Seckford Foundation label opponents as against "opportunity and choice for young people"

Graham Watson
Seckford
Foundation 
Director

After a huge petition was handed to Waveney MP Peter Aldous yesterday and a crowd of over 300 people at Any Questions? at Sir John Leman High School made clear the strength of feeling against the proposed Beccles Free School. The proposers, Woodbridge based private school charity the Seckford Foundation yesterday hit back angrily accusing their opponents, in a statement reminiscent of Gove's "enemies of promise" label, of being opposed to opportunity and choice:

We know people are opposed to providing young people with opportunity and choice; however the foundation believes firmly in offering all young people choices. Much of the information in circulation about the free school is inaccurate. Any petition based on this information will need to be seen in that context. 

This seems a desperate last attempt by Seckford to discredit the genuine local views from Beccles. These views were articulated recently in an article in the Beccles and Bungay Journal by local councillor and Suffolk County Council Leader Mark Bee:

In politics, I think it’s important to follow your heart and reflect the opinions of the people that elect you. As a local councillor, I’ve met and discussed the proposals with both the Seckford Foundation and the head at Sir John Leman High School.

Many of my constituents have expressed concerns about the Beccles Free School proposal. The concerns being raised are ones which I share, which is why I’ve taken the personal decision not to back the proposal. Mr Bee said that that he was behind the principle of free schools and encouraged parents, teachers and organisations to be more involved in offering education, but said that there needed to be the demand for it.

He said: “I’ve had a lot of correspondence and all apart from one or two exceptions were against it. If there is not local take up this is clearly not the place for this to happen.” Mr Bee added that he was surprised to see the initial bid given the go ahead and raised concerns about the plans to initially open in Carlton Colville, saying it was difficult to call it a ‘Beccles Free School’ if it is opened there.

Mr Bee has added his name to a petition signed by headteachers in Lowestoft and Beccles and thousands of parents and carers against the proposals.

Baroness Warsai's attempts at Any Questions? yesterday to make a similar argument to Seckford resulted in laughter from the Beccles crowd who know better than any of us not from the area what the best thing for their town and their children is.

But I expect Seckford's comments were aimed at the likes of Jeremy Rowe and others who have organised the petition. No matter that they have, in fact, devoted large parts of their lives to providing opportunity and choice for all children in Suffolk. Having visited Sir John Leman school yesterday it is clearly a place committed to nothing other than that.

The people of Beccles are not stupid and it ill serves the Woodbridge based Seckford Foundation to suggest genuine local views in Beccles are the result of mis-information. I am assuming Mr Watson made these comments before Any Questions was broadcast.

The Seckford Foundation Chairman promised in a letter to me:

We have consistently made clear that if, contrary to our understanding, the desire is not there, then we will have no wish to impose a free school on the community.

Time for Seckford to wake up and smell the coffee. Beccles doesn't want the Free School and what they are trying to do is impose it against the wishes of local people.

Have the DfE already decided to go ahead with the Beccles Free School?

An official at the DfE in London has sent an email to a Beccles resident about Beccles Free School which has led many to worry that the school is already a "done deal". The email is widely seen as completely ignoring local concerns. The final paragraph pays lip service to the "consultation" but it is clear from the tone of the rest of the email that the DfE seem determined to press on with "extending parental choice". The full email is shown below:

Thank you for your email of 23 January. I am replying as I work on Free Schools in Suffolk. I apologise for the delay in replying. It is clear that you feel very strongly about the proposed Free School, but Beccles is a good example of what the Free Schools programme is about: creating choice and driving up educational standards in the local area. 

Educational standards in Suffolk are below the national average and have been for some time. 

The Beccles Group had to demonstrate evidence of demand for their proposed school to be approved to the pre-opening stage. They clearly showed that a substantial body of parents in the area want the choice of a smaller school with a core academic curriculum alongside the existing provision at Sir John Leman High School. 

Free Schools can challenge the status quo in local areas but we are committed to continuing to work with Suffolk County Council and existing schools to manage the process of extending parental choice. 

The Beccles Free School statutory consultation closed on the 28th February and the proposers will publish their consultation report shortly. The Department has also received correspondence from other groups and individuals on the proposal. Please be assured that your letter will be added to those representations. The Secretary of State will then consider carefully the consultation that has been carried out, before deciding whether to enter into a Funding Agreement (the legal contracts between the Academy Trust and the Secretary of State that effectively establishes the schools). 

Yours sincerely, 

Paula Lovitt
Free Schools Group

The email ignores the substantial body of evidence (see links at bottom) that has cast a significant doubt on the evidence of parental demand that Seckford submitted in order to get the school approved to the second stage of the process. Not least that this "demand" was collected for a school 7 miles away from the proposed initial location.

The suggestion that "educational standards in Suffolk are below the national average" is broadly true although somewhat irrelevant as this is not the case in Beccles:

The October 2011 Ofsted report for Sir John Leman says:

In summer 2011, the proportion of students gaining five GCSE grades C or above including English and mathematics was in line with the national average. The school’s assessment information predicts that current Year 11 students are on track to do better than this. Data shows that students make good progress during their time in this school.

