Hackney new ‘free school’ opponents gain momentum
In favour: 'free school' proponent Andreas Wesemann
Hackney’s Save Our State Schools pressure group has called a public meeting on Wednesday 14 March at Dalston CLR James Library to launch a campaign against plans for a new free school in Hackney.
The plans, drawn up by Andreas Wesemann and the steering committee of the Hackney New School (HNS), were submitted to the Department for Education on February 23 with 502 parents’ signatures. If approved, Hackney New School would aim to open in 2013.
A similar meeting hosted by Wesemann in January 2011 has prompted a digital mud-slinging match between the two camps, some of which has played out on the Anti Academies Alliance’s (AAA) website.
In an effort to galvanise local parents and councillors against Wesemann’s plans, the AAA will be leafleting local shopping centres and approaching local parents while they take their children to school.
Wesemann’s plans, and the opposition to them, both reflect the general consensus that Hackney’s secondary schools are over-subscribed and that a new one is needed.
Save Our State Schools and other opposition campaigns are committed to maintaining local authority control over Hackney schools, while Wesemann has embraced the opportunity to come up with his own plans, prompted by Michael Gove’s push to open more free schools.
Ken Muller of the Save Our State Schools campaign said: “We’re worried that this will undermine the local education system.”
Free schools are the only new schools allowed to open under Michael Gove’s Education Bill. They are accountable to central government rather than the local authority, and have more control over their curriculum and teaching provisions.
But campaigners for local authority schools are determined to stop the school from opening, insistent that it will open the floodgates to privatisation of local schools, ‘leech’ money from existing state schools and serve only the most privileged children.
Wesemann flatly denies these claims, stressing that HNS plans are designed not to undermine the local authority, but to try a new approach.
He said: “I’m not saying [local authority schools] are not the right way. I’m saying it’s not the only way.” He added that the school will not be run for profit, will use the same admissions code as state schools, and will aim to be situated in one of Hackney’s most deprived areas.
To read more about the Hackney New School and/or register your interest go to Hackney New School.
To read more about the Save Our State Schools campaign and / or sign the petition go here.
Great to see some local people getting together for the benefit of the area. Fantastic local spirit!
Keep up the good work Hackney New School!
It seems pretty obvious that the AAA are only concerned with one thing. Protection of the NUT Union. Ken Muller is the head of the NUT in Islington. In fact he is involved in so many union based groups I wonder if he actually has time to do his day job, teaching children.
Perhaps Ken can finally come clean about all his memberships on this blog, rather than trying to manipulate the public into thinking he is a concerned and inpartial citizen.
The AAA is is the NUT by another name.
Hackney lead the way in setting up academies in the borough. They have been very successful. Take Mossbourne for example. Amazing exam results and 6x plus, over subscribed. Why not offer parents more choice about how they want to educate their children. 500 parents equals a lot of local support.
“Academy schools attain fewer good GCSEs, study shows – Local authority schools with a similar pupil intake performed better, according to new analysis of government figures”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/25/academny-schools-fewer-gcses-study
Why won’t Ken Muller come out as a senior SWP member?
Maybe people will realise that the only thing he supports is selling Trot newspapers and turning schools into ideological battlefields that fail our children
Given that that the academies generally replaced under performing LA schools, it is a over simplification of the facts, to say that LA schools out perform academies. Academies are likely to have started off with students in the lowest percentile, so clearly they will have to work harder, to make bigger gains.
Hackney academies have provided some great facilities for children and achieved some fantastic academic results. I don’t think any local politician, from any party, or any parent, would deny that.
“I don’t think any local politician, from any party, or any parent, would deny that.”
I don’t know about that, but it would appear that the Observer’s policy editor does;
“Defenders of the academy programme have argued that the comparatively poor progress should be expected in academies populated by under-achieving pupils in disadvantaged areas. However, a further breakdown of the figures by Henry Stewart, an educationalist from the anti-academies campaign group Local Schools Network, shows that the gap is similar when like-for-like academies and schools are compared. His figures show that there is still a significant gap in attainment between academies and schools that both have 40% of pupils receiving free school meals.
In the 40 academies with such an intake, 38% of pupils achieved five A* to C grade GCSEs in 2011, including English and maths, while similar schools in the rest of the state sector achieved 44%.”
Your argument isn’t stacking up.
The great smell, why do I get the impression that you are Henry Stewart, publicising your own research. If so, why are you pretending to be somebody else?
You have his press articles too fast to be anybody else. Yet more AAA people pretending they are other than who they actually are.
As Jamie says, if the LA school were transferred because of poor performance the leap that the academy students have to take will be greater.
@Andy Tyne
Maybe you’re paranoid? I’d never heard of the chap before I read the one article which is linked to at the side of this page under “Guardian related articles”.
Would you like to apologise now? Or maybe even address the issue?
Well done Jamie and Joseph, you have uncovered Ken’s big secret! As well as an experienced teacher, he is a socialist and an active member of his union. He is also a Hackney resident and a parent with kids affected by what happens to schools in the borough.
And you are?
I am a local resident and a parent, who realises that his children have little chance of getting into the local secondary school, because of massive over subscription. I fully support Hackney residents working together for the greater good of the borough.
My issue with Ken is that he choses his persona based on what he thinks will have maximum impact, neglecting his other conflicting agendas. A clear example of this is Ken being described as a concerned Hackney parent on the above link. Whoops he forgot to mention that he is the NUT leader in Islington and runs the AAA. So basically he has interviewed himself and is paid by his union to object to academies.
