Want to make some cuts? You could cut out the private sector

It was a while back; it was a Yr 7 Music class new to me; and it was after some difficult weeks that we got used to each other, and I think it was a shock on both sides, I had just arrived at a point in our discussion of the following morning's concert, in which we were to present our tunes. Whole class: steel pans, glocks, xylophones, hand percussion.

Well you can rehearse all you like in class; they rock, they dance; they laugh and joke; mostly they get the notes right; or if they make a mistake, they handle it; they forgive themselves and each other. But put these same 28 children in front of 100 of their peers, and suddenly they are rabbits in headlights.

So you practise it out; you practise going wrong; you practise handling not being perfect; and you discuss nerves and stage nerves. And there we were, on this Thursday afternoon, having one of those moments that makes teaching so special. Someone made a confession about nerves and mental health, and someone else had laughed, and the rest of the class was quiet and waiting, and I started on the 1 in 4 bit, and how it was common, even normal to have a breakdown; and then the technician walked in, and he had to sort out a computer on the other side of the room.

Obviously, I enquired did he have to do it right then, because I was teaching. Oh yes, he did have to do it right then. The class and I waited, a sort of suspended collective hope, but the technician sat down at the computer and the moment was lost.

I checked with another friend from a different PFI school, and this is how it works. School A in Leeds puts in a technician request for a computer to a central office in Reading, and when the Reading office okays the request the techician in the Leeds school has to go in and sort out the problem. Now what I think about this is to some extent unprintable. But what it demonstrates to me, and in spades [old-fashioned bridge term] is that PFI has no understanding of education, and, in particular the disjunct between the carers for the school building and the carers for the school children is bad news for education, and bad news for children. And once this unspeakable practice is more widely known, I hope it is bad news for the private ignorant and uncaring sector trying to nose its way into public education.

The Wishes of the parents, One Law for the Rich, and the False Economy

This Saturday, I emailed Any Answers, offering them the benefit of my wisdom and experience. Fortunately they chose an eloquent phoner-inner. The caller was one Raymond Douglas from Northampton. He could have been describing South Leeds, Intake, or City of Leeds, or Primrose, or Parklands [add High Schhool to them all].

His story was sickening familiar. His school was threatened with closure/becoming an academy not for the first time. Overwhelmingly, parents voted against academisation; new headteacher doing well [does this sound famililar?]. These parents had no illusions about the local authority but like being part of what it had to offer.

And here one might observe the concept of one law for the rich, one law for the poor. These parents' wishes were ignored. Central governent was half-bribing/half-threatening the local education authority. "if you don't go for the academy, we won't give the money for the new building." And indeed, who could argue with that? Well, someone or some council with principles, integrity; somebody brave, or somebody now who has seen the future - the Better Schools for the Future [BSF], and found it wanting. Or as the Institute of Architects called it last year, "an opportunity missed".

By contrast, a few rich, powerful, "pushy" parents can set up their own school. And what have they got that the average parent doesn't have? Money, which seems to translate into power, and enough time on their hands to set up a school.

The academy movement was led by three men [Anthony Adonis, Tony Blair, Ed Balls], one of whom wasn't even elected, and none of whom have any background in education. But these three people were in a third-term government world. I think that they believed that whatever they thought was how it should be. Anything they thought up. Anything they wrote on the back of an envelope. [Tony Blair has no so few ideas about education that he just said the word three times]. It was absolutely power, and it was absolutely corrupting. You can imagine them saying, "These parents don't know what's good for them".

Let's consider the idea the parents' schools will have more money at their disposal. The money goes straight to the school, by-passes the local auhtority; by-passing the music service, the educational psychology service; the travellers' service; Gypsy-Roma service; translation services; equal opportunties; health and safety; mental health; there's less access to national iniatives, eg CPD [Continuing Professional Development], theatre in education. . .

When you want to buy them in, as one new local academy recently discovered, they now cost more. So this particular educational establishment is now contemplating which five of its eight peripatetic music teachers' hours of teaching it would be best to drop. Or, pay the new full price. After all, the academy receives more money. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have arrived at the false economy. Not only does the new establishment miss out on vital local council services; these services, with all their wealth of talent and experience are themselves put at risk

All over this country, it would appear, we have schools which aren't broken, and succession of politicians determined to mend them.

Money For Old Rope

The old rope in question is known as the CRB check. The idea is that, when someone applies to work with children, they fill in a form which gives permission to a company [a private company] to ask a public company to search through the archives/computer records/whatever in order to check that the would be worker-with-children doesn't have a criminal record which might make them unsuitable to work with children. So, provided that you haven't been convicted in the past of child abuse, you'll be okay to work in a school, or a youth club or whatever.

So now you have a form, which cost your local authority/school/youth club just under £100 a throw, which proves that either you've never abused children or that you've never been caught. So, it's okay. This new employee can now work, even one=to-one with children. This creates what I would call a false sense of security.

But there is more old rope on offer here. Now, you don't just need a CRB check as you start work somewhere; you need a new one [cost: just under £100] every three years. Of course, your colleagues might have spotted if you had been arrested, tried and convicted of a child abuse offence. I'd have thought that those years in jail would have been a give-away. But no, here goes for a few more acres of South American forest as we all fill in the same name, address, previous name, name of refereee, post-code, and this takes up two sides of A3, and, if you've ever been allergic to the passport form, it's the same.


And, wait for it. The private company has thought up some more ways of getting money out of that rope. If you work for more than one school or organisation you will need more than one CRB check. So, for example, this week a colleague of mine filled in two idential CRB forms. They will both be processed at the same time, both with the same [private] company, and will both achieve the same result.

This is going well, said the rope company. What about running these checks on visiting artists and authors, even if they are never going to be on their own with any children or even in school long enough to develop a relationship [grooming] with any of them? What about checking the music service's peripatetic teachers who have already got a check with their music service? Couldn't we get another check for each school they visit? [This one is a little bit ongoing.}

And what is that result? Hundreds of thousands of totally innocent teachers, charity workers, youth workers, nursery workers, volunteers filling in forms which prove nothing at all. In some cases, they might show up a minor, but embarassing teenage shoplifting misdemeanor; and in some cases this might put off really good, enthusiastic workers from ever applying for the job of their dreams. In some cases, as ignorance is no guarantee of innocence, what I would describe as the false sense of security effect would come into play.