I asked Peter Aldous to comment on this email and he denied that the decision had already been made. But the mood in the audience of Any Questions? left absolutely no doubt that Ms Lovitt's claim that:

They clearly showed that a substantial body of parents in the area want the choice of a smaller school

is just completely untrue. I have seen no "substantial" evidence of demand whatsoever and my understanding is that around 80 children from 50 families have expressed an interest in attending the free school further undermining the "evidence" that was used in order to approve the bid to the second phase.

Indeed Suffolk County Council Leader Mark Bee told the Beccles and Bungay Journal that he was surprised the bid was approved. I think the DfE need to take a step back and evaluate the evidence of demand again. If there was support back when it was collected it certainly isn't there anymore.

Flaws in evidence of demand
My Blog Post on parental demand
Consultation Submission - Ian Goodyer
Consultation Submission - Frank Joyce

Any Questions from Beccles

George Monbiot

Tonight BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? came from Sir John Leman School in Beccles. If you missed it you can catch it on Radio 4 again at 1pm on Saturday 3rd March or you can Listen Again via BBC iPlayer. After the Saturday repeat is Any Answers? 

I was lucky enough to be in the audience of around 300 who were very lively. We were fortunate to have an interesting panel with George Monbiot in great form demolishing Baroness Warsi's free school arguments calling them "privatisation of education".

Baroness Warsi

It was great that Sir John Leman Head Jeremy Rowe got to ask the question about free schools himself to massive applause from the audience.

Margaret Hodge who is MP for Barking came in with the answer to what I wanted to ask by quite rightly pointing out that what we actually need are primary school places in London not secondary school places in an area that already has an excess of places such as Suffolk.

The room was pretty much united on the Free School question with the audience incensed at Warsi's attempts to suggest that this was a parent led venture. "Not in Beccles" was the shout from many people as the room that had previously been divided in a typical left/right way was united on this issue. And again when asked who actually decides there were cries of "Gove"!

Jeremy Rowe

Even private school headteacher Anthony Seldon tempered his support for free schools with an acceptance that the Beccles proposal might not be a good idea.

But rather than reading if you really want to know what the people of Beccles think of the plans for a free school in the town, just listen!

Beccles Free School Petition of 2773 handed to MP Peter Aldous

Peter Aldous MP and Jeremy Rowe,
Head of Sir John Leman High School

Today the Head of Sir John Leman High School handed a petition with 2773 signatures opposing the Beccles Free School to local MP Peter Aldous at the School.

Peter Aldous said around 50 constituents had been in contact with him with a clear majority against the proposals. Aldous said that whilst he approved of free schools he had concerns about capacity and demand for the Beccles proposal. He told Head Teacher Jeremy Rowe. who thanked him for his involvement, that he would be writing to Lord Hill, the Education Minister this weekend with his views.

Peter Aldous also raised the concern that there had been a number of recent educational changes in Waveney and that there might be too much change at one time.

Rowe expressed the view that if the school went ahead one local school at least would end up closing within a few years and that education throughout the area would suffer resulting in less choice for parents and a poorer education for their children.

I am sure that Jeremy Rowe would like it if Peter Aldous took a stronger and clearer line opposing the free school as his rival for the Waveney Seat former Labour MP Bob Blizzard has but nevertheless it is clear that Peter Aldous is listening. I wouldn't say he had completely come off the fence but he seems to be dipping a leg over!

I hope the petition concentrates Peter's mind over the weekend and he is able to back the clear local view on this issue. Speaking to him you could almost see the internal division inside him wanting to support something that he agreed with ideologically but also understanding that on the ground, in practice, it might actually make things worse.

So is still unclear if the Free School will, despite this opposition, go ahead. Last week Seckford advertised for a Headteacher and whilst claiming they will not "impose the School" against local will they still seem to be pressing ahead and leaving the decision for the DfE. Peter Aldous suggested we might expect a decision before the end of April from the DfE.

And so for the second time in as many years Suffolk is the centre of a political storm of national interest. This time the effect of free schools on established and successful local schools. Last year it was the County Council's "new strategic direction" which tried to pursue an agenda of outsourcing local services. After a huge outcry that saw demonstrations to save libraries and school crossing patrols the then Leader of the Council had to leave followed soon by the Chief Executive.

I don't think this is as unlikely as some might think. Whilst Suffolk is seen as a mainly Conservative county in the main this is still an old-fashioned conservatism. The new market dominated neoliberalism prizing competition and choice over stability and tradition does not play well across much of the county that is still, well, conservative.

So tonight at 8pm in the town of Beccles BBC Radio 4's Any Question's will be broadcast LIVE from  Sir John Leman High school. Apparently Baroness Warsai, George Monbiot and Anthony Seldon (Head of private Wellington College) are amongst the panel members

I think it is fairly likely that there will be a question about free schools! I am lucky enough to have a ticket and am looking forward to it!

You can read all my posts about Beccles Free School.

Can Mark Bee save Sir John Leman School in his hometown of Beccles?

Cllr Mark Bee

In 1616 local tradesman Sir John Leman from Beccles "made good" and became the Lord Mayor of London. He founded the John Leman School with a bequest in his will. This was originally based in the historic Grade 1 listed "Leman House" in Ballygate now the home to the town's museum.