“My issue with Ken is that he choses his persona based on what he thinks will have maximum impact, neglecting his other conflicting agendas. A clear example of this is Ken being described as a concerned Hackney parent on the above link. Whoops he forgot to mention that he is the NUT leader in Islington and runs the AAA.”
I don’t know this Ken character but I fail to see how that is a “clear example” of “conflicting agendas”. He is resident of Hackney, a parent, a union member and he opposes Academies…so what?
Ken Muller is the Assistant Branch Secretary of the NUT in Islington. He is paid by his union to represent their views.
The NUT being against academies, he is representing that view. Not declaring that publically and portraying himself purely as a concerned parent, is a deliberate attempt to misguide the public. Particularly when written in a publication by an organisation Ken runs, a fact he also neglects to declare.
Yet another attempt by the undeserving rich to leverage privileges for themselves using other people’s money.
If these creeps want their own school – and it’s plainly obvious that the ‘free schools’ program is about serving the needs of a middle class in generally poor areas that doesn’t want its children educated with the kids from the estates – then let them finance it themselves.
As for the arguments of the school’s proponents that it’ll be a model of egalitarianism, I think I’ll form my opinions on the available evidence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/nov/14/free-schools-lower-number-deprived-pupils?intcmp=239
…[Deleted by moderator]…
#nonesofittobreaktheirchainsasthosewhobearthem
Hackney has the second worst child deprivation in the country. I spoke to a governer of the school, who told me that the school is proposed to be located in the southern part of Hackney, due to the higher levels of deprivation and lack of school places.
As a parent living in Hackney, I think their proposal has some really good points and will help to address the lack of secondary school places in this part of Hackney. Personally, I would prefer more of a religious focus but the integrated music school approach has been very successful in countries like China.
Further information on Ken Muller and Henry Stewart. Clearly using the same tactics they tried on another free school. Interesting that Stewart and his “Revolutionary Socialist Feminist” friends tried to instigate civil war in Ireland in 1975.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100078659/leftwing-nutters-go-bonkers-over-west-london-free-school/
I am a parent living in Islington, near the Hackney border. We really need a good school near there. If local parents want to get together to make this happen, then I wish them well.
Hi, I see I get a couple of mentions here. No, that previous comment wasn’t from me. I like to be open as to who I am. And its also amusing to see my political past dragged up. I’ve actually been running a business for the last 20 years and you are more likely to see my views nowadays in Management Today than in Socialist Worker.
But to the issue, does Hackney need a free school? Hackney education has been transformed over the last ten years. Yes, many of the schools are academies but – unlike the Gove model – the local authority plays a very active role, organises admissions etc. It is a model of schools working together for the benefit of the community not (to give the view of a free school advocate) ‘selfishly competing’.
There are no less than 7 secondary schools within one mile of the proposed site, so its unclear why there is a need there. And, for more data on the underperformance of schools following the academy model (there being no data on free schools yet), check out this analysis: http://bit.ly/zAigU8
Like Henry Stewart – but unlike “Jamie Duff” (or Andreas Wesemann?) – I am very happy to use my real name. I am also more than willing to be open about what qualifications I have to comment on educational matters.
In addition to masquerading as a mere “Hackney parent” yes, it is true that I am Assistant Branch Secretary of Islington National Union of Teachers branch (and since when was this a crime, even if Mr Wesemann is on record as calling the NUT a “job protection racket”?). Yes I am a socialist who believes in social justice and hence opposes the creation of “free schools” which all the available evidence shows lead to social and educational segregation to the advantage of better off families and to the edu-businesses who stand to make billions in profits out of the privatisation of education.
None of this is secret. The brilliant sleuths who claimed to have expose me probably went to all the trouble of typing my name in to Google.
Perhaps more relevant to the issue in question is that I have taught in inner London schools for 25 years, most of them just over the borough border in Islington. So when it comes to education in the inner city I can claim to have some idea of what I am talking about.
Can this be said of Andreas Wesemann, the head of the steering committee which is seeking permission from Rupert Murdoch’s good friend, Michael Gove, to establish a free school in our borough – the Hackney New School,?
His qualifications are set out (I can use Google too) on the website of his employers, Ashcombe Adviser, as follows:
“Andreas Wesemann runs the financial institutions group at Ashcombe Advisers. Recent transactions he has worked on include the acquisition of Northern Rock by Virgin Money, the acquisition of Lowell Group, the debt purchasing business, by TDR Capital, and the investment in CapQuest by TowerBrook Capital. He advised Virgin Money on its acquisition of Church House Trust Plc and the Virgin Group on the subsequent £100m investment by WL Ross.Over the past five years he has been involved in a number of the restructuring transactions in the UK banking and speciality finance sector.”
So Andreas is one of those socially-useful people who helped tip the world in to an economic slump in pursuit of a fast buck. But what does he know about running schools, unless it is about helping vulture capitalists (Oops, I’ve exposed my left wing politics again!) to make money from them?
Perhaps that is why – as he told a public meeting organised to promote HFS recently – that he and his colleagues have been getting advice from one Zenna Atkins.
Zenna Atkins, formerly Chair of Ofsted, is now the boss of Wey Education, which aims to run a for-profit chain of academies and free schools in the UK. Last December, she told the stock exchange that ‘that a market opportunity brought about by “the deconstruction of the education function within local authorities” offers a clear potential to “make a substantial return to investors …” (Guardian, 28 January).
The ‘5% profit’ she talks about making from helping to runs academies and free schools should be going towards educating our children not to line Atkins’ pocket – and our schools should be part of a democratically accountable , coherently planned education service not run like a Tesco’s Metro, competing with other local stores (or schools) and sometimes forcing them to close.
