Jubilee Blog Holiday!

A photo of my sister and I at the
1977 Silver Jubilee
for your amusement!

I am taking a break over the long Bank Holiday from blogging and tweeting about anything serious! Normal service will resume on Wednesday. If anything major happens well watch this space! In the meantime I have lawns that need cutting, a house to clean and some fun to have!!

On Tuesday 5th June from 10am to 4pm why not tune into our home grown radio station Radio Stradbroke and listen to our Jubilee broadcast? Four of our regular DJs will be pairing up as follows:

10.00am Marty
10.00am Wally
11.00am Richard
12.00pm Huggy
1.00pm Marty

Just tune your web browser to http://stradbroke.org.uk or your mobile phone/iPad to http://m.radiostradbroke.co.uk

Seckford Foundation's PR firm Mary Rudd and the Archant connection

Readers of this Blog may remember that the Seckford Foundation managed to get an article that Archant published about Beccles Free School removed from their website and then re-written.

Archant claimed that the what happened was that a “mistake” was made in a Press Release sent by Seckford’s PR company Mary Rudd PR. The article was re-written to “correct” the impression that Graham Watson had said that the approval of the Beccles Free School bid was expected before the end of May.

Within a week of this article, exactly as predicted by Watson, came the “news” that the Beccles Free School bid had been agreed by the DfE.

The story was broken by Archant before even Jeremy Rowe the Head of Sir John Leman had been told apparently by a press release prepared by Mary Rudd PR.

Now it might not seem surprising that Mary Rudd and Archant are working together in this way after all they are a PR firm and Archant is just about the only newspaper group in town however it has since emerged that there are some very close links indeed between Mary Rudd PR and Archant. And when I say very close I mean very close.

Mary Rudd PR is run unsurprisingly by Mary Rudd but she seems to have had a bit of help over the years from a number of assistants many of whom have worked for Archant, either at the same time or immediately before/after.

Indeed her current Assistant Emma-Lily Chubb lists her job on business Social Networking site Linked In  as a “Brand Development Assistant” at My Money 24 working for Archant. Chubb has however assisted on the Beccles story for Mary Rudd PR whilst apparently working for Archant.

Mary Rudd PR say that Emma-Lily no longer works for Archant and left Archant to work for them but her Linked In profile still shows her working at Archant.


Indeed the links do not stop here as Rudd herself appears to have at least written articles for Archant previously if not worked for them.
But the closest link is even more personal. Mary Rudd’s partner Stephan Phillips was until last year the Managing Director of Archant Norfolk.


Now PR and journalism are obviously very closely linked but in the case of Mary Rudd PR who are acting on behalf of the Seckford Foundation this does raise several questions.

There has to be a concern that the Seckford Foundation are getting “access” to Archant in a way that others might not be.

I am not sure, for example, that if the quote I gave to Archant was printed incorrectly that I could have persuaded them to pull the online editions of the papers and re-write the article. Maybe they would have but I am not so sure.

I contacted Mary Rudd PR several times to ask for a comment on this article or for any corrections to be pointed out. Eventually after my emails were apparently lost I faxed the article through and phoned and was told that Emma-Lily no longer works for Archant as she has left to work full time for Mary Rudd PR.

I was not given any further corrections and was told I would receive a response “in due course” but that they “had other more important work to get on with”. If any corrections are received or any comment I will of course publish them.

The Beccles Free School Consultation Report the DfE didn't want anyone to see...

Back on 8th March I emailed Seckford, the DfE and Cambridge Education asking for a copy of the consultation report that Cambridge Education had produced for the DfE on Beccles Free School. I heard nothing and chased it again in April. I submitted the request to the DfE as a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request.

Ian Goodyer also submitted an FOI and continued to chase this right the way through until last night when we both wrote to the DfE.

What happened is we were just stonewalled. The DfE did not even respond to our emails until just before the decision was made Ian had a reply saying they would look into what was happening.

Today I received an “unreserved apology” from the DfE which you can read on WikiSuffolk together with the emails sent last night.

In relation to the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests submitted by yourself and Mr Goodyer, I unreservedly apologise for the significant delay there has been in responding to you both. You should have received a response within 20 days of making the requests and I can only apologise that this didn’t happen on this occasion.

The email told us that the Consultation Report and Appendices had just published on the Beccles Free School website. They make fascinating reading and I can well imagine that neither Seckford nor the DfE wanted them to be seen until after the decision has been made.

