Something very fishy going on with Haringey plans for local schools

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MrsBaldwin on January 19, 2012 at 7:36

Not sure this is so very fishy is it?

Belmont is OFSTED grade 1.  Isn't the general idea that successful schools expand (same as happened with the primary school on top of the hill past M&S in Crouch End)?  I guess by the same coin less successful ones contract?

There was a battle royal in Crouch End re this very same issue maybe 3 or 4 years ago.  The (cynically-put) general gist was this - a group of middle class parents (who'd paid a lot for their houses in order to access that particular school) were anti- the expansion as it meant that the intake/demographic of the school would broaden and it would now be able to be accessed by various lower class undesirables from the housing estate down the hill. 

So there may be some advice to be had from those N8 parents - although in the end the expansion went ahead (and no-one died and house prices remained constant). 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barry on January 29, 2012 at 16:39

Much as I dislike Mr Hole's tendency to be needlessly abrasive. (re his reference to "shouty types" takes one to know one is the all to obvious response) His comment about school places shortages hits the nail on the head.

What I would most strongly advise the parents to do is work with the Governors and the Head, and lobby your local councillors not to resist the expansion but to ensure it is probably carried out with all the issues relating to the particular school properly thought through. An expansion well carried through can enhance a school. Contact Tetherdown and Rhodes Avenue to find out how their expansions were handled.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura on January 19, 2012 at 11:05

Your analysis made me chuckle. The primary school that expanded is Coleridge and is now a 4 form entry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barry on January 29, 2012 at 16:51

I knew a number of the parents who opposed the expansion of Coleridge and concerns regarding a "social change" in the composition was NOT what worried them. They had a number of perfectly reasonable worries, some of which, albeit somewhat gracelessly, were addressed by the council  in the expansion process to good effect.

However there were some proponents of the expansion who indulged in very unpleasant ad hominum attacks on anyone who disagreed with them and who claimed that the only opposition to the move came from people with base motives rather than a concern with the welfare of children. In the event the two main leaders of this nasty  group left the area and never did send their children to Coleridge.

I have seen favourable comments on how things are at Coleridge now and it remains, despite doubling in size, an over subscribed school.

Again why not contact the Coleridge Governors to ask them their experience?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Willmore on January 19, 2012 at 11:08

Dear "Billy Hole"

If you want to take part in discussions about how to improve local schools it is important that you take the time to get your facts right.

Downhills is not in fact a "failing school". The latest OFSTED report (September 2011) says that:

 “There is a clear trend of improvement... particularly in Key Stage 1. Progress has accelerated in some year groups because after significant changes to staffing in the autumn term, the school has a core of experienced senior staff with high levels of expertise providing effective help to colleagues, which has enabled them to improve their practice…  Since the previous inspection, rigorous procedures have been implemented for tracking pupil progress. The development of these clear systems for monitoring pupils’ progress, together with well-focused support to meet the needs of pupils, is beginning to have a positive impact on pupils’ progress…  The (local) authority has provided good support and, in partnership with school leaders, tailored interventions to address the school’s needs. There has been a robust analysis of the quality of teaching and learning, which has brought about sound action planning and an improvement in target setting … school leaders can precisely identify the key strengths and areas for improvement in teaching across the school.”

I understand you are a local Conservative Party activist. So you may have noticed that the Education Secretary has now placed his plans to require the school to become an academy on hold, while OFSTED returns to the school to see if these improvements are continuing.

Casually labelling a school as failing when it isn't is a serious error of judgement, because if such a mistaken belief takes hold it can only cause undeserved problems for pupils, parents and teachers. Of course, you are quite entitled to to argue in favour of the Government's academy programme, but please try to exercise some personal responsibility in so doing.

Thanks.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Willmore on January 19, 2012 at 12:23

So the facts are: first, the school is not failing, and secondly, it has never been judged as failing in the past - it was held to require improvement, which is not the same thing. As an analogy, you need to improve the quality of your arguments, as demonstrated by your posts above, but since I don't know you I would hesitate on this basis alone to label you as a failure.