That is why free schools should be kept out of Hackney. That is why should oppose Hackney Free School.
Ken, you seem a bit tense. Maybe you should take a chill pill!
I’m not entirely sure why you think it necessary to copy somebody CV onto the comments page. Perhaps you just have issues with people who work for a living?
On the contrary, Andy, it’s entirely pertinent that Mr Wesemann’s professional background be explored; he is, after all, intending to spend public money, so surely it’s only reasonable that he be subjected to public scrutiny? In any case, having linked to a blog piece regarding Ken Muller it’s a little rich calling people to task for doing a little digging, don’t you think?
Personally, I think there’s sufficient evidence to suggest that the private sector, while highly proficient (and efficient) in the production of consumer goods, is a poor custodian of taxpayers’ money when drafted in to provide public services. My suspicion is that the profit motive (and its attendant absence of commitment to social justice) is obstructive to high quality public services, which is why there is an almost endless supply of horror stories about PFI and ‘work programme’ deals gone wrong. So, there you go, I’m fundamentally opposed to the provision of public services by the private-sector; and not merely because it makes for bad morals but, rather, because it often makes for bad economics.
That’s why, you see, it’s important that readers are aware of how, when not referring to trade unionists as “medieval”, Mr Wesemann makes a living.
Perhaps one might argue that if Mr Wesemann were a bin-man or office administrator there would be little chance of a conflict of interest between his ‘day job’ and his desire to set up his own school at taxpayers’ expense. The thing is, though, Mr Wesemann isn’t a bin-man, nor is he an office administrator. In fact, though I’m sure it’s merely a coincidence, Mr Wesemann is a financial services professional with extensive experience of helping the private-sector to acquire publicly owned assets and obtain lucrative public sector contracts.
I’d hardly say that it’s irrelevant, therefore, that Mr Wesemann was involved in the “acquisition of Northern Rock by Virgin Money”, a deal that resulted in a loss of £400-650 million for taxpayers; nor is it inconsequential that, while at Quayle Monroe, he helped Virgin Healthcare – and this is a direct quote – “take advantage of the shake-up of healthcare provision in the UK”.
To give you a broader sense of Quayle Monroe’s ‘interests’ in education, it’s also worth noting that, back in 2006, they “invested equity in Argyll & Bute schools project” on behalf of PFI Infrastructure Company Plc. This was part of a deal that, over the 30-year life of the agreement, will cost taxpayers £370.885m – for buildings worth £87.573m.
Now, far be it from me to suggest that Mr Wesemann’s interest in opening his own taxpayer-funded school in Hackney is connected in any way to his former employer’s interest in making a profit from the Private Finance Initiative for schools or his professional interest in helping the private sector acquire public assets and obtain lucrative, taxpayer-financed health care contracts, but nor are those facts irrelevant.
Quite apart from whether ‘free schools’ represent the beginning of some nightmarish, private-sector conspiracy to profit from the education of our children, Mr Wesemann’s credentials strongly indicate a bias in favour of private-sector involvement in the provision of public services and, by extension, an adherence to a particular kind of economic and political model, which may be incompatible with the kind of education system we, as taxpayers, want to see. Given these concerns, it would be remiss of those who believe in a publicly-owned and publicly-accountable education system not to raise legitimate concerns about the motivations and suitability of somebody with Mr Wesemann’s professional background in seeking to establish a school using taxpayers’ money.
http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2012/01/exclusive-hackney-heroine-joins-free-school-advisory-board-to-get-more-ethnic-minorities-involved/
http://www.quaylemunro.com/transactions/virgin-healthcare.html
http://www.pfiplc.com/print/portfolio.html
http://www.dunoon-observer.com/index.php/news/past-stories-covered-in-cowal-and-argyll/715–pfi-value-for-money
Ken, (or whoever you want to call yourself today)
I think your comments about others give more away about yourself than they do about them.
Fundamentally, you cannot believe that a group of people would want to get together to do something positive, for the area in which they live. I suspect that this is because, this type of action is so far beyond something that you would do, you cannot possibly perceive why somebody else would do it, other than for personal gain.
If the HNS group were intent on making profit from tax payers money, why are they trying to open a small school and not a large one. Perhaps because this is not about money, it is about educating young boys and girls to allow them the freedom and opportunities to achieve whatever they would like out of life.
As noted above, you have consistently misrepresented yourself and you are being paid to publicise the views of your union.
Even if I were Ken Muller, or a teacher, or an NUT member, which I’m not, it wouldn’t invalidate any of the concerns I’ve expressed or facts I’ve provided, none of which you’ve sought to refute.
Now, I can understand why people with dubious economic and political motives might want to run a ‘free school’ but, as a taxpayer and Hackney resident, I don’t have to like it; in fact, though this may come as shock to you, I’m even allowed to make the case against it, which I’ve done and you’ve failed to respond to.
As for people getting “together to do something positive”, we did that when we created the very education system that Mr Wesemann and his public schoolboy chums in government are seeking to undermine with the ‘free schools’ programme. In fact, the people who are expressing concerns about this dubious venture are those trying to keep alive the spirit of universalism and equality of opportunity by repelling the the insidious influence of the private-sector from the provision of public goods.
By all means, set your own school up; just don’t do it with my money.
