Thank you all for your comments, thoughts etc. I've come up with some suggested safeguards, that you might want to ask your respective schools to consider.
Under the current model community members, made up of a diverse range of interests, are entitled to 3 votes/representatives. Each school also has 2 votes. In contrast, the proposed “External partners”, which has no cap on numbers, have a vote each. When considering the weighting of community votes against external partners’, one should consider the fact that school membership is not binding. Of the 7 schools currently expressing interest, all but 3 would be associates members, making it much easier for them to opt out at any time, leaving just 3 (or less) full members.
I’d also caution against assuming that the school representatives will always act in the community’s interests. Schools governance is driven by 3 core functions (community interests isn’t one of them), with financial viability as the one generally given most weight. If a school isn’t financially viable, its future is at stake. This, in my view presents a risk that, should a school or schools become dependent on any external partners’ sponsorship, the influence of even one corporate member could be disproportionate. Additionally, what happens should that sponsor withdraw its support?
My primary question, which hasn’t been addressed in the consultation process, including the public meeting, is, what safeguards have been considered to mitigate the risk of external partners overriding the wishes of the community?
In the absence of any reassurances being forthcoming, I’ve suggested the following safeguards;
1) My preferred and safest option: Exclude industry from board positions. Landrover was originally included as an external partner. When I asked for the thinking behind this, rather than address my concerns, it was simply removed. I would actively encourage a link governor role to forge relationships with all businesses in the community but not allowing them to have influence over educational strategy. I believe the ethos and values that drive children’s education is diametrically opposed to that of corporations and are therefore ethically and legally incompatible.
2) If however, the community is fully appraised of the risks (my concern is that no-one I’ve spoken to is even aware of the potential involvement of industry, let alone the risks) and make an informed decision to allow industry involvement, I’d suggest the following:
• In the spirit of Co-Operative values (not least fairness & equity), the most democratic would be to at all times ensure there are as many Membership Trust Forum board members as there are external partner board members. That still allows for additional votes from each school. Given the strong focus on community, I can't see why there would be any objections to this safeguard. It ticks all the Co-Op boxes. The importance of this is compounded by the fact that any external partners who might in the future contribute financially or engender other forms of dependency would yield far more influence than their one vote suggests.
Whichever option, if any, is chosen, it should be written into the memorandum of association before a final vote is taken.
It isn’t just the potential private industry involvement that concerns many people, it’s also the religious element, particularly where the school is non-denominational. If a parent chooses to send their child to a non-denominational school they don’t expect a subsequent layer to be created allowing religious organisations to be involved at a strategic & decision making level.
The Co-op College argue that schools’ assets can only be used for educational purposes and cannot be for profit. However, case precedence already exists in this country allowing a Trust school to operate for profit, thus undermining any previously espoused legal safeguard in that regard.
Without the above safeguards, I see nothing (legally) from preventing a scenario whereby schools’ assets are converted into sports facility, for example, sponsored by McDonalds and Coca Cola (as trustees), who will have their wares on sale therein. As I said before, as long as you can wangle an educational angle, anything is possible. We need look no further than the US to know this is not beyond the realms of possibility.
It has been claimed that the Trust board would hold no powers. If that’s the case, what are their voting rights for? This is another question that hasn’t been bottomed out. In my experience, when you create a legal, hierarchical entity, the layer at the top always yields influence as well as power.
In summary, whilst I’m all for collaboration & sharing of resources, formalising the arrangement, creating a board of trustees to whom we transfer our communities land & assets, brings with it, risks. As such, appropriate due diligence should be carried out to mitigate any potential risks to our community.
I don't doubt the heads' good intentions (I hold them all in high esteem) but when seeking to change the structure of any organisation, it's incumbent on us to put legal safeguards in place to mitigate against unforeseen circumstances, such as future changes in trustees with different or differing vested interests.
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Saturday, 22 February 2014
Half Term & Hanging Out
It's half term in the UK (some parts)so I'm immersing myself in rocket and den making activities as opposed to work. Not that I'm complaining about work. I've just been invited to speak at a global human rights summit in Paris at the end of April. I'll need to brush up on my French!