This is an issue that deserves better than playground sarcasm, because it drastically affects the lives of hundreds of pupils and their families. That is why I think that whatever your opinion on requiring schools to adopt academy status, you should do your research before posting. The OFSTED reports are published online, so there is no good reason not to read them.

My previous experience on this issue was as a governor of of a primary school in Haringey that really was failing. After a highly critical OFSTED report, the local authority appointed me and two other colleagues to the governing body to help sort out the mess. We appointed a new Head, and over the course of about a year every teacher in the school was replaced, major building improvements were made, the curriculum was overhauled and so on. The local authority was actually very helpful in supporting this work and it was a success.  

So it can be done, and it is not obvious that the best way to rescue even schools that really are failing (unlike Downhills) is to require them to become academies, rather than for the local authority to support effective governors in ensuring that a strong change programme is adopted and put into practice. You can certainly make that case, but you should try to do so on the basis of reasoned argument and accurate research.

Thanks again.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 19, 2012 at 12:24

Ian, we can all hope that one day Will Hoyle will pay attention to evidence. And even show some curiosity about the reasons people disagree with his own views. But now, we are simply dismissed as "shouty types".

It's worrying that so many people - perhaps including Mr Hoyle or perhaps not - don't yet grasp that Michael Gove's aim is privatisation - commercial chains taking over publicly-run schools.

Pointing out that fact doesn't mean the discussion "has gone all political". Mr Gove's aim is political.

Unfortunately, I have some Labour Party colleagues who don't seem to understand what's happening. And who seem to think that adopting the U.S. Neocon approach to public education is just Andrew "Lord" Adonis' academy policy taken a teensy bit further. We have to try waking them up before it's too late.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Willmore on January 19, 2012 at 16:01

Interesting: Earlsmead is the school I was referring to in my earlier post. When I became a governor it had just failed its OFSTED inspection quite comprehensively. But, as I said, it was rescued by a new Head, new teachers, support from the local authority and a stronger governing body. Other colleagues who became governors at the same time as me included Alan Stanton (who made a bigger contribution to the school's recovery than I did) and a mutual friend who was then a senior official at the TUC. I hope that doesn't undermine anyone's preconceptions too much ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barry on January 29, 2012 at 17:54

I have no doubt the school will still be run by public money, but will it be run as an Academy for private profit?

Until today I had understood the answer to that was a definite "no"

But see my response and the link to the Observer above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barry on January 29, 2012 at 17:52

With reference to  Alan Stanton's "Alarmist" post it would seem that events move rapidly.

Have a look at this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/28/state-schools-priva...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 30, 2012 at 2:48

Thanks David. I missed this post. But it doesn't surprise me. I find it creepy reading, for example, the frank description by Wey Education of the:

"market opportunity brought about by the deconstruction of the education function within local authorities" and how this offers a clear potential to "make a substantial return to investors and improve education in the UK".

At the same time because these companies and other bodies are now confident enough to begin removing the curtain hiding the privatisation agenda, it's become possible to have an unambiguous public debate about the real issues. Which also means that neither my Labour colleagues nor the Liberal Democrats can keep fooling themselves any longer that this is just a teensy tweaking of Labour's academies policy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on January 19, 2012 at 17:13

What worries me is that when things go wrong with an academy who do you talk to?

MsMoore, I'm not sure there'd be much point in talking to Mr Academy himself, Sir Michael Wilshaw. He's just come from running St Bonaventure's RC in Newham (for which his knighthood) and seven years heading his Mossbourne Academy in Hackney (both secondaries) to become Ofsted Head. His Mathematics tells him that "Satisfactory x 2 = Unsatisfactory or Inadequate". His English tells him that 'Satisfactory' was always a 'false designation' which should really be 'Needs improvement fast'. He'd just love Billy Hole and re-dub him a 'Veritable Hoyle'. Try talking 'value-added' to Sir Michael and he'll fix you with a long baleful glare (his default feature) and tell you: "I'll determine what's value added for Infants, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, State, Independent, Catholic, CofE, Jewish Free, Jewish Lubavich, Islamic, Humanist, the whole caboodle."  When Sir Michael cries, children will die in the streets - not vice versa.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page