Sorry, Andy. Much as it might further disturb your paranoid, McCarthyite mind, I am not Spirit
Leveller – much as I share the sentiments he or she expresses. Scarey, isn’t it, that there is more than one person in Hackney who is prepared to question the motives of at least some of the people wanting to turn our state school system in to a dog eats dog free market open to exploitation by edu-business? (It reminds me of when Mrs Merton asked Debbie Mcgee: “So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniel?”). Nor do I get paid by the NUT to anything. I carry out my union responsibilities representing teachers, mostly in my own time, for nothing. Once again, scarey, isn’t it?
I would have thought that most teachers would be working at 11:30 am, or does giving dodgy history lessons over the internet class as union activity.
Andy. Get a life.
Still not teaching then!
My god! Is Andy Tyne at it again – accusing everybody of being somebody else? A few days ago I was supposed to be Henry Stewart. Does he have any actual points to make?
If you operate under a pseudonym, one can only assume that you have something to hide from people!
As I said before, Andy: Get a life.
Spirit leveller seems to lose track of the fact that it is the middle class who pay most of the tax. So to say they should finance their own school if that is what they want, and then to claim that taxpayers dont want free schools is somewhat inconsistent.
I dont know how much tax Mr Leveller pays, but to claim all the tax is “his” money is probably an exaggeration – the tax pot is distributed by the political process, and that is exactly what the debate is about. To lock the funds into a system that was voted in by a previous cohot of voters potentially ignores the wishes of the present coohot.
The Guardian are published the following story today (March 15):
“Devon NHS children’s services set for privatisation…Devon and Devon county council have shortlisted bids led by two private, profit-making companies – Serco and Virgin Care – to provide frontline services for children across the county…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/devon-nhs-childrens-services-privatisation
and here’s what Andreas Weseman, the man behind Hackney’s proposed ‘free school’, was quoted as saying in March 2010 after he’d helped manage the purchase of Assura Medical Limited for Virgin Healthcare (note, they’ve now changed their name to ‘Virgin Care’, probably so as not to arouse suspicion about their intentions to grab NHS contracts):
“Quayle Munro is delighted to have advised Virgin on its investment in AML. Virgin Healthcare is ideally positioned to take advantage of the shake-up of healthcare provision in the UK…and we are confident that it will develop into a major force in the UK healthcare sector in coming years.”
http://www.quaylemunro.com/transactions/virgin-healthcare.html
If you don’t want OUR education system to go the same way as OUR National Health Service, then say NO to the privatisation of education, and #notohackneyfreeschool
Del, perhaps you’d like to point out where I “claim[ed] that taxpayers don’t want free schools”? I think what you’ll find is, that I’ve advanced arguments against ‘free schools’ and expressed *my* desire not to finance them.
Now to the substantive point regarding taxation.
Firstly, it really depends of what your definition of middle class is. However, even if we apply your evidently broad definition and accept that the middle class are the largest contributors of income tax (it’s important to remember that revenues also comprise 31% regressive taxes, such as V.A.T), that doesn’t give them the right, which you appear to be advocating, to expect hypothecation of tax revenues for their specific needs.
Also, when you say “it is the middle class who pay most of the tax. So to say they should finance their own school if that is what they want, and then to claim that taxpayers don’t want free schools is somewhat inconsistent” you appear to be erroneously conflating the group who contribute the most in tax revenues with largest number of taxpayers, which cannot be correct since that larger proportion of tax revenues comprises progressive taxes. This should – by definition – mean that there is an inverse relationship between the amount a social class contributes and its overall head count. Therefore, if the middle class contribute more in taxes, then they ought to be smaller in numbers. You can’t have it both ways.
It is, therefore, perfectly consistent to state that ‘the middle class should finance their own schools if they want to because the majority of taxpayers don’t want them’ (on the proviso that the majority of non-middle class groups do not want ‘free schools’). However, it’s a moot because, as I noted from the outset, I have never “claim[ed] that taxpayers don’t want free schools”. In fact, I suspect that most taxpayers probably don’t even know what ‘free schools’ are; though, of course, this doesn’t make ‘free schools’ any less corrosive to the principles of universalism and equality of opportunity or any more publicly accountable.
We’re all taxpayers and we all deserve a ‘say’ in how that money is spent. You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that just because one group contributes more to revenues they ought be entitled to a greater claim on how those revenues are distributed. You’ll be advocating additional votes for home-owners next!
In any case, instead of incorrectly attributing quotes to me and generally failing to understand how taxation works, why don’t you try addressing head on some of the concerns I’ve raised about Mr Weseman and his record on privatising everything in sight?
Spirit leveller
I did not quote you – I paraphased some of the comments you were making. I apologise – you did not say “taxpayers did not want free schools”.
You were saying that “rich” “creeps” (also likely to be taxpayers and likely to be saddled with the tax burden) should fund “free schools” themselves instead of using “other peoples money” and not out of your money.
I am saying once the money is in the tax pot it is the governments money – not yours, or anyone elses.
Nor am I suggesting that one group should get more say than than another as a result of a bigger financial contribution – although the progressive system puts a vastly greater load on the people who are presumably the people looking to access the free schools.
I am saying the distribution of the pot is a political process and all parties are entitled to lobby etc to get it distributed consistent with their values.
Your desire to have the pot applied to one system to the exclusion of another system is clear.
However a coalition of parties have formed a govt that has decided to implement a mix of the two – Mr Weseman has a right to lobby that his business be a provider of these services, as you have the right to lobby that the local authority does.
Except, of course, that my ‘lobbying’ is driven be a commitment to universalism and equality of opportunity – I don’t stand to gain personally from the promotion of my views – whereas Mr Weseman’s actions are driven by the profit motive and a belief in the superiority of the private sector and market solutions in the provision of public services.