This chart shows the consultation response:


This is described in the report:

A majority of people who responded to the public consultation did not support the proposal that The Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust should govern Beccles Free School on behalf of the Department for Education.

Some incredibly weak attempts are made to explain this away including the bizarre assertion that:

Anti-Free School campaigners were active at each of the public consultations and approached members of the public. This may have impacted engagement and influenced opinion.

Presumably attending a stage managed consultation meeting does not count as influencing opinion! What is wrong in a democracy with trying to influence opinion?

Much is made of the “majority” of parents who support the proposal but actually these amount to 21 people…the full breakdown is shown below:


The conclusion however that Seckford come to is that:

Whilst there remains concern and uncertainty amongst stakeholders, the consultation responses indicate there is still support for the establishment of Beccles Free School, particularly among potential parents/carers.

Interestingly the Saxmundham Free School consultation showed 87% in favour and this was described as follows:

Whilst there remains some uncertainty amongst stakeholders, it can be concluded that there is strong support for the establishment of Saxmundham Free School.

Clearly this is far from an objective analysis of the Beccles response. The petition of 3,000 people against the school is dismissed in this way:

Cambridge Education are also aware of a separate petition running in parallel with the public consultation but are unaware of the details as information has not formally been provided.

So this consultation evidence adds to the long list of reasons why the Government should not have approved Beccles Free School. Added to this it seems that the DfE ignored emails in order to ensure this report was not released until after a decision was made. I think this is a true scandal and the DfE, Seckford and Cambridge Education should be ashamed of themselves.

The consultation was a waste of everybody’s time. It did not matter what anyone said. Even the local Tory MP opposed it and Seckford boasted with impunity that the “approval” would come in May. It seems clear they knew that the DfE would approve it whatever anyone thought

Seckford promised:

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. 

But when the consultation showed the desire was not there they pressed ahead regardless.

Revealed: How the Seckford Foundation will have control of their "Free Schools Trust"

Last week just before the news came that the Beccles and Saxmundham Free School bids had been approved the Seckford Foundation finally registered the Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust.

The Articles of Association for the company (which are available in full on Wikisuffolk) give us some important information abut how the trust will work in particular the governance arrangements. There is a more detailed presentation below showing how this works but basically the Seckford Foundation control the company and each of the schools.

Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust

View more presentations from James Hargrave. 

The Local Governing Bodies for each school (which are actually Committees of the Board of Directors) will have minimal powers. Crucially the Articles say that:

The Directors shall appoint the Principal and the Head Teachers of the Academies The Directors may delegate such powers and functions as they consider are required by the Principal and the Head Teachers for the internal organisation, management and control of the Academies (including the implementation of all policies approved by the Directors and for the direction of the teaching and curriculum at the Academies) 

Control of Finance and Staffing matters - the real power of governance - remains with the Directors a majority of whom are appointed by Seckford.

It looks like there will only be two parent Directors out of a Board of up to 23/24. Does not look like a “parent led” venture to me.

The Articles also contain express provision for the Seckford Foundation to be paid for services it provides to the Free Schools Trust although it contains the provision

such remuneration shall represent no more than the cost of providing those goods or services

This is an area to keep an eye on to ensure that public funds do not end up diverted to the Seckford Foundation.

Seckford Foundation attempt to stop publication of their emails

When you get an email from a company it often has a lot of legal “guff” at the end that you probably don’t read. However emails sent from the Seckford Foundation now have the following appended to the end of them:

This response is given on the basis it will not be disclosed to the media or used in any social media

This mis-guided attempt to control what happens to emails seems to be in response to the publication on this Blog of several emails, notably about children with special educational needs.

Of course if Seckford did not send emails that were embarrassing to them there would not be an issue with them being disclosed which would perhaps be a better strategy to employ.

Seckford apparently gets PR advice from an organisation in Thetford called Mary Rudd PR. They are supposed to handle media requests but I emailed them at the weekend and they completely ignored me.

Looking around for information I could not help but notice that Mary Rudd PR doesn’t even have a website so I am not sure they are exactly the most obvious choice of advice on social media.

Meanwhile if you do correspond with Seckford this Blog is still very interested in receiving your emails, please send them to blog@hargrave.org.uk rest assured that the worst they can do is ignore you and take you off their increasingly short Christmas Card list.

