Suffolk County Council failed to scrutinise Andrea Hill's expensive US Trips paid for by BT

Andrea Hill former
Suffolk CEO

Time was when this blog mentioned Andrea Hill (former CEO of Suffolk County Council) in virtually every post.  Thankfully those days are gone but a tweet from @publicwatcher made me wonder if we have all been so pleased to see the back of her that we have turned a blind eye towards those who were supposed to hold her account.

After all, one of these people, Jeremy Pembroke, is wandering around the County in a chain as Vice-Chairman of the Council and will next year be Chairman. Eight of them are still sat in the Cabinet. Even the "new" leader Mark Bee was Chair of the Scrutiny Committee and cannot escape from responsibility.

The link points to an FOI request that was first submitted on 1 June. Only today Suffolk County Council have finally responded to it. The original FOI requested:

Dear Suffolk County Council, 

Your CEO is on record stating that her trip to America was funded by BT. 

If your CEO is correct and BT did in fact pay all her costs, Iwould like any and all information regarding Suffolk County Council's scrutiny of her American trip in light of her business negotiations with BT and the fact that BT are on record stating

“Given the Public Sector rules on acceptance of hospitality and the reputation and benefits of the programme, clients pay their own flights and accommodation costs."

Today Suffolk County Council have finally confirmed that they have no information. So nobody did scrutinise Andrea Hill's BT funded trips abroad. Despite the huge multi million pound contract with BT which is still ongoing.

Hill may have gone but the BT contract and many of the people who were supposed to be holding her to account are still around. The Audit Committee should take a serious look at this case and make sure that sufficient regulation and scrutiny is in place to ensure that this kind of situation does not arise again and to hold those to account who did nothing during the previous CEO's troubled reign.

Suffolk CC "forgets" to invite anyone to Stradbroke Budget Consultation Meeting

Last night 12 people turned up to Suffolk County Council's budget consultation meeting in Stradbroke. It was amazing it was that many people. You see having gone to the trouble of holding the meeting as part of the "we are listening" exercise there was just one small thing they forgot to do. Invite anyone to attend.

Except that claim they did invite people and according to Head of Communications Simon Higgins the fact I didn't know about the meeting until lunchtime today is my fault for not reading to the end of this press release.

In the end the protestations of Suffolk County Council began to sound like the scene in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the protagonist Arthur Dent is laying in front of a bulldozer about to demolish his house. A Council official is claiming the plans were displayed for nine months in the planning office but Dent poins out they were in the cellar, in a filing cabinet in a toilet with a warning sign saying "beware of the leopard".

As Dent says "you had not exactly gone out of your way to draw attention to them have you, like telling anyone".



Inexplicably Cllr Guy McGregor had failed to even mention this meeting was taking place when he gave his report to Stradbroke Parish Council last week. It was confirmed by a District Councillor present that he also did not mention it at at least two other parish council meetings.

Eventually Cllr Guy McGregor offered to hold another meeting and actually tell people when it was taking place.

Mid Suffolk District Council were also part of this meeting (having been invited yesterday) and the presentation they gave put the County Council to shame as they actually seemed to be interested in a genuine conversation and brought along a knowledgable senior officer.

It is a shame they did not just apologise at the start and just agree to hold another meeting. I hope the next meeting is more of a success. It beggars belief that an organisation that tells us it has "corporate overheads" of more then £60 million a year seems unable to organise a meeting.

There was actually some interesting discussion at the meeting about care homes, education and housing in particular and it is certainly a step forward that the meeting was held at all.  You can read my Live Tweets on Wikisuffolk.

Who is going to run the Ixworth (and Stanton) Free School?

This week I have detailed considerable political interference in the Thurston consultation culminating in the "quid pro quo" in which Matthew Hancock traded the Thurston Middle schools for a Free School as if they were properties on the Monopoly board.

This "deal" has resulted in a "parent group" being set up to promote the free school. On a practical level it is clear that the Head of Ixwoth Middle, Glenice Francis is leading this group with political direction from Matthew Hancock MP and Cllr Joanna Spicer.