Your central point that my “desire to have the pot applied to one system to the exclusion of another system is clear” is, however, correct. I’ve always believed in putting people before profit. Can Mr Weseman say the same?
probably not, – however I would say you are being disingeous if you said that living in a world that perfectly fits your idealogy is not a personal benefit to you. Albeit the benefit may not be financial, but it well could be.
That said, having ” the pot applied to one system to the exclusion of another system ” is not the same as “putting people before profit” if your aversion to profit disallows an outcomes that a group of people obviously are keen on.
More accurately you believe in putting your beliefs before the desires of others with respect to public provision of goods and service, particularly if providing those goods and service involves a profit.
If there is a demonstrated non-political reason why a free school should not be publicly funded such as the incumbant system would collapse if 5%(10%?, 20%?, 50%?) of students opted into free schools and free schools could not pick up the slack, or if free school blatantly excluded people by gender or race, or cost 2x what the incumbant system cost, then there is a valid reason why people who support free schools should have to fund them themselves.
Once again, perhaps you’d like to point out where I’ve made the case for a ‘world that perfectly fits my ideology’? Instead of my normative ‘conception of the good’, my opposition has been rooted in evidenced-based concerns about likely impact for children and taxpayers of the privatisation of education.
You’ll note from one of my earlier posts, for example, the story I provided regarding Qualye Munro (Mr Weseman’s former employer) and their interest in PFI for schools. Back in 2006, they “invested equity in Argyll & Bute schools project” on behalf of PFI Infrastructure Company Plc. This was part of a deal that, over the 30-year life of the agreement, will cost taxpayers £370.885m – for buildings worth £87.573m. Not exactly what I’d regard as value for money for taxpayers.
As for your claim that “having ” the pot applied to one system to the exclusion of another system ” is not the same as “putting people before profit” if your aversion to profit disallows an outcomes that a group of people obviously are keen on”[sic], this will, of course, be correct in some circumstances, just not in the case of ‘free schools’.
As I have made clear, I believe that the majority of children will be (and are) disadvantaged by the persistence of a fragmented education system that allows shady private sector-types and those that don’t want their children educated with ‘the poor kids’ to monopolise public goods for their own ends. Therefore, in this instance, it’s perfectly legitimate to argue that my “desire to have the pot applied to one system to the exclusion of another system is clear” is seamlessly connected to the idea of “putting people before profit”. In any case, it must also be remembered that the system I advocate is committed to providing every child with an EQUAL opportunity to succeed – a perfectly laudable, nay essential, commitment for any liberal democracy; the ‘free-schools’ programme is the antithesis of this approach.
This takes us to your accusation that I “believe in putting…[my] beliefs before the desires of others”. This is simply not correct. I have provided a robust and coherent defence of the state education system against ‘free schools’ in general and the proposed Hackney Free School in particular. On the basis of these arguments (and the absence of convincing counter-arguments) people are entitled to make their own minds up as to whether or not I’m right. The question is, however, will the Department for Education permit a local referendum Mr Weseman’s pet project? Surely, that’s the only fair way of proceeding with such contentious matter?
I’m happy to accept the democratic will of the people of Hackney, are you?
Finally, why are only “non-political reasons” the only “valid reason why people who support free schools should have to fund them themselves”? It’s clearly a political (but also social and economic) argument that ‘free schools’ are used by some to promote (implicitly and explicitly) their free-market ideology and by others to secure unjustifiable advantages for their children using taxpayers’ money? Why are neither of these sufficient arguments (not that they are needed in case, given the economic arguments I have already advanced) against ‘free schools’?.
Here’s ‘free choice’ for you:
“Downhills Primary School’s Governing Body Sacked By Michael Gove
“The governing body of a school which opposed against plans to turn it into an academy has been sacked by the Department of Education, it has been confirmed.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/16/downhills-primary-governing-body-sacked_n_1353395.html?1331910676&just_reloaded=1
I agree totally with the need for a referendum.
However I dont think it is a first [past] the post issue – if 20% of the people said they would support free schools and 80% did not, would that be a mandate for 1/5 free schools? or none?
I believe that people have every right to “free schools” and to have them funded by the taxpayer to the same extent that people who want their kids to go the alternatives, provided it doesnt bring the whole system down and anyone who wants to go them can (subject to availablity).
You are saying that as a parent I should not have the right to choose the type of school I send my kids to, but if I do I should not get the benefit of the tax I have paid which in part funds the education system.
As you believe that free schools will implicitly and explicitly promote right wing idealogy, you must accept that the current system has the potential to promote the left’s idealogy – also using taxpayers money.
Why do you insist that people taking their kids out of the mainstream schooling and into free schools will disadvatage those left behind or create advantage for those in free schools?
How do free schools secure “advantage” – do you accept they are better?
While the splitting of resources may be problematic, schools do not represent enterprises that display indefinitely increasing economies of scale. They tend to cap out at 300-500 students. There is no reason why a couple of free schools would jeopardise the other schools, or even detract from their resourcing if they are “right sized”.
Or is your biggest worry the channelling of resources? And if it is the channelling of resources that worry you, is there a system of preventing that should that even happen?
Should you be targeting schools if you want kids to have an equal opportunity in life? School is a band aid compared to family life in determining opportunity.
Your PFI example does not compare apples with apples. The cost of the buildings at 6% spread ove thirty years gets you to a total of £190m. The PFI contract you quote also includes a hard and soft FM contract for 30 years. The number belows indicates an average of £6m (so probably ranges from £4 to £6). I would be agruing for value for money – but the comparision you are making is not not fair.