If you prefer I will not quote your email. You can rest assured that I do not disclose any sources.

I believe in the Holy Ghost, choice, competition and the life everlasting

Doubting Thomas

When someone says they “believe” in something they usually mean something quite different to thinking or feeling something. The most obvious example of this is religion but it isn’t the only one. Arguing with someone about what they believe is usually frustrating and often pointless. Whatever the evidence the person is not going to change their belief.

Everyone is prone to holding on to what they think about things to some extent. Scientists talk of the concept of confirmation bias which is where people tend to look for evidence that supports their views and ignore inconvenient evidence which does not. But at least ostensibly such people are still looking for evidence.

I always liked the Biblical story of the Apostle Thomas who on hearing that his master Jesus had apparently risen from the dead was sceptical and demanded proof.

 Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. (John 20: 24 NKJB)

Thomas then does see the risen Lord and once he has seen him he believes but Jesus replies to him:

Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. (John 20:29NKJB)

I have never been convinced by this answer and always admired Thomas’ approach to the extent that we called our eldest son Thomas - although when he is questioning what I am saying I sometimes reflect on the wisdom of this!

As I mentioned belief isn’t restricted to religion and can be seen in lots of other aspects of life. Particularly politics where it tends to be linked to ideological belief. A few weeks ago someone posted a brilliant example of this on this Blog when they relayed a frustrating interaction with South Suffolk MP Tim Yeo about free schools.

Last year, I twice emailed the local MP, Tim Yeo, asking in exactly what way establishing free schools in competition with existing schools was going to help, not hinder, schools like Sudbury Upper. I cited the very low numbers in year 7 and 8 and consequent fall in predicted income to SUS this year which appeared to be a direct consequence of Stour Valley Community College opening.

Unfortunately he did not answer my questions. Instead he suggested:

"Competition always raises standards. I recognise that sometimes it is a threat to providers who believe that they should never be challenged or held to account. I am confident that when Suffolk has a good number of free schools education standards across the whole county will rise."

and when I challenged this, he replied:

"You do not seem to understand that I firmly believe that competition of all kinds will raise the disappointingly low standards of schools in many parts of Suffolk..."

The person making the comment replied that:

"Tim Yeo has been the MP for South Suffolk since 1983. Surely time enough to have even raised his concerns about poor performance in Suffolk schools, and actually done something about it!?

A good point! I am guessing the person making the comment is much more a pragmatist. Such an approach tries a different strategy if the first one does not produced the desired outcomes. Pragmatists live by the maxim:

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

Ideologues tend to react to the failure of a policy by doing more of the thing that failed as they are unable to accept that might be wrong. So they say things like "You do not seem to understand that I firmly believe that competition of all kinds will raise the disappointingly low standards of schools in many parts of Suffolk..” Note he says believe not think.

The reason I press the point about competition is that this is just what we have had for many years already in schools. We already have a market with competition.

School funding is almost entirely down to the numbers of children so if a school is “successful” and attracts lots of children it gets more money. The reverse is true if it loses children.

Now this can work to make schools better and compete for children. This is usually true of "good" and "outstanding" schools who can compete with each other without the risk of total collapse and have the money to “up their game”.

However the same market tends to fail dramatically when schools run into trouble. What then happens is like a death spiral. The school loses children and money so has to get rid of staff (which are by far the highest cost) which both reduces its capacity and demoralises the staff remaining who think they will be next.

The school has no money or staff to “up its game” and goes in to a spiral of self-perpetuating decline until it fails.

Then someone comes along and puts a lot of money in and hey presto “turns the school around”.

The market here is making standards fall not raising them. Which might be OK if it was a shop. It could simply fail and close but it is a school and the children are going to fail along with their school. They don’t have the time to allow the market to self-correct.

So this market system for schools has existed for sometime - although in Suffolk it is an imperfect market due to difficulties created by the rural context of much of the County where travel and distance make competition and choice difficult or impossible.

By throwing more competition into the mix Tim Yeo believes this will make standards magically improve.

Anyone who really wants to raise standards in schools (as those of us who have actually done this for real know) needs to have an open mind to what works and does not work and be prepared to change strategy if something is not raising standards as expected.

Holding this kind of ideological belief - and it would be as bad the other way round - is always going to stop the best course of action being chosen. Such ideologues are the real enemies of promise in education be they from the left or the right. There is no difference to me.