Last year another Beccles man "made good" when Mark Bee became the Leader of Suffolk County Council. Mark Bee is the Suffolk County councillor for Beccles and lives in the town.

Sir John Leman

In his inaugural speech back in May 2011 which I saw him deliver in person in the Council Chamber in Ipswich he said:

I am born and bred in Suffolk, my family is from Suffolk – in fact my family history can be traced back in Suffolk to 1584.

I believe I understand Suffolk and the people who live here.
Suffolk is a unique and special place. As are the people who live here.

It’s no accident that people choose to live and work here, and those that do, usually stay.

You here the phrase the Suffolk way – and I believe that is true.

The people of Suffolk have a way of approaching life.

The people of Suffolk believe in community, family, history and tradition.

I believe we have to work with those beliefs and not against them.

As one of the people who have chosen to live here (and am planning to stay) I agree with much of this. Mark went on to say that:

The people of Suffolk expect to be listened to and cared about.

and then he promised:

Practical, common sense solutions to problems based on the needs of a specific area developed with communities and partners...

We all know that what is right for Bury St Edmunds may not be right for Felixstowe and what works in Ipswich may not work in Lowestoft. And what works in urban areas may not meet the needs of Suffolk people living in our rural communities.   

Again I cannot argue with any of this. But I wonder how this fits with what is happening in Beccles with the plan for a free school there?

The historic Leman House,
original home of Sir John Leman School

Many people in Beccles don't think that they are being listened to or that their way of life is being respected. From the conversations I have had they feel much like many of us did during the attempts by the previous administration of Suffolk County Council to introduce the "new strategic direction" and close locally loved libraries and get rid of school crossing patrols in order to "do things differently".

Many people are happy with the existing Sir John Leman School and do not see the need for another school or fear it will damage the well established existing school.

Now I know that decisions on Free Schools are made by the Government in London and that Mark Bee is not yet the Mayor of London but it is certain he has influence both with the DfE and with the Seckford Foundation. In addition Suffolk County Council's own  Free Schools and Academies Policy has a "presumption of support" for free schools but no clear policy on the kind of situation that exists in Beccles where a proposed free school could damage a successful and established school. So I think the  County Council must accept some responsibility for this situation.

Jeremy Rowe the Head of Sir John Leman praised Mark Bee recently for putting his name amongst the 2733 local people to sign the petition opposing the free school:

Many thanks to Councillor Mark Bee, Leader of Suffolk County Council, who had the integrity to back Sir John Leman High School, and our students, by signing our petition. Political parties have united in their opposition to the free school.

I think there will be many in Beccles and beyond that will be hoping that Mark Bee can talk some sense into the DfE and get them to listen to local opinion. It's not the "Suffolk way" to press on regardless with plans based on ideology rather than practical need.

And with the BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? being broadcast live from Sir John Leman school this evening at 8pm the attention not only the county but the rest of the country will be on Beccles and its schools.

Free School. Free Travel.

The EADT reports today that children attending Stour Valley Community School, the new free school in Clare, are continuing to receive free bus travel from Suffolk County Council.

Suffolk County Council have a web page that has their home to school transport policy that clearly covers what is supposed to happen with transport for free schools and academies.

This states:

The general policy of the county council is that free transport is provided only for children of compulsory school age (5 years up to 16 years) who: 

• are under 8 years of age and live two miles or more from the school; 
• are 8 years of age and over and live three miles or more from the school.

Transport will normally be made available to the catchment area school or, if applicable, to a suitable school which is nearest to the pupils home....

Transport to Academies 

Where existing schools “convert” to Academy status, transport arrangements will be made in accordance with the above criteria. The catchment area of the school will be as defined by the local authority at the date of conversion. 

Transport to “Free Schools”

Free Schools, where they are established, are additional to the existing pattern of schools in an area. In the case of such schools no catchment areas are in place and therefore the local authority will provide transport to the school in accordance with the above criteria where it is the nearest school to the student’s home. (my emphasis)

So under this policy free transport would be provided to Clare for pupils living more than 3 miles from the school where Stour Valley is the nearest school. Children who live nearer to, say, Sudbury Upper School or Samuel Ward in Haverhill would not qualify.

Click on the map to make it bigger

Now apparently this policy has been challenged by the DfE and Stour Valley on a somewhat curious ground that the school's catchment area is effectively the whole country. What is particularly unfair about this claim is that Suffolk County Council is going beyond its statutory requirements under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 by adding the catchment area criteria. The law requires free transport where children:

• are between 5 and 16 years old
• are attending their nearest suitable school
• live further away from the school than the statutory walking distances (2 miles for pupils under 8, and 3 miles for those aged 8 plus)

The County Council explain their actions by suggesting it is outside of their control:

Our published policy of providing transport only to Stour Valley Community School if it is the nearest school has been challenged by the school and also by the DfE on the grounds that it does not treat the free school in the same way as other academies. 

We therefore have been required to put temporary arrangements in place for the school years 2012/13 and also for 2011/12. We have refunded families who, in the current year, were paying for their transport but who are entitled to free transport under these temporary arrangements.

They don't state who has required them to do this. Green county councillor Mark Ereira is reported saying:

"the council’s transport U-turn was blatantly unfair and accused the Government of attempting to ‘bribe’ people into free schools."

