approximately twice as strong at school level than at individual level and has been strengthening at school level over time. The National Agency for Education (2006) has confirmed that school level effects have intensified and that the specific school a child attends has gained increased significance for how a pupil performs.

Who Runs the Free Schools? There are no restrictions on the ownership structure of the free schools. There are a variety of different organisers of independent schools: limited companies, foundation, co-operative society, individuals, trading companies, non-profit association, limited partnerships, faith communities (72 denominational schools, mostly Christian; 9 Muslim; 3 Jewish).

Nevertheless, three quarters of free schools are run by profit making companies.

The Private Companies and Profits The four largest Swedish school corporations at compulsory school level are Kunskapsskolan, Vittra, Pysslingen and Ultra. Another well-known provider is International English Schools (IES)

The eight largest organisers of independent schools range between having 10 schools to Kunskapsskolan, the largest chain, with 30 schools. Kunskapsskolan makes large profits from running its schools in Sweden. They allow students a great deal of personal freedom in meeting individual targets.

Swedish teachers’ union, Laraforbundet, believes that company profits come from:  The companies renting their school buildings and so not being responsible for long-term wear and tear.  Buildings such as disused offices and factories being utilised.  Lack of overheads on e.g. sports facilities, dining halls, etc.  A lack of investment in special needs, arts and language facilities and support staffing.  The employment of young and inexperienced staff and larger numbers of unqualified teachers.

The Final Irony Michael Gove and company will now have to keep quiet about their enthusiasm for the Swedish model because the Swedes are now ditching it! A repealing law is before their Parliament which amongst many other changes states that:

“Teachers Senior subject teachers will be re-introduced into the entire school system. A teacher or pre-school teacher who has passed a Licentiate or doctoral degree and has demonstrated excellent quality of teaching over

Page 16 of 19 a period of service of at least four years is to be appointed a senior subject teacher.

Clearer and more stringent rules will be introduced on the necessary requirements for teachers and pre-school teachers to be employed and used in teaching.”

More details at: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12996/a/142348

Free Schools and Privatisation in the UK In September this year, Kunskapsskolan is opening two Academies in Richmond, West London. These are the Hampton Academy, which will replace Hampton Community College and the Witton Academy. The company plans to open a further three Academies, the next one in Ipswich. The company wants to prove its model of schooling works with the English Language and curriculum.

Students at Holywells High School in Ipswich have set up a campaign group to fight against their school becoming a Kunskapsskolan Academy. Members of the 'Holywells Save Our School' (SOS) group have leafleted 5,000 homes with flyers condemning the academy plans. 17-year-old James Ager and fellow Year 13 student Darren Bloom started the group, which also has a 600-signature petition, its own website and a Facebook group with around 460 members. Holywells SOS is working with local NUT representatives to raise awareness of the proposals and build support for the campaign.

Kunskapsskolan says it plans to set up 30 profit making schools in the UK. Steve Bolingbroke, the firm’s UK managing director told the Evening Standard that the company hoped a future Conservative Government would relax the rules over allowing state schools to make a profit:

“We are long-term people, our plan is to move out of Sweden into other markets to provide the sort of education based on the Swedish experience.”

IES, which runs 14 schools in Sweden, says that in addition to being in talks with over the running of the Wandsworth school, it has met parents in Knebworth, Hertfordshire, to discuss their campaign for a new secondary school to serve five rural villages. IES says its company has a “traditional, conservative approach”, with strict discipline and high expectations. It claims its schools produce the best exam results in Scandinavia. It runs schools in premises including a former cigar factory, hospital and disused offices.

Another company keen to get in on the UK edu-business market is Global Education Management Systems (GEMS), whose UK Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is Anders Hultin, the co-founder and former CEO of Kunskapsskolan and architect of the Swedish school reforms. The company is particularly known for the development of a ‘personalised model’ of education in which children work at their own pace on computers – one of the factors identified in the report by the

Page 17 of 19

Swedish National Agency for Education as contributing to the 20 year decline in academic standards in Sweden.

