Warwick Mansell’s article (What happens to ‘orphan’ schools that no sponsor wants to take on?, 7 February) is welcome in highlighting the current situation regarding our school. Sadly, there seems to be a total lack of governance regarding forced academisation and no one really seems to know who is holding whom to account. It is appalling that the regional schools commissioner (RSC) does not have to engage in any consultation to determine the best fit for a school, and that multi-academy trusts (MATs) may not recognise that methods to improve standards in education are not a one-size-fits-all formula.
There is no formal right of reply to challenge forced academisation: the local authority (LA) points to the RSC, who – given the lack of detail or even existence of minutes of their meetings – appears unable to demonstrate what function they perform. And the LA ombudsman simply has nothing to do with the process. Is judicial review the only option?
The reluctance of MATs to take on schools in disrepair is understandable from a business perspective, as is why they may adopt formulaic approaches – they merely reflect what the government wants. The question is: why are schools being allowed to transfer out of the public sector in the first place? It’s increasingly likely that the government will magically find cash for our school – cash that it desperately needs (but so do many others). It is just sad that funding could never be found prior to forced academisation. And goodness only knows what will happen when there’s a new wave of grammar schools…
Rachel Ainger
Easingwold, North Yorkshire
• David Selby (Letters, 7 February) states that “each of the [secondary] schools in Kirkby accommodated almost 2,000 pupils”, and implies that consequently children would suffer by being “just a number in a large machine”. While I respect his views as a former education adviser, I would certainly challenge them with respect to one of those schools, Ruffwood. I taught there from 1970 to 1975 (and my wife attended as a pupil until 1968), and one of the most noteworthy features was its system of pastoral care based on the house system. Tutors and heads of house ensured a deep level of personal support for individual pupils, many of whom were encouraged to enter higher education at university (even Oxbridge) level despite coming from backgrounds with no such tradition, and often having arrived in the school as 11-plus “failures”. The school was seen throughout the country as a prime example of the first wave of comprehensive schools.
The sad story of what went wrong, in that school as in Knowsley generally, must be studied and lessons learned by politicians and educationists. Clearly economic deprivation is a large factor, but the 1970s were equally difficult times economically and most schools did a great job in countering their worst effects.
David Emmott
Liverpool
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