But the Head of Stour Valley Community School Christine Inchley, claimed this would continue throughout the time the students were at the school:

“All students who would previously have been within either the Samuel Ward Academy or Sudbury Upper School catchment areas, will receive free transport to SVCS. Transport will continue to be provided free of charge throughout the students’ time at Stour Valley.”

Now I must declare a personal interest here. My son attends an academy school 10 miles from where I live and we have to pay for his transport there. This is fine and we accepted this when we decided to send him there. However in identical circumstances we would get free transport to Stour Valley Community School. My son's academy school does not have a catchment area either. This is clearly completely unfair and indeed last year my son's travel increased by 20% due to the withdrawal of the Explore Card by the County Council because, apparently, they "could not afford to continue it".

With advantageous admissions arrangements, extra capital funding, free bus travel and even no Ofsted inspections for at least two years it seems the Government is determined to ensure that free schools have every advantage over established local schools however unfair that may be.

IES Breckland target Ixworth Middle in Free School battle for pupils

Today is national offer day and parents throughout the country will be getting secondary school place offers. In the normal run of things parents would be accepting the offers or if not successful perhaps considering an appeal but these are not normal times.

Due to the timescales for Free Schools parents cannot be sure they will actually be approved and open when they make secondary school applications so new free schools have a "parallel" applications process with parents expected to also apply to regular schools in case the free school doesn't open.

This makes sense for parents and children as of course they need a school place somewhere but is problematic for schools as it means they are uncertain about numbers which makes planning more difficult. However for free schools it effectively gives them a recruitment advantage over established schools.

In Suffolk so far only one Free School is confirmed to open in September 2012 - IES Breckland in Brandon. Final decisions are awaited for Beccles and Saxmundham shortly. IES Breckland have 300 school places available, 100 each for Years 7, 8 and 9 due mainly to the Middle School "transition".

IES Breckland is the first free school to be run by a profit making education provider the Swedish company with UK branch "IES". Based in Brandon which is actually a sizeable town of nearly 9000 (a similar size to Beccles) where older children currently go to Mildenhall College after Middle School some 10 miles away. Support for the secondary school is certainly strong in the Town.

What is more surprising is that IES Breckland are writing to parents as far away as Ixworth (20 miles) inviting them to apply for places when by now they will already have a place at Thurston or for year 7 and 8 children Ixworth Middle School.

You can see the letter below:
Letter to parents from IES Brandon

This can be seen in a few ways. Maybe it is dreadful opportunistic marketing part of a free for all where schools compete whatever the consequences. Maybe a dose of their own medicine for Ixworth Middle who haven't thought twice about threatening Thurston Community College. But it is a reminder, if we needed one, that things are certainly different now.

And whilst Ixworth itself is 20 miles away the Northern part of its catchment such as Barnham is equidistant for Ixworth and Brandon.

Ixworth Middle School Catchment - click to enlarge

And as for IES Breckland whilst I am not the biggest fan of outsourced school provision I have to be fair and say that at least the school is committed to offering a full curriculum as the letter says with both academic and vocational choices. The plans sound much more interesting and imaginative that the Seckford chain which appears to want to define its offering by what it doesn't offer rather than what it does.

I wish IES Breckland well. It interests me that when people in the UK hear talk of the "tough love" we seem to focus on the first word and on what the children are expected to do such as line up before class and put their hands up if they want to speak (something I as an adult have to do do in Parish Council meetings!). However it is clear the philosophy is actually based on mutual respect and footage I saw from IES schools in Sweden showed them as quite laid back and informal. In fact the children didn't wear uniforms.

But will this translate? Not sure. IES Swedish founder Barbara Bergström and board members were reported by the BBC to have been horrified recently watching Educating Essex, she commented:

How could parents ever allow their children to behave like that?

This perhaps shows a cultural difference between Sweden and the UK and it will be interesting to see how the "tutorials" and home school contracts work here.

Free Schools: 10,632 free places in Suffolk Secondary Schools

My new Free Schools Webpage shows that currently there is one free school in Suffolk (Stour Valley in Clare), one more has been approved to open (IES Breckland), two are approved to phase 2 and finished consultation awaiting final decision (Beccles and Saxmundham), one more has just submitted and application (Stour-by-Nayland) and another three (Ixworth, Fullfledge and Maharisha) are announced.

If all these schools go ahead there will be another 7 secondary schools in Suffolk. I have mentioned before that Suffolk already has free capacity in its secondary schools. In fact according to figures from the DfE there are 10,632 places free. Enough for 10 one thousand children secondary schools. And that would be quite a big school for Suffolk. 

This is as Wordblog points out nearly one in six of the available capacity. Suffolk has the 17th highest proportion of vacant spaces out of 153 local education authorities.

Now the situation is somewhat complicated by the closure of Middle Schools - indeed all but two of these bids are for schools on the site of former Middle Schools but it is clear these schools will add thousands more extra places. This is why so many of us in Suffolk just cannot understand that the DfE keep approving more and more schools we don't need.

And it gets worse. Unlike in London and other places the population of school age children is actually declining in many parts of Suffolk. Even in areas showing population growth the proportion of children is low outside the more urban areas of the County. Ironically the free schools are are planned for the rural parts of Suffolk where the greatest excess capacity and lowest population growth is.