Methinks you objections are idealogical – which is fine – it is why we have politics
Spirit Leveller,
I am a curious; did you attend the meeting earlier this week at the CLR Library? If so, or if you had looked through the website for the school, or previous news clippings, you would have the answer to a great number of the generalised statements that you are applying to HNS. The vast majority, if not all, are incorrect.
I would remind you that there are a number of other people involved in this proposal, including myself. As previously mentioned by others, it is telling that you chose to comment about others, while hiding under a pseudonym. For all we know it could be Fred Goodwin preaching at us. I suspect not but the reality is that you expect people to take notice of you while you stand as judge and jury over them but are clearly not prepared to come out of hiding for fear that you are exposed. Surely the society you believe in judges everybody as equal and not one person standing in judgement of others while not allowing others to judge them?
The truth of the matter is that Mr Weisman and all the other people involved in HNS do have one common cause. To provide some great opportunities for kids that need it most. And to quote our mission statement “Provide students with access to the widest range of opportunities in life by fostering academic excellence and instilling self-belief, intellectual curiosity and responsibility towards others in society.”
Re your comments on the school being for profit. If you were at the meeting this week or did some research, you would understand that this would be illegal and that the company which is set up for the school is a “Not for profit” company. As previously mentioned by others, if we were intending to set the school up for profit, why would we chose a Labour controlled council and propose a small school? Surely we would do some research and find a Conservative controlled council, with a massive under supply of secondary places and then build the biggest school possible? Thus maximising our potential profit from the school. The answer is obvious, because this is not about making money from schooling, never has been and never will be.
The proposed sites for the school are in the south of Hackney, located in the centre of a number of council estates, where we hope the school will become the natural choice for the children that need it most. The ones whose parents do not necessarily engage with trying to find the best school for their children, in the same way that more affluent parents might. For the record, the oldest child of a parent on the steering committee is about 15 months. Some leap to believe that they would set a school up ten years in advance to school their own children, miles away from their own homes, which would no doubt remove any possibility of the child attending, with over subscription rules, as per LA schools.
Calling for a referendum, I think you completely misunderstand how governments, councils and free schools work. A free school is an academy. Hackney has lots of them already. The real telling element of the local appetite for this is that, getting on for 600 local children are signed up to go to the school. Put simply, if parents did not want this, then they would not have put their children’s names down for the school. Note that we are not saying that free schools are the answer to all education needs, we have stated on a number of occasions that we feel that they have potential to offer more variation to the education system than may be available to parents in a particular area. In our case, in general, the parents of Hackney that we have spoken to, have seen that our offer differs from what is currently available and it has struck a chord with them. Hence the number of children signed up to the school.
A lot has been said above and on the AAA website about how HNS has immoral intentions, which I feel is a poor show, when an element of society cannot believe that a group of local people want to do something positive for the children of the borough they live in. I can understand that you and others may not agree with something for whatever reason but I do not believe this gives you the right to making false statements about the people involved of the nature of the proposal.
If you wish to discuss this further please contact us through the website and I will be happy to get back to you with any answers you require.
Del,
So, now we’re getting down to brass tacks…
1)Since it would be a referendum on whether should be a ‘free school’, and not on whether the state system ought to be replaced or expanded, a simple majority would suffice.
2)I am saying that, as a parent, you have no right to expect that your children should be placed at an advantage over any other child. The state has an objective duty to ensure equality of opportunity, since, as a liberal democracy, it is philosophically committed to concept of universal rights and responsibilities.
3)Further, I am saying that, under a system that guarantees equality of opportunity, I can see no reason why any parent would need (other than for travel arrangements etc) to ‘choose’ what school to send their child to. The reality is, and this is implicit your response, that those who advocate ‘choice’ are fully aware that in a fragmented and chaotic education system it’s possible for them to secure advantages for their children (by moving in to the right catchment etc) not afforded to others. Essentially, it’s a ‘choice’ for those with social and economic capital to make it, and ‘Hobson’s Choice’ for everyone else.
4)You stated that “As you believe that free schools will implicitly and explicitly promote right wing ideology, you must accept that the current system has the potential to promote the left’s ideology – also using taxpayers money.” I do not accept this at all. The state system is a publicly owned and, therefore, publicly accountable means of educating our children; it’s as simple as that; taxpayers’ money for transparent (if not always perfect) public services. The primary motivation is to educate our children (with the exception of’ ‘faith schools’ but, then, I’d like to see a referendum on them also). The ‘free schools’ programme, on the other hand, not only lacks the structural accountability of the state sector but also allows for motive forces other than an objective desire to see children educated to propel it forwards, including profit and/or a desire to shrink the role of the state; this is overtly political in a way that the state sector could never be.
5)You asked “Why do you insist that people taking their kids out of the mainstream schooling and into free schools will disadvantage those left behind or create advantage for those in free schools?”. Please refer to point 3. The evidence of ‘clustering’ is incontrovertible.
6)You asked “How do free schools secure “advantage” – do you accept they are better?”. ‘Free-schools’, like other schools monopolised relatively well off, create an advantage not because the model is inherently superior but by attracting those students with backgrounds most conducive to academic success. That is, by affluence concentration. This phenomenon can be observed as the common denominator amongst the better state schools. The consequence, of course, is concentration of those from the backgrounds least conducive to academic success in the ‘failing’ schools.