GEMS is a Dubai-based company running chains of hospitals and healthcare services in the Middle East. It also operates 100 schools with 90,000 students in nine countries. It runs 12 private schools in the UK. The company is registered in the British Virgin Isles, a tax haven. GEMS recently made 40 teaching staff redundant, blaming “the global downturn”. The recent chair of OFSTED Zenna Atkins has just left to join GEMS as an executive.

In a speech to the Partnership for School annual conference on 10th September 2009, Hultin argued that education providers must be allowed to make a profit in the Free schools. He added:

“If you are looking for a UK version of the voucher system and would like to achieve the same kind of impact in terms of numbers, my advice is to allow profit-making organisations. Not least since you already have a lot of charities running schools in the UK. It is very unlikely that another 2,000-3,000 charities will pop up and show interest in running schools under a voucher regime.”

Quizzed by an audience of teachers at the Hay Festival, Michael Gove told his audience he had “no ideological objection” to private companies seeking profits from running Academies and Free Schools. Under the management fee model that already exists in some schools, the governing body contracts all schools services, from teaching to cleaning, to a private company (Guardian 1.6.10)

The New Schools Network In October 2009, the Tory party set up the New Schools Network (NSN) to import Sweden’s quack ideas into the UK state education system.

“A mixed school economy will allow new energy to explode into our system and force existing schools to up their game. All the evidence from the US is that the independent charter schools make state schools better”, the Director of t New Schools Network told The Independent on 12 November 2009. However the idea of ‘Free’ schools causing any kind of explosion is laughable. Scandalously, Michael Gove awarded £500k from government coffers to this organisation in June 2010 to boost its ‘explosive’ work.

But the Directors evidence about independent charter schools is not shared with readers of her interview because it is bogus. USA Charter Schools have made no real impact on the learning of the very kids they claim to enhance, when compared with traditional public sector schools there. The most forensic comparative monitoring of their progress in 16 US states carried out by Stanford University, California last summer, does not make good reading for Charter advocates.

“If charter schools are to flourish and deliver on promises made by proponents, a deliberate and sustained effort to increase the proportion of high quality schools is essential. The replication of successful school

Page 18 of 19

models is one important element of this effort. On the other side of the equation, however, authorizers must be willing and able to fulfill their end of the original charter school bargain: accountability in exchange for flexibility. When schools consistently fail, they should be closed.

Though simple in formulation, this task has proven to be extremely difficult in practice. Simply put, neither market mechanisms nor regulatory oversight (have) been a sufficient force to deal with underperforming schools.”

Within the US Charter schools initiative another more recent model for change has been the Knowledge Is Power Programme (KIPP), which purports to have had dramatic impacts in high ethnic-minority enclaves. Bearing in mind that funding for public services has always been so much lower in the US than UK, the degree of anxiety about their quality is understandably more pervasive there.

But the few KIPP schools which still function are highly exploitative of staff, commonly open six days a week and twelve hours a day with staff on call 24/7 via mobile phones, and aggressively test-focused. ‘Drill and kill’ fits this regime as much as any military boot camp. The positive references to KIPP by NSN and UK ‘Free’ School zealots are usually very thin on evidence. (Anyone wanting a vivid exposure of the impact of testing on urban US schools can look no further than series 4 of the wonderful HBO TV series ‘The Wire’.)

3.4 General Conclusions Ealing NUT believes that independent Free Schools will:  drive down standards of education in the UK just as they have in Sweden;  de-skill the teaching profession, as children sit at computers and rote learn under the supervision of an increasingly unqualified workforce;  result in a lowering of teachers’ wages, conditions and morale;  result in the fragmentation of education; and  de-recognise or minimise the role of trade unions.

This will impact on the ability to plan and manage education provision strategically and fairly. The state will be left to provide for those children not welcome in the free schools – such as those with special educational needs or behaviour issues. State schools will close as the Free Schools draw children and teachers away from them.

This means state funding, which should be enriching the education of young people, will instead be lining the pockets of the shareholders of private companies.

END

Page 19 of 19