Living in a predominantly rural area has pros and cons. On the good side it is a beautiful and unspoilt place to be but one thing you have less of is choice. You don't get to "choose" so many mobile networks as only a few might work where you live (or maybe none of them). There are fewer supermarkets. Same with schools.

To me I think it teaches us that we should make sure what we have is as good as it can be. The effect of the proposed new free schools is extremely damaging on existing schools. It stops these schools making sensible plans and choices as they had no idea how many children - and hence what budget they will have. Loss of numbers could seriously de-stabalise these schools leading at a worst case to a "spiral down" into financial and educational disaster. At best case some of these schools could lose sixth forms that the proposed 11-16 schools don't offer further weakening what is not exactly strong 16-19 provision in Suffolk.

To the DfE in London though it's too good an opportunity to miss. After all for what is relatively modest (in DfE terms) capital say £4 or £5 million they can have another free school on an old Middle School site which they get "free" from Suffolk County Council. Much cheaper than a new build or expensive school in London. And the revenue costs are essentially nil as they just move (with the pupils) away from other schools.

But for some parents too this is too good an opportunity to pass off. A small, friendly local school for free run by a minor public school with the uniform and logo. So what if it doesn't offer those nasty vocational subjects?! Impact elsewhere is ignored or some even more depressingly actually say they don't care.

Meanwhile millions of pounds of public money is wasted. Some ends up in the pockets of lawyers, consultants and PR companies. Imagine how even half this money could be spent in a planned and sensible way to benefit all children in Suffolk. The rest could perhaps be spent to provide what is actually needed. Primary school places in London and other cities not secondary places in Suffolk.

My child's primary school has a capital budget of £5 500 a year now. No that isn't a misprint. Slashed by 60% by Government cuts that have also seen the end of individual tuition money and staff facing pay freezes and pension cuts. 

It is a mad, crazy and irresponsible waste of money. "Choice" for the few at the expense of the many.

The "New Strategic Distraction" claims its first casualty

Suffolk CC's Endeavour House HQ

Last week I wrote a blog post entitled "Have Suffolk County Council brought back the New Strategic Direction?" which fellow Blogger Andrew Grant-Admason picked up on Suffolk Wordblog. This in turn was picked up yesterday in Guardian Society Daily. Creeting St Peter Lib Dem blogger Mark Valladares also wrote a post on this subject which he entitled Suffolk's New Strategic Disguise: if at first you don't succeed...

I think "New Strategic Disguise" sums it up perfectly! Yesterday it claimed its first casualty with the BBC reporting that Bramford household waste site will close in March. This site was one of several "saved" last year by being transferred to the private sector. Commenting on the closures new site owners Bolton Brothers said visits had dropped by two thirds since they took the site over:

"Without any funding from government, this project is not sustainable based on the low usage." 

Although the firm initially only charged for waste bound for landfill, Bolton Brothers had to introduce charges for wood and garden waste of £6 per car or trailer. Council's figures showed the site had previously had 90,000 visits a year, but it was heading for 30,000 a year now. Their other site in Brome near Eye will remain open at least for now.

As Mark Valladares says:

But you may be able to make a Conservative stop, but you can't necessarily make them think. And the same people who either thought that the New Strategic Direction was a good thing, or were too feckless to question it, have now concluded that, for all intents and purposes, a somewhat pared back version is still fit for purpose.

So, what are they up to now?...

I am beginning to wonder what will be left of Suffolk County Council by the May 2013 elections? The Council appear to be continuing with the policies of privatising and outsourcing as many services as they can. If this look like the new strategic direction, smells like the new strategic direction maybe it is the new strategic direction!

Call for Seckford "not to impose" Beccles Free School

Ian Goodyer one of the people behind the 2733 signature petition opposing Beccles Free School has written to Secretary of State Michael Gove and the Seckford Foundation urging Seckford to withdraw the proposal:

The Seckford Foundation claims it has no desire to impose a free school on Beccles. Given the clear and unambiguous rejection of their plans by local people, I call upon the Seckford Foundation to withdraw its proposal and allow us to get on with improving the lives of our children in genuinely useful and innovative ways.

This is clearly a reference to what Seckford's Chairman Roger Finbow said to me in his email distancing Seckford from Beccles Free School proposer Tony Callaghan:

We have consistently made clear that if, contrary to our understanding, the desire is not there, then we will have no wish to impose a free school on the community.

Seckford have also said similar things to other people leading some to suggest that they were leaving themselves an "exit strategy" but last week they placed adverts for a Headteacher for Beccles as well as Saxmundham and a Principal to oversee their whole free school chain.

Goodyear talks in his letter about how the signatures were collected and of a widespread feeling of anger and anxiety locally:

The vast majority of signatures were collected directly and in person, by, for instance: standing in the street, speaking with people face-to-face; going from door to door and discussing the issue with neighbours; raising the petition among workmates and colleagues in a variety of venues etc. I have stood for several Saturdays in a row in Beccles town centre, in all weathers, and can personally attest to the deep and widespread anger and anxiety caused by the free school proposal, as well as the profound loyalty and respect shown by local people towards our existing high schools (especially Sir John Leman).