7)“While the splitting of resources may be problematic, schools do not represent enterprises that display indefinitely increasing economies of scale. They tend to cap out at 300-500 students. There is no reason why a couple of free schools would jeopardise the other schools, or even detract from their resourcing if they are “right sized”.” I agree that the ‘free school’ wouldn’t jeopardise other schools in the locality, it would (along with all the other schools captured by those with ‘sharp elbows’) disadvantage children outside the model in general (see point 3). If advocates didn’t think the ‘right families’ would eventually be able to ‘capture’ the school, they wouldn’t be supporting the concept of ‘free schools’ in the first place. It’s plain bad faith to suggest that advocates of ‘free schools’ are concerned about the prospects of other children; the model exists to serve ‘those who can’.
8)You asked “Should you be targeting schools if you want kids to have an equal opportunity in life? School is a band aid compared to family life in determining opportunity”. Yes, and families are a function of education – see ‘associative breeding’. Education is the dynamo that drives social change. Through equal educational opportunity, we can create a truly meritocratic society in which (adjusted for those whose parents invest time in the education of their children at home an anomaly that would be smoothed out by meritocracy) it is possible to look at person’s status in society and say with a reasonable degree of confidence that their achievements reflect their talents and willingness to work, not their economic and social endowments. Now, of course, meritocracy by no means equates to fairness – it’s possible to create a meritocratic society that is socially unjust (though, that’s a debate for another time) – but it’s one of the components of a fair society. The corrosive influence of ‘free schools’ and the motive force of self-interest that drives their development runs counter to that philosophy and, therefore, I oppose them. Perhaps this is what you mean by ideology? There’s nothing wrong with ideology, as long as it’s internally consistent, which I believe the arguments I’ve presented against ‘free schools’ are.
9)As for the PFI example, even your generous estimates still imply poor value for money. In any case, the example is an illustrative one. The money that will go towards lining the pockets of the PFI Infrastructure Company Plc shareholders will not be going to provide educational resources for future generations of children on Argyll and Bute, demonstrating clearly that, where the influence of the private-sector is to be found in the provision of education, the needs of our children will always be subordinate to the desire to turn a profit.
The educational performance at downhills is what you would prefer for Hackney?
An academy might not be the answer. But the question only arises by 10 years of kids being sold down the shitter.
Why weren’t the teachers welcoming change with open arms – clearly what they were doing wasn’t working. You would hope that they would be looking for something, anything that did.
Gove could have consulted about what to do, and perhaps should have. But 10 years is a long time for haringay to get it sorted and they failed. What is there left to talk about? The wonderful model in place?
The funding comes central govt, if they did not change things they should have turned off the tap.
Brass tacks indeed.
You want me to educate my kids to the lowest common denominator because anything else is unfair.
Well that is not going to happen. If the school system advocated by you wont educate my kids to a suitable standard of literacy, numeracy, and to give them the skills they need to thrive in the world I will teach them myself.
There is no way that if my kids can read by the time they are four, that I am going to accept they come out of the machine at 18 with a reading age of 12 simply because they live in a borough where people like you want to limit them because of an ideological view that says having parents who value real education is an unfair advantage.
Dear Mr Tetlow,
Since you’ve argued that the “The vast majority, if not all [of my arguments against Hackney’s proposed ‘free school’], are incorrect”, I suppose I ought to address you points one by one.
However, before we proceed, a point on your comment that “it is telling that you chose to comment about others, while hiding under a pseudonym.” I am a thirty-year-old, married man from North Hackney. I have no children. I am not a teacher and, therefore, not a member of a teaching union. If I have made any factually incorrect statements, I will withdraw them. In terms of judging others, I think you’ll find what I’ve done is expose Mr Weseman for what he is – a man who makes a living by helping the private sector to gobble up hitherto publicly owned assets (I’ve provided a fairly watertight case on this matter). I haven’t attempted to smear Mr Weseman but merely sought to highlight what it is about him and, by extension, the ‘free schools’ programme that I find so unpalatable. So long as I do not make offensive comments, which the moderator would not tolerate in any case, I am entitled to a private life and, therefore, anonymity on this forum.
You argued that “The truth of the matter is that Mr Weisman and all the other people involved in HNS do have one common cause. To provide some great opportunities for kids that need it most. And to quote our mission statement “Provide students with access to the widest range of opportunities in life by fostering academic excellence and instilling self-belief, intellectual curiosity and responsibility towards others in society.[sic]”.” Even if I were to accept this, and I am extremely sceptical about the supposed ‘altruism’ driving the ‘free-schoolers’, I believe that the proposed school, and ‘free-schools’ in general will lead to a whole range of negative externalities not intended by even their most benign advocates (please see my previous post).
You stated that “Re your comments on the school being for profit. If you were at the meeting this week or did some research, you would understand that this would be illegal and that the company which is set up for the school is a “Not for profit” company.” What Michael Gove’s underling, the Minister of State for education, Sarah Teather, has actually said – two days ago, in fact – is that “Free schools will not be making a profit during the life of this coalition.” So, the government have actually given NO COMMITMENT that ‘free schools’ will not be profit-making beyond 2015, which if your school goes ahead would be around the time, I presume, it would be opening its doors? Offhand, a future majority Tory administration will almost certainly allow such schools to be profit-making.
As for the “not for profit” nonsense, under such a model there’s nothing stopping you paying you the headmaster £300,000 at the expense of the children, so you’ll forgive me if I’m not entirely reassured. This, you will note, has been a persistent problem in housing associations, another set of entryist institutions that has presided over a growing crisis in housing while lining the pockets of their chief executives.
