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.

Power Corrupts

In my youth, I could never see the sense of the saying Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seemed to have no logical basis. But, in the UK, our experience of "strong" third term governments with large majorities seems to make the point.

Obviously Thatcher was a bully from the off; and Blair compromised on so much that it was never strictly accurate to call it a "Labour" government.

But the absolute power that absolutely shocked me [putting aside the weapons of mass unlikelihood], was the amount of educational expert advice which was dismissed and ridiculed, and even left unread.

The Cambridge Primary Review [published October 2009], welcomed by most educationalists was sneered at Eddie and Vern. They misunderstood the most basic of reccommendations: that formal education shouldn't start till after children are six. They took this to mean no schooling till seven, and publicly dismissed the report almost as it was published.

Price Cooper Waterhouse concluded in their recent report [2008?] that academies per se made no difference to standards. But still Eddie and Vern continued in their quest to de-stabilise inner-cities communities by mashing up and smashing up the bog-standard schools in order to produce no overall improvement at all. Lives lost, careers in tatters, families and friends separated, demand for mental health health services at breaking point, really really rubbish building erected at some public expense, communities in chaos, and what for? Well, for no overall improvement in standards.

And power also appears to corrupt locally. Let's take our local council, and its relation to City of Leeds School, one of the three schools which essentially this blog was set up to defend.

We have written letters as part of the "consultation" on closure and academisation. But as we have to submit our objections to the very company who is demanding our closure, we naturally don't trust the system. And we usually send copies of our objections to our councillors as well.

Our Head of History sent his objections, as per, round the councillors with a demand of notification of recipient opening it [there's probably a technical term for this]. And yes, one Leeds councillor, who will, in time, vote on closing this school, did not even open the email setting out quite rational arguments why it should stay open.

Add that to the Lib Dem councillor who publicly described City Of Leeds School as "poor", and you have to question what good is power if those wielding it don't do so in an informed manner. I am rather thinking that these people will eventually be taught a lesson by History itself.