He also mentions the number of young people who have signed the petition:

It is notable that over 700 under-18s signed the petition; these are people most directly affected by the Seckford Foundation's plans. In its consultation material, the Seckford Foundation talks about the need to develop young people as leaders, but I believe the number of youngsters who have signed the petition, and the dedication and courage shown by those who took it round their friends and fellow students, shows how motivated our children already are and how willing they are to lead by example.

And he contrasts the clear and strongly worded petitions with the vague words in the "expressions of interest" advanced by Seckford to demonstrate "demand" for the school.

Unlike the Seckford Foundation's purported '513 expressions of interest' (a figure I dispute in my main submission), every single one of the 2733 people who have signed the petition so far have agreed with an utterly unequivocal demand to 'Say NO to Beccles Free School' (see attached petition). It is absolutely certain that many more would sign if given the chance.

It will be interesting to see how Seckford respond or if they do. If they don't then the DfE will have to make the decision and we will see if the Government's ideological intransigence will persevere over local opposition.

Full text of Ian Goodyer's letter

2733 sign petition opposing Beccles Free School

As the statutory consultation on the Beccles Free School proposal closed it was revealed that a total of 2016 adults have signed the above petition opposing the Seckford Foundation's proposed Free School. In addition 717 under 18s have signed. This is more than five times the 513 people Seckford claim originally expressed an interest in the School.

The petition shows the strength of feeling in the town against the free school which would almost certainly see damage to the established Sir John Leman High School possibly affecting the viability of its sixth form. In the longer term it is hard to see that there is really room for two secondary schools in a town the size of Beccles.

What support there was for the Beccles Free School bid seemed to rapidly disappear when Seckford Foundation announced the school would open for two years 7 miles away in Carlton Coleville. This despite the original proposers pitching the free school as easing the transition between three tier and two tier by allowing children to stay at the Middle School.

All the local primary Headteachers with one exception and Beccles Town Council have also expressed opposition to the proposed Free School.

The petition is due to be formally handed over later in the week at Sir John Leman High School which is also the host to BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? on Friday evening.

On my Blog today I launched a new Free School's page with a map, details and links for all free school applications in Suffolk. I have also published on WikiSuffolk a further response to the consultation sent to me by Frank Joyce a teacher of 19 years standing and Secretary to Lowestoft Coalition against the Cuts.

The Seckford "Chain": Saxmundham Free School

The Saxmundham Free School was the first school to get the backing of the Seckford Foundation when they took over the bid started by the "Fromus Valley Educational Trust". I didn't think much of the bid at the time. Saxmundham is actually not far from Woodbridge and it did not seem that strange that Seckford were involved. The bid clearly has local support from a good number of people in Saxmundham itself although it was competing for the (you guessed it) former Middle School site with the Saxmundham and District Community Interest Company who had plans to create quite an innovative Community Enterprise Centre complete with Library, Cafe, a small Theatre, offices and a community radio station, you can see a proposed plan below:

Click to enlarge

But Leiston High School will see the biggest impact from any new secondary school in Saxmundham. Leiston High who are changing their name to "Alde Valley Community School". This prompted Leiston's Chair of Governors to tell the EADT:

There is simply no need for additional school places in the area. An extra school would create a further surplus of school places. That would be wasteful and extravagant, particularly at a time of public expenditure cuts undermining existing provision for other local students. 

Our school and the other existing secondary schools in the area already have more than enough capacity for all students from Saxmundham.

But some supporters of the school from Saxmundham don't welcome the intervention of people in Leiston.  Before the group was deleted (see below) one parent wrote on the free school's unofficial Facebook page :

This poster seems to be unable to appreciate that her "gain" might be someone in Leiston's "loss" and the "Ebacc" was not even dreamed up when last year's student chose their GCSE options. At Lesiton only 19% of children took all of the EBacc subjects which might explain an 8% pass rate.

Again we are seeing a tendency for a divisive even in this case a "beggar thy neighbour" approach where some people just don't seem to care about the impact of a decision on others so long as they do well from it.

Not everyone is convinced though and one poster took exception to the two high salary posts that of Principal and Headteacher that Seckford have recently advertised:

Simon Eyre one of the "unofficial" parents group members is, I think, mistaken as the money to pay the Principal is coming from all of the schools revenue budgets as I understand it. So to start with Saxmundham will pay at least half and that is only if Beccles goes ahead. Ford seems to imply that loss making Seckford will pay for the Principal from its own funds. The application pack makes it clear the posts are conditional on the DfE signing the funding agreements for the schools. It would seem to be this paying for the senior staff.

When I pressed this point in discussion on the Facebook Group Simon Eyre deleted one of my posts and then told me to ask Seckford. He suggested it was inappropriate to discuss the funding of the school in public despite the fact that this is a publically funded school!

I sent this letter that you can see on Wikisuffolk and within a few hours the Facebook group was removed completely!

This kind of closing down of all debate seems to be typical across all of the free school parent groups. They do not appear to think they need to engage with the wider community and have any concept that they are accountable to anyone.

There is one difference to Beccles here. Like Ixworth and Stoke by Nayland there is an active parent group but there appears to be a lack of any co-ordinated opposition in Saxmundham unlike the other areas.

