Create a National Commission for education governance.

A step too far - Education and Adoption Bill

I encourage all those who have signed this petition to customise the attached letter and send it to their MP. The proposals outlined in this bill will undoubtedly change the face of education to the detriment of children and young people and disenfrachise ordinary people who oppose the forced academisation of state schools.

If you agree to support this action, would you also agree to share the letter with friends and family. 

Dear MP  

Education reform is a highly contentious area of public policy. The Education and Adoption Bill is especially so, threatening, as it does to force schools to convert to academy status, even if local stakeholders object. In fact, I regard curtailing rights to campaign against forced academisation as undemocratic. If such rights are to be removed by parliament, then the benefits of doing so should overwhelmingly outweigh the loss of such a right. In the case of this bill, it does not.    

As a retired teacher, former Ofsted inspector and primary school governor, I am appealing to you to vote against the new Education and Adoption Bill introduced into parliament on 3 June 2015. Put plainly, I reject the claims made by the government that turning ‘failing’ schools into academies will “give every single child the best start in life.” When examined without prejudice, the facts do not support such a conclusion.  

I base my opposition to this bill on three arguments:  

Firstly, this reform is not supported by evidence, even as evaluated by certain organs of Parliament.  

Secondly, removing opportunities for local communities to oppose ‘forced’ academisation of their schools is counter to the UN Charter of Human Rights and further contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  

Finally, the government, with its small working majority, failed to win a sufficient mandate to force through such contentious reform.  

The Public Accounts Committee report published Friday 30 January 2015 questioned the Education Department’s knowledge and understanding of performance in individual schools. Whilst covering all categories of school, the report has this to say about academies in particular:  

“There are no independent assessments of the effectiveness of academy sponsors and the Department has taken an optimistic view of sponsor capacity for too long. The Department’s main intervention for failing maintained schools is to match them with a sponsor and turn the school into a sponsored academy. Often the failing school will become part of a chain of academies run by one sponsor with a central management function. In its keenness to expand the academies programme and increase the number of sponsored academies, it has allowed some chains to grow too quickly without the necessary capacity and capability. It has currently ‘paused’ the growth of 18 sponsors because of concerns about their performance; these sponsors are currently educating almost 100,000 children. However, it has no independent source of information about the effectiveness of academy sponsors and the Department is over-reliant on whistleblowers. Ofsted is able to focus inspections on a number of academies within a chain and give an assessment about how well the chain supports those academies but, unlike in local authorities, it is unable to inspect the central management function of a sponsor (which is the primary mechanism for delivering improvement in a failing school). Unlike the powers Ofsted has to inspect local authorities, there is no statutory framework setting out the basis for what the inspectors are assessing when they look at the operation of an academy chain, and Ofsted awards no overall judgement or rating of academy sponsors.   

Recommendation: The Department should obtain independent judgements of the capacity of sponsors that run more than one academy, and should use this to determine which sponsors are able to grow and when it should intervene with particular sponsors.”  

As far as my own enquiries have been able to establish, no action has been taken, or is in train, to address these serious concerns.  

The report also considers what interventions are best to ensure that underperforming schools improve. It states:  

“The Department does not know enough about which formal interventions are most effective to tackle failure under which circumstances. Of schools inspected by Ofsted in 2012/13, 48% (62 out of 129) of those which had received some kind of formal intervention improved at their next inspection. The remainder stayed the same or deteriorated, with the apparent impact of different interventions varying significantly. Meanwhile, 59% (2,181 out of 3,696) of schools that received no formal intervention also improved.  

The Department has not done enough to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions and so does not know which are the most cost-effective. It recognises that it needs to do more.   Recommendation: The Department should commission a full evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of all formal interventions in schools.”   I believe this is another vital recommendation that has not been acted upon. How can the government claim, as it does with conviction, that forcing schools to become academies is the most effective way to ‘turn them around’?   The Education Select Committee has also reported, rather negatively, on the academies programme. It questioned conflict of interest and transparency, especially for academy chains.  

“The Academies Commission, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee questioned the capacity of the EFA to monitor funding agreements and hold academies to account for the use of public funds.”   Concerned about transparency over the process of academisation, the Committee recommended:  

“156. Greater transparency is also needed regarding the process and criteria by which sponsors are authorised and matched with schools.” As the Bill is currently worded, how will this work if local voices are curtailed from the outset?   In the same report, the Committee again questions the evidence:  

“173. We have sought but not found convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment in primary schools. We recommend that the DfE commission, as a matter of urgency, research into the relationship between academy status and outcomes at KS1 and KS2 so that sponsors and RSCs can be clear which models and characteristics are most strongly correlated with improved performance. “  

I could go on identifying sound reasons why the Bill under consideration should not go ahead, especially since most of these “underperforming” schools will be primaries.  