You asked “why would we chose a Labour controlled council and propose a small school? Surely we would do some research and find a Conservative controlled council, with a massive under supply of secondary places and then build the biggest school possible?” As you’ll note from my previous posts, the profit element is only one of my many concerns. The primary concern is that ‘free schools’ are an opportunity for ‘those who can’ – particularly affluent cliques living in deprived, urban communities – to monopolise the best of the education system for the benefit of their children. This is, in part, indicated by your own question. The question really ought to be aimed at the school’s advocates: Why *would* you want to set up your own school in Hackney when there is no shortage of places?
You stated that “A free school is an academy.” This is incorrect. Perhaps you’d like to explain the basis for this claim? Even if it were, I also have severe reservations about Academies.
When running-scared of a local referendum on the matter, you stated “The real telling element of the local appetite for this is that, getting on for 600 local children are signed up to go to the school.” No parent in their right mind would not ‘sign up’ when somebody asked them if they wanted a nice, new school. Perhaps you’d like to provide the Hackney Citizen with some of the materials sent out to these people or questions asked of them regarding the ‘free school’? It would be interesting to see whether they were informed of any of the concerns the school’s opponents have raised.
The reality is, your aversion to holding a local referendum is illustrative of the completely unaccountable nature of the ‘free school’ model. If you really did believe in ‘choice’, you’d be only too happy to hold this, at best, patronising exercise in pseudo-charity, at worst, private-sector land grab of education, up to the scrutiny of the local electorate.
To bring us full circle, following your initial claim that “The vast majority, if not all [of my arguments against Hackney’s proposed ‘free school’], are incorrect” you finish up by stating that “ I do not believe this gives you the right to making false statements about the people involved of the nature of the proposal”. Now, despite having disproven your first accusation (as readers can see for themselves), I would like you to state explicitly where I have ‘made false statements about the people attempting to set up a ‘free-school’ in Hackney’? The only person I’ve made any specific reference to is Andreas Weseman, the driving force behind this project, a man who I’ve clearly demonstrated:
1) is a financial services professional with extensive experience of helping the private-sector to acquire publicly owned assets and obtain lucrative public sector contracts;
2) was involved in the “acquisition of Northern Rock by Virgin Money”, a deal that resulted in a loss of £400-650 million for taxpayers;
3) helped Virgin Healthcare – and this is a direct quote by Mr Weseman – “take advantage of the shake-up of healthcare provision in the UK”.; and
4) was a employee of Quayle Munro when they “invested equity in Argyll & Bute schools project” on behalf of PFI Infrastructure Company Plc. This was part of a deal that, over the 30-year life of the agreement, will cost taxpayers £370.885m – for buildings worth £87.573m..
These statements were made in good faith. If any are incorrect, please provide proof of this and I will be only too happy to retract them.
As as final point, you mention that the proposed school is “miles away” from the homes of members of your steering committee. If this is the case, what makes your steering committee uniquely qualified to foist upon the people of Hackney ‘what’s best for them’ in the form of a ‘free school’ and why should Hackney’s residents, who’ll be the people impacted by your ‘project’, be denied a referendum on the matter by people who don’t even live in the locality?
P.S As for your offer to correspond with me privately, I’ll respectfully decline. I am more than happy to engage with you on this public forum where people will be allowed to make up their own minds regarding ‘free schools’.
Del,
I’m glad that my forensic analysis of your statements has exposed you for what you are: Another ‘can do’ parent, terrified of the kids from the estates and hiding behind false assumptions about the performance of state schools in order to justify your snobbery and desire to monopolise for your children and the rest of the ‘sharp elbowed’ set unjustifiable advantages.
It’s quite clear now, that what you really can’t stand is that there are still some of us out there who actually believe in equality of opportunity, who actually believe that any functional society should have a equal commitment to success of all children, and who are still willing to give a voice to those whose children you’ll happily stamp on the fingers of in order to give your kids a step up on the ladder.
I left a comment on the free school website last year but had no reply
Name: simon
Email/ Mobile:
Address:
First Child: private / DOB:
Second Child: private / DOB:
School features:
Comments: your survey seems pointless a very limited choice and says nothing about ”free” vs existing schools
will you claim that every completed survey is in support of your free schools and use the answers as evidence of why people want a free school?
if this is your method of operation then it doesnt impress with regard to methodology or transparency
i would like to see more state primary schools and NOT free schools
frankly from your website you say that your school will be identical to the existing state run schools so what is the point apart from to reduce democratic control?
then last month i got this (note the “your support” line)
“Dear simon,
Thank you for your interest and completing the Free School for Hackney Survey. Your feedback and support is of paramount importance to us.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to our Public Meeting on 5th of March where you’ll have the opportunity to meet the Steering Committee and find out more about the Free School for Hackney Initiative.”
seems that i was right if they count my response as “support” then no doubt they have put my two children on thier list of 600
The best description of these vultures is – BENT
although PROFITEERS also springs to mind…
Simon, how about deceitful shysters?
Hello Simon,
I think you may be mistaken about which free school this thread is about. This thread refers to Hackney New School, as does the 600 applicants. Hackney New School is proposed as a secondary school. I believe the Free School for Hackney bid was for a primary school and has not progressed to being sent to the DfE.
All applicants for Free Schools have to fill in a pre prepared form, set by the DfE. It is two sides long, which makes me think that your children are not down as officially supporting the Free School for Hackney.
Both proposals have websites and explain their different outlooks, easy to find through a search engine.
Hey HNS
I love the work your doing!!!
BoN bOn-