This is my view of the relative support and opposition to the Seckford bids:

School	Support	Opposition
Beccles	Seems small. Parent group not very active. One member of original four disowned by Seckford	Sir John Leman High School and its Headteacher Lots of local parents and others in Beccles, large petition and letters to papers Some in Carlton Coleville Peter Aldous MP is “sat on fence” but Cllr Mark Bee has signed petition against
Ixworth	Strong support in Ixworth from parents,  majority in Stanton. Strongest support current middle school parents, less strong from current primary parents. Active Parent Group. Ixworth Middle School and its Headteacher and Governors. Matthew Hancock MP and Cllr Joanna Spicer	Opposition in Beyton from parents as free school might close proposed Beyton Annexe of Thurston Community College Thurston Partnership are formally neutral but some involved are not convinced by Free School Seckford involvement new and unclear on impact
Saxmundham	Active local parent group with parental support Therese Coffey MP	Leiston High School Some local parents
Stoke by Nayland	Active local parent group with parental support, some evidence more support since Seckford involvement	Active local parent group with parental support, successfully opposed previous bid

The Seckford "Chain": Stoke by Nayland Free School

Last year a campaign group from the Stoke by Nayland area called Compass Suffolk (Community & Parents Actively Supporting our Schools in Suffolk) helped see off an application for a free school in Stoke by Nayland in wait for it - a closing Middle School. Like all of the other free schools the campaign to set the school up grew out of a desire to "save" the Middle School.

Stoke by Nayland is 10 miles from Sudbury as in another direction is Clare which has the distinction of having the very first free school - Stour Valley Community School - which opened last September on the site of the former Clare Middle School.

The bid was made by a parent group that (as at Ixworth) started off without even disclosing the names of the proposers. The group, Stoke by Nayland Academy Trust made what seemed a vague and unconvincing bid that the DfE rejected.

A flavour of the campaign can be seen in this You Tube video made by Emma Bishton part of the Compass campaign group:

However having lost the bid the Stoke by Nayland group decided to hand the project over to the Seckford Foundation and Seckford have submitted another bid in this year's round that closed on Friday. You can see more about the bid on the Stoke by Nayland Free School website but it is just the same as the other Seckford bids.

Compass continues to oppose the free school publishing a Q+A in January about the Seckford bid. It also has a Facebook Group that ironically seems to attract some supporters of the Free School that accuse Compass of censorship:

There are also allegations of political bias as a Compass member is a Labour party supporter although many of the comments show a clear right wing bias. The censorship claim seems quite bizarre as the Compass group have an open Facebook group but the "Stoke by Nayland High School 11-16" group requires you to register and although anyone can read it they appear to be moving to ban comments all together:

Apparently debate "doesn't do either side any good" but I suspect it doesn't fit with the corporate communications strategy of the Seckford Foundation.

Reading the comments on both "sides" you can see how entrenched this has become. This brings out one of the worst things about these free school proposals. They are divisive. They set parent against parent and school against school.

One parent seems non-plussed as "a school is to all intents and purposes a business". If it doesn't do well it can just fail. Which I guess seems a better prospect when your child is attending the new "successful" school rather than attending a school that is now spiralling downwards due to a vicious circle of lost pupils and funding.

Also note the awful phrase "competing for the best children". Maybe he actually got closer to the truth with "the new elite school for all the rich kids". Sounds like that is what even he is actually predicting is going to happen.

But essentially the situation at Stoke by Nayland follows the same "recipe" that Jeremy Rowe the Sir John Leman Head described in his Guest Blog on Alistair Campbell's website:

METHOD
1. Create legislation to allow any group, in particular faith and public school groups, the opportunity and money to operate a state school.
2. Take a successful partnership of secondary schools and divide them up.
3. Mix a tiny amount of disgruntled parents with a local public school which has recorded losses for six consecutive years. Allow to simmer.
4. Weigh public opinion: don’t worry about this being accurate.
5. Use the consultation process to cook people’s views, and stew. Do not allow to boil over.
6. Prepare a series of attacks on the teaching profession. Toss.
7. To remove impurities, allow the new school to decide its own catchment area.
8. Marinade in millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
9. Apply a thin coating of moral outrage.
10. Lightly dust with appearances by beaming cabinet ministers.
11. Pickle the 1904 curriculum for future use.

These Seckford Free School proposals seem to be taking advantage of a common set of circumstances. Middle School's closing and the parental uncertainty that causes. The availability of relatively cheap sites due to the closure of Middle Schools and the willingness of the DfE to fund development. Elements of dissatisfaction by some with local schools and people who feel that schools are "to all intents and purposes a business" who are prepared to talk down local schools and sometimes spread unsubstantiated rumours.

I will also be publishing a similar post on the Saxmundham Free School proposal

Ian Goodyer's response to Beccles Free School Consultation

Read and Download

A detailed nine page response to the Beccles Free School consultation has been sent to the Seckford Foundation by local resident Ian Goodyer.

