Has the government got time before the general election to force through the transfer of a large comprehensive in central Norwich to an academy trust chaired by a close associate of the academies minister?
This question hangs over the Hewett school after Lord Nash, the minister, wrote to the foundation that holds the site’s freehold saying the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, was minded to use legislation to enforce its conversion to academy status. This was “with a view” to it joining the Inspiration Trust, wrote Nash, referring to the academy chain headed by Sir Theodore Agnew.
Agnew, a Department for Education non-executive director, also chairs the DfE’s academies board, reporting to Nash. Last year, Agnew was briefly a director of Future Academies, the trust which Nash runs as chair.
As we reported last month, Norfolk county council was furious when Nash vetoed its plans to appoint a new board to the Hewett, ignoring the authority’s proposals to make the school the centre of a non-academy “learning village” on the site. Now the council has told the DfE it intends to seek a judicial review, partly on the grounds that the department has not consulted properly on its plans. Some 800 people have signed a petition against academy status.
A DfE spokeswoman says: “Ofsted’s recent report on the Hewett school could not be clearer that immediate change is needed. That is why we have appointed an interim executive board that we believe can turn things around. We are also consulting on issuing an academy order as we think that is the best way ahead.”
But with government departments winding down on 30 March for pre-election purdah, Robert Kelsall, of the National Association of Head Teachers, says he thinks the DfE might struggle to push the transfer through in the event of a legal challenge. We shall see.
Brief history of decision on school conversion
Meanwhile, concerns have been raised about the level of analysis the DfE carries out before choosing academy sponsors after campaigners fighting another forced conversion prised information about the process out of the government.
Emma Hatt, a parent at Twydall primary in Gillingham, Kent, asked the DfE for the research it had done in identifying the Thinking Schools Academy Trust (TSAT) as its choice to take over this large school, which has specialist provision for pupils with special needs.
Last month, governors agreed to reject TSAT as sponsor, after consulting parents and the community and finding 89% were opposed. Two days earlier, Nash had written to them asking them to vote in favour of TSAT, and saying they could be replaced with a DfE-appointed board.
Hatt’s freedom of information request yielded three brief emails and a one-sentence account of a meeting between the DfE academy broker, Calvin Pike, and the school’s leadership team, as guiding the DfE’s choice. Hatt says: “I am incredulous that they can be basing this decision on a few emails.”
A DfE spokeswoman says the department’s planning for the choosing of TSAT was largely done through interviews and verbal discussions. She adds: “The governing body has already voted to become an academy and has taken almost a year to vote on a potential sponsor. We are considering the best long-term solution for the children.”
So, what curriculum level are we at now?
It is still unclear how the government is to replace the “levels” system by which primary pupils’ progress was assessed. As we reported in January, serious concerns were raised with ministers about proposals to replace England’s national curriculum levels with a new structure of “performance descriptors”.
Now the department has published the response to the consultation on its plans: 69% of consultees said the new descriptors were unclear. The DfE says it would work with a new “commission” to respond to the concerns raised by September, when the system is to be introduced. The commission will hold its first meeting today, and should report by July.
The removal of national curriculum levels has been in the offing since December 2011. Exactly what would replace them has been a mystery for most of that time.
Still, there was praise for the DfE from influential teacher-blogger Michael Tidd, who welcomed the fact that the department might rethink its plans.
Ofsted embroiled in row with parents
Did Ofsted ignore concerns about children’s safety and a decline in provision for pupils’ special needs raised by parents and a teacher at a school? Education Guardian has seen emails and letters sent to the inspectorate by five parents and a teacher at Bisham school in Windsor and Maidenhead in advance of the school’s inspection, in January. The school has had a high staff turnover since an Ofsted report in November placed it in special measures and prompted the local authority to remove its headteacher, Jim Cooke.
In January, three parents and the teacher complained that the school’s provision for special needs had declined since November. And regarding the safety of children, the teacher wrote: “Parents have been able to remove their children from the site without being challenged because the ever-changing pool of supply teachers do not know who should or should not be on site.”
One parent wrote: “I have concerns about my child’s safety and wellbeing.” Ofsted’s latest report makes no mention of these complaints, though it does say: “With so many new staff, it is essential that … systems are established to ensure pupils’ safety at all times.”
In a letter to Ofsted, Russell Jones, a former chair of governors at Bisham, complained that the inspectorate had ignored parents’ concerns.
Ofsted says: “We placed this school in special measures late last year and found [in January] that there had been no notable progress against most of the points of improvement which we identified. We had concerns about special educational needs provision late last year and that is still an issue.”
Jones is still challenging Ofsted’s report with the inspectorate.