Henry Stewart of the Local Schools Network gave evidence to the Committee. He raised the following points:  “Academy chains have a very mixed record, with more below average than above. Why is the government’s solution to take schools from local authorities – which DfE data suggests perform better – and give them to academy chains – where DfE data indicates schools generally perform worse.”  

It is clear that the existing academies programme has produced instability, excess and abuse and one need go no further than the thorough review carried out by the Select Committee to find the evidence.  

It is very pertinent, when the outcome of the general election is subjected to closer analysis, to ask how clear is the government’s mandate to press ahead with the reforms contained in this Bill?   The present government secured less than a quarter of the votes cast on a turnout of 66.1%. It is an interesting coincidence that the Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, is introducing legislation on rules over strikes in the public sector. The intention is to ensure that a minority of union members cannot behave undemocratically. The plan is to make it illegal to call a strike unless 40 percent of those eligible to vote do so and unless 50 percent of those votes are cast in favour of strike action. Clearly, more than 50% of the electorate voted at the recent election, but of those, only 36.9% voted in the government’s favour, a full 13.1% short of the ‘magic’ 50% deemed necessary to legitimise action. In pressing ahead with the education Bill in question, is the government guilty of operating against its own principles? I believe it is.  

This has been a long submission. It could have been even more detailed as the reasons why this Bill has to be halted are many and complex. As a final thought, at a time when the government is introducing further austerity measures, the evidence clearly indicates that forging ahead with further academisation does not offer good value to taxpayers. It does not seem reasonable to press on until the recommendations, made by a broad cross-section of MP’s to deal with the many shortcomings in the structural reform of schooling, are acted upon.  

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope I have convinced you of the necessity to vote against this Bill. I look forward to receiving your reply in due course.    

Sources:  

Academies and free schools – Education Evidence of effect of academy status on standards and closing the gap (Parliament Home Page 2015)  

House of Commons Education Committee – Academies and Free Schools  Fourth Report of Session 2014–15

Why politics and education shouldn't get mixed.

The following article was posted on the Local Schools Network today. It is another glaring example that illustrates why the campaign here has to succeed.

The training of teachers has become a contentious issue. It need not be. There are schools capable of overseeing the full professional development of teachers as the government claims, but they are not around every corner. Never has the training of teachers been in such a precarious position. Universities and other teacher training establishments are key to the initial and ongoing professional development of teachers and this is threatened because of the belief among politiicans that such institutions are dominated by socialist ideals that have been responsible for the alleged failure to prepare teachers for their role.

The Institute of Education (London) is one of the world leaders in the field. The fact that it has been denied the opportunity to run a training school is discussed in the attached blog. Pleaser read this and circulate it as widely as posible among family and friends if you agree that this kind of politicisation of education is not in the interests of our young people.

Thank you

John

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/03/lord-nash-v-the-institute-of-education/#thecomments

Correction to previous announcement

The link to Local Schools Network in the previous announcement only takes you to the general site. The correct link to the article I Referred to is as follows.

Apologies

John

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/03/shanghai-et-al-what-the-evidence-seems-to-tell-us-about-how-to-reform-education/

Others call for a change in education governance.

Recently a report on the future of education was published by Pearson UK publishers. I have referred to it in the following article recently posted on Local Schools Network. It is clear to me the campaign has to succeed. Your help in spreading the word is vital.

Thank you.

John

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/stories-views/

Thank you from Ordinary Voices Campaign

Thanks for your support in signing up. Since beginning this campaign, which was never going to be a quick affair, the litany of abuse to our children's educational future and examples of damage to the education system increases day-by-day. It isn't that all politicians are willful in their policy involvement (though some may be). Rather, it is because the political cycle of change is too short to ensure that education reform is thoroughly researched, properly trialled and effective over time. The story below encapsulates just how the effects of short-term political ploicy making and cahnge can impact negatively on the lives of ordinary young people.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/02/half-way-through-course-midlands-academy-drops-some-gcse-subjects

Thank you again and please keep spreading the word.

Kind regards

JM

Share this petition

Help this petition to reach more signatures.

How to promote a petition?

• Share the petition on your Facebook wall and in groups related to the topic of your petition.
• Contact your friends
  1. Write a message where you explain why you have signed this petition, since people are more likely to sign it if they understand how important the topic is.
  2. Copy and paste the web address of the petition into your message.
  3. Send the message using email, SMS, Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Skype, Instagram and LinkedIn.