Even if you think the free school is a great idea I think you should be concerned about the decision making process. I have now published the complete text of the Freedom of Information Act response I got from Suffolk County Council on Wikisuffolk. What strikes me in reading it is the lack of consideration - even mention - for the children and their teachers. Children and teachers are what make a school and any decision making that fails to consider them is unlikely to make the right decisions.

So if what I have disclosed is right we are likely to see a free school open, probably at Ixworth and I will come to the location in a minute. Personally I remain to be convinced the the school is the right solution but if it goes ahead like all schools I wish it well and want to see it succeed for the benefit of the children who end up going there.

I must say I find it depressing that according to Free School spokesperson Stephen Larder 33% of parents who had signed their expression of interest questionnaire would "definitely" send their children to the free school. How can they make such a decision when it is not yet clear who will run the school or pretty much anything about what it will be like?

And that this my main concern. Who exactly will be running their school? Will it be like many free schools a job that is contracted out to an educational chain who may be based hundreds of miles away? I asked the free school group this question and they replied by stating:

It is not our intention to 'let a contract' to a third party eduction provider to run the school. However, we will continually consult with parents to ensure the plan for the school is the best one for the children.

I can't say I am re-assured by this. There is plenty of wriggle room in this statement and for two reasons I expect that is what will end up happening because (a) I am unclear that the group themselves have the capacity to run a school, and (b) the DfE might insist it is done this way. We will see.

And on the location, an email from Matthew Hancock back on 15 September made it clear that the free school would be based at Ixworth and indeed that has always been my assumption. Letters from the free school even have Ixworth Middle's address on them. However in response to this Matthew Hancock has said:

“The email was sent on 15 September, before the parent group was set up. The parent group decided to push for Ixworth or Stanton, whereas my initial view had been to push for Ixworth. So the change from a proposal for Ixworth to a proposal for Ixworth or Stanton demonstrates very clearly that this is a parent led group. I was persuaded by the parent led group’s argument that they should look at both, and I back them 100%.”

Make of that what you will. My betting is that Ixworth will be the site. Indeed the group's spokesperson tells me "Most importantly the new school would serve both the local communities of Ixworth and Stanton".

And on the issue of Ixworth the group claims that as yet there is no Principal Designate but it is clear from her statement at the Ixworth consultation meeting that Glenice Francis is the front runner for this job.

From speaking to some of the parents proposing the school I can see that they are genuinely motivated by an intention to provide the best for their children and the other local children. The others involved I am less sure about. For the politicians this is a chance to put Tory policy into reality, Joanna Spicer lambasts the Tory Cabinet for not making more of the "success" of the Clare Free School. For the Head of Ixworth and others this seems as if it is "second best" to what they really want. The continuation of three tier.

This looks a very inauspicious start to me. I think if the group want the free school to be a success they will need to distance themselves from the politicians and find some leadership that believes in two tier education, and has a track record of delivering success in an 11-16 school for the benefit of the education of the children.

And if the group hand on heart think three tier would be better and this is "second best" perhaps they should decide to stand aside. Surely it would be better for the children's education to get on a bus and travel to Thurston or even the Beyton "annexe", be it shabby or not, to be taught in a school that has a track record of success and believes in what it is doing.

Beyton site described as "shabby, expensive, second best!"

I am not sure if Cllr Joanna Spicer took fellow free school advocate Toby Young's book How to Lose Friends and Alienate People on her Summer holidays to read?

Not content with making disparaging remarks about Thurston Community College she has also said of the proposed Beyton annexe site site (which is the present Beyton Middle School) "The Beyton annex is a shabby, expensive, second best!" 


Indeed she described the Thurston partnership plan in general as: "misjudged and too influenced by schools self interests"

She even threatened to actively campaign against the plans until she was able to convince Graham Newman to put more emphasis on the free school plans.

So what is this self-interest then? In the case of the Primary Schools the proposal is simply that they would continue taking children for an extra two years in years 5 and 6. In doing so they would become like pretty much every single other primary school in the country. In several cases the increase in size would help to ensure they actually survived by making them more viable. If this is "self-interest" then it is, in my view, an enlightened self-interest.

For Thurston it simply takes children two years younger in Year 7. Again like the overwhealming majority of secondary schools. The split site proposal hardly seems in the schools self-interest as I am sure it would rather invest in its existing site if it could.