The full text of the submission is available to read and download at the Wikisuffolk website. Ian thinks that the free school bid should be rejected by the DfE for a number of reasons that I have summarised here:

• There is no credible evidence of demand for the free school: parents were not asked the crucial question about if the school would be their "first choice"
• Data gathered in support of one proposal cannot be adduced as evidence in support of a completely different set of arrangements: demand was expressed for the Beccles Middle site proposal and is being used to support the new proposal 7 miles away in Carlton Colville.
• Survey responses may have been influenced by misinformation: Tony Callaghan one of the original proposers has posted misleading information online about free iPads for students, staff transfers and the quality of provision at Sit John Leman High School
• The public consultation has been perfunctory and inadequate: Lack of proper recording of verbal expressions at the consultations meeting. Unsatisfactory location and notice for Carlton Colville meeting, inadequate knowledge from staff
• Local schools will be undermined if the free school goes ahead: Sir John Leman might even not be able to continue its sixth form
• The free school is likely to lead to less choice for local children: As resources end up diverted to the Free School breath of curriculum may be cut at Sir John Leman and the limited free school curriculum could not fill the gap
• Free school students studying for GCSEs will face major disruption: At the time of the consultation parents were warned of the "chaos" of moving to Sir John Leman and sold the fact they could stay at the Middle School but now the school will open first in Carlton Colville and children will move in two years disrupting studies
• The free school proposal represents a scandalous waste of public money: There will be a need to refurbish the Carlton Colville site for two years and then the Middle School site
• Due diligence may have been lacking in the free school bid: The use by one of the original proposers of her involvement to promote her MTM Schools Consultancy business raised the prospect of a conflict of interest (not any financial impropriety as she has not been paid)    

If you have time it is well worth reading the full submission.

The consultation closes on Tuesday 28th February so you still (just) have time to respond! Have a read of the consultation document and leaflet and email your comments to enquiries@becclesfreeschool.org.uk
 

"Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust" advertises for Principal and two Heads

The "Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust" are advertising for a Principal and two Headteachers for their proposed Beccles and Saxmundham schools.

The adverts have appeared in the TES and on the school's websites interestingly whilst the statutory "consultation" is still ongoing. Cambridge Education who are the so-called "independent" organisation conducting the consultation are also the same people who the applications forms need to be returned to for these vacancies.

The Principal's post is offered at a salary of between £82 000 and £93 000 although this is likely to increase if there are further schools beyond the initial two and the Heads will get £66 000 to £75 000. A total of between £214 000 and £243 000 a year.

Click to enlarge

The posts and the application pack give us a clearer idea about how Seckford plan to run their Free School "empire". There will be a "Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust" which will be formed by Seckford's Board of Trustees who will have a majority on the Trust. The Principal will be accountable to the Free Schools Trust and the School Heads to the Principal. I have produced an organisation chart to illustrate this:

Ixworth and Stoke by Nayland shown for illustration,
Headteacher posts not yet advertised

It is notable that there is no mention of the Headteachers of any of the schools being accountable to any kind of a local governance body. They report to the Principal who reports to the Free Schools Trust. It is clear that the Principal is really the person in charge as the Job Description for the Head says:

With the Principal provide the leadership and management which enables the Saxmundham/Beccles Free School to give every pupil high quality education and which promotes the highest possible standards of achievement and well being

In many ways it seems to be a large split site school of the sort the Ixworth Free School group seem so opposed to at Thurston Community College.

It's clear there is an intention to share both staff and resources across the schools:

Work closely with the Principal and Heads of other Free Schools to ensure there is a commonality of approach and sharing of educational and human resources.

Again members of the Ixworth Free School group have criticised plans for Thurston to share some staff between Beyton and Thurston two sites some 4 miles apart. All of these schools are much further apart.

In addition to that these staff have a role in promoting Seckford's other activities:

Use every opportunity to promote and support all the Free Schools in the Trust, and the work of other elements of the Seckford Foundation, including the Almshouses, Apprenticeship Scheme and Woodbridge School

So it is part of the Principal and Headteacher's job to promote Woodbridge School at "every opportunity" whilst working in the free schools.

The whole pack gives the impression that these schools are definitely going to open and only in really small print are applicants told:

Actual Size

Sadly the Seckford Foundation continue its inaccurate and unpleasant talking down of local schools. In the Beccles Free school information page it says:

Despite this growth and opportunity there is still only one secondary school in Beccles and the two schools which achieve good academic outcomes are both oversubscribed and up to half an hour away by bus.

This is clearly a comment on Sir John Leman's academic outcomes. The latest (Nov 2011) Ofsted report however has this to say:

In summer 2011, the proportion of students gaining five GCSE grades C or above including English and mathematics was in line with the national average. The school’s assessment information predicts that current Year 11 students are on track to do better than this. Data shows that students make good progress during their time in this school. Lesson observations confirm the picture of good progress, although some subjects are more successful than others.

In addition I could not find any oversubscribed school's near Beccles other than the brand new Pakefield school in Lowestoft. The nearest school with higher academic results is Bungay High which is currently undersubscribed but does intend to reduce its admissions number.

And in respect of the curriculum the Seckford Foundation are continuing to repeat their error about the English Baccalaureate saying:

the curriculum is designed to provide a solid foundation for success in the EBac certificate.

Firstly there is no such thing as a certificate for the English Baccalaureate. As the DfE make clear it is a performance measure for schools not a qualification. Secondly the abbreviation is "Ebacc" not Ebac".