I do however wonder how in touch Cllr Spicer is with school's in her division. Back in June Graham Newman reported of a conversation with her that:

She assures me that her 7 primaries are on side (which of course are a minority of the Thurston feeders) and the Middles are not wanting to fight over it. However there is concern about all the secondary capacity going to Beyton/Thurston and is wanting - for community reasons - an 11-16 school at Ixworth or Stanton.

The idea that Middle Schools "did not want a fight" has been shown to be completely untrue as they have perhaps understandably battled for survival and indeed the head teacher of Ixworth Middle will still not accept the move to two tier.

Cllr Joanna Spicer

To me the Thurston partnership schools have acted in the interests of their children and are motivated by a desire to provide as good an education as they can for them given their resources. People may question proposals such as the Beyton annexe but to suggest the motivation behind the proposals is self-interest is in my view completely wrong.

If there is self-interest it appears to be elsewhere and particularly amongst the politicians involved.

Interestingly Cllr Spicer promised in her 2009 election manifesto to:

"continue to champion and support village primary schools"

In the end she has ended up threatening to campaign against the Thurston partnership proposals supported by all of the primary schools in her division and suggesting they are acting out of self-interest. I fail to see this as championing and support.

Tomorrow I will complete my series of blogs about the freedom of information request and explore the question of just who will be running the school and where it will be located. I will also publish all of the material I received from the FOI on the Wikisuffolk website.

Revealed: The done deal on Ixworth Free School and Thurston Partnership

Michael Gove MP

Currently the Thurston partnership of schools and Suffolk County Council are consulting on their proposals for moving to two tier in the Thurston area. The proposers of the Ixworth Free School are trying to drum up the "parental interest" needed for their bid. But it appears that a decision has already been made about the future of education in Thurston. Not by teachers. Not by parents. Not by the Local Authority. But by politicians.

On 14th September there was a meeting in London with Secretary of State Michael Gove, Matthew Hancock MP, David Ruffley MP and Suffolk Education portfolio holder Graham Newman where a deal was done. Newman describes the deal in an email to a St Edmundsbury District councillor:

Cllr Graham Newman

I am aware of this, but we would not have managed to get Academy status for Ixworth and Beyton Middle schools (thus thwarting SOR) without Matt's & David's personal intervention with Michael Gove, albeit with me in the room. 

A Free School for 11-16 year olds is a quid pro quo offered by Matt to the Secretary of State, which was well received.

The wording is a bit unclear but what Newman means is Gove turned down the academy status applications made by the Middle Schools and the "quid pro quo" is the free school.

David Ruffley MP

So the County Council gets to go ahead with the school organisation review by implementing the Thurston partnership proposal and in return Gove gets to open another free school. The County Council know this will eventually mean that the Beyton annexe to Thurston becomes unviable and will have to close with the disruption that will cause but at least they will then be able to sell the site and get some money as senior officer Phil Whiffing writes:

There is route through all this.

We support the local schools preferred approach and go for a single Thurston 11-18 using Beyton. This is most affordable, quickest and pragmatic. That would allow someone, perhaps including the Cof E to bring forward a free school application for either Ixworth or Stanton. If that had support then DfE would provide the funding and a few years later Thurston could consolidate on one site and we'd get a capital receipt for Beyton.

Matthew Hancock MP

So this, basically is the plan and it appears to have already been decided. I can completely understand what Phil Whiffing is saying and I think he is really giving the best advice to make the most of a ridiculous situation caused by the failure of this Government's education policies. The fact that this is then sold to parents by the politicians as if it were the best option is a triumph of spin over reality.

The capital monies available for the free school and re-organisation should be given to the local schools to spend under the auspices of the County Council without the "strings attached" from the Government of having to set up an additional "free school". Vested interests such as closing schools and their senior staff and politicians should not be the ones driving these changes. It is the educational interests of the children that should prevail not the political will of adults.

The question is should these four men - Gove, Newman, Hancock and Ruffley - decide what happens to local schools in secret meetings or is there a better way?

Tomorrow my reports on the free school and Thurston partnership proposals continue with a look at just what was described as "shaby, expensive, second best!" and by who...

Thurston Partnership Consultation "hijacked by politicians"

Helen Wilson, Principal of
Thurston Community College

Last week I obtained quite a bit of correspondence from Suffolk County Council under the Freedom of Information Act about the proposed Ixworth Free School and the consultation on the school re-organisation review in the Thurston area.

It is worth remembering that this consultation was started by a partnership of schools in Thurston pyramid and then issued with the support of Suffolk County Council. It was started as a school led process by education professionals in the local area.

Having seen a draft of a letter to the press by Matthew Hancock MP Helen Wilson, Principal of Thurston Community College wrote in an email to Graham Newman who is Suffolk's Portfolio Holder for Education:

Having shared this with the partnership heads this afternoon (with Matthew's permission, of course), we are concerned at the potentially confrontational tone which is suggested by this letter. We feel strongly that, as education professionals (Local Authority + Headteachers) who have thought about the detail of our plan for months, our proposal and imminent consultation process should not now be high jacked by the politicians!

It is clear from the correspondence I have obtained that this is exactly what has happened. Over the course of this week I will publish all of this correspondence and write several blog posts discussing the revelations.

The level of this interference is eye-watering. Matthew Hancock MP re-writes whole chunks of the text of the consultation document. Cllr Joanna Spicer, the local county councillor for the northern part of the area including Ixworth and Stanton argues about the names of places on the front cover of the document and then goes on to make some disparaging remarks about the authors of the document:

Matthew Hancock MP
with Cllr Joanna Spicer

Page 21 - I was horrified to read the text that you have (rightly) deleted - indeed it makes it clear who wrote it. Such subjective statements could have resulted in a legal challenge in many directions ! Is the photograph selected an advertisement ?

Page 21 of the consultation document is about Thurston Community College and it is clear that these remarks are directed at Helen Wilson. The photograph referred to is a picture of the school celebrating its "outstanding" Ofsted judgement in 2010. Quite why this is referred to in this tone I have no idea. I would have thought she would want to celebrate the success of Suffolk's schools.

Photograph on p21 of the Consultation Document
referred to as "an advertisement" by Cllr Joanna Spicer

Indeed Cllr Spicer seems to have an issue with the whole idea of a school-led process:

Page 3 - is the document the "vision" of the Thurston partnership or the vision of Suffoljk County Council ?? Surely if you wish to back it you need to be more clear what the LEA's position is - indeed I believe you risk challenge by making it too much what "they" think rather than what the LEA thinks

Cllr Newman proposes changes to the consultation document to a senior SCC officer and gives this as the reason:

The object of this suggestion is to make the Free School option feel like more of an attractive and attainable objective, which I think will ensure we are fully supported by Matthew Hancock.

This level of political interference would be a concern even if this was just a County Council proposal. But it is not. This is a school-led process. The local schools referred to as "they" by Cllr Spicer. It is clear that these schools have had concerns about this interference and these concerns seem to be well supported by the evidence.

Tomorrow I will detail the "deal" done by politicians behind closed doors that appears to have already decided the future of education in the Thurston area.

Ixworth Free School Principal Designate "not in favour of two tier education"

Glenice Francis, Principal Designate of the Ixworth Free School told a packed meeting of parents at Ixworth Middle school that:

“I am not in support of 2,000-pupil schools, not in support of two tier schools, not in support of single tier secondary education."

Ms Francis who is currently the Head of Ixworth Middle School has emerged as the Principal Designate of the proposed free school. She stated at the meeting:

“I intend to stay here if it goes two-tier. I do think the children and parents need a safe pair of hands.”

The proposed Ixworth Free School is to be an 11-16 two tier school which Ms Francis told the meeting she did not support. Several of the schools proposers who will end up as Governors of the new school have also clearly said they do not support two tier education.

Whilst such an approach apparently caused cheers at the meeting it is less clear how people so deeply opposed to two tier education can effectively run a new two tier school. In order to succeed I think the school deserves a Principal and Governing Body that truly believe in two tier education not people who are always going to see it as second best.

This coming week I will be revealing a great deal of information about political interference in the Thurston consultation in a story that goes right up to the office of Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education. I will also publish all the source material on the Wikisuffolk website so people can see for themselves exactly what has happened behind the scenes.