Until I get back into the swing of things next week I just wanted to acknowledge all of you who responded to my last blog on Co-op trusts. Thank you for the phone calls & emails & kind words of support. They're coming in thick & fast. Many of you are flagging up concerns & asking questions I hadn't thought of, which is great. I will attempt to respond to you all over the coming week.
In the meantime, take care one & all, wherever you are in the world, this wonderful day.
PS: No, you're not a bad (or is that, good?) parent for not wanting to make your comments public. As long as you include them in the "consultation" form, that's all that matters.
Until I get back into the swing of things next week I just wanted to acknowledge all of you who responded to my last blog on Co-op trusts. Thank you for the phone calls & emails & kind words of support. They're coming in thick & fast. Many of you are flagging up concerns & asking questions I hadn't thought of, which is great. I will attempt to respond to you all over the coming week.
In the meantime, take care one & all, wherever you are in the world, this wonderful day.
PS: No, you're not a bad (or is that, good?) parent for not wanting to make your comments public. As long as you include them in the "consultation" form, that's all that matters.
Thursday, 13 February 2014
Co-Operative Trust Schools Are a Back Door to Privatisation. Discuss
There was a time when staging 3 day strikes was considered a militant expression of democracy. Nowadays it’s turning up at a public meeting and breathing.
When I went to a public “consultation” meeting last week, which the public didn’t know about until a couple of days beforehand, via literature that indicated (to many) that attendance was superfluous to requirements as the outcome had already been decided, it came as no surprise to find a practically deserted hall. What I didn’t expect, was for the chair to open the meeting with the words, “It’s great to see so many of you here”. Out of a combined population of over 2,000, there were 20 odd people present
It reminded me of the first time I attended an all party parliamentary debate in the House of Commons. I took up my place in the press gallery, just as the then secretary of state for International Development, Hilary Benn, stood up. His opening words served as my first lesson in political chicanery, “I am delighted to see such a full house”. There were 6 people present, including himself.
Afterwards, in the commons bar, I asked my then MP, the affable current speaker, John Bercow, what was behind Benn’s remarks. He said, “One word Tess. Hansard” (the official public record of proceedings). Poor representation with a variety of voices, opposition and dissent, undermines the democratic process, ultimately leading to poor decisions.
So when I found myself in a hall to rubber stamp, I mean discuss, the proposal for local schools to form a Co-Operative Trust, with the chair exaggerating the turnout, it went down hill from there.
A friend of mine once opined, if you don’t want your child to be the donkey’s backside in the nativity play, just keep your head down and your mouth shut. To do her bit as a good parent, she became a school governor for the sole purpose of ingratiating herself with the head. That would explain why Ofsted warns that governing bodies are too weak and not challenging enough of their heads.
A good parent may wonder why a pugnacious (as described by a consultee) Co-operative College rep was chairing a process about whether or not our schools should have anything to do with his organisation. They may query what’s in it for the Co-Operative College, given there’s ostensibly nothing to gain from cash strapped schools. What they won’t know, is that the Co-Op College offers a “consultation package (which includes “chairing discussions & collating feedback)”, which will cost the first school £4,000 and £700 for all other schools involved in the consultation process. If there are 7 schools involved, like in my area for example, they won’t get much change out of ten grand (incl VAT), shared out collectively. That’s not counting the legal costs, which could be double that.
The Co-Op College also offers an all inclusive, “Package of consultancy and project management services throughout the conversion to academy status process”. They anticipate more red tape after conversion so have another package to help schools with that too. In fact, there’s a package for just about everything. At a cost.
With so many vested interests, and with schools having invested so much in the consultation process alone, it’s little wonder the purveyors of awkward questions are made to feel verbally kettled. The Co-Op man is hardly impartial which, to my mind, risks gravely undermining any trust in the integrity and independent outcome of the process.
Good parents may have consulted the aforementioned Hansard and discovered that schools that have first converted to Co-Operative Trusts find less resistance when converting to academy status later. They may have gleaned that the conversion rate from Co-Operative trust to academy status is rising and are concerned about the risk of becoming an academy by the back door. But they will keep their council. There is inevitably a bad parent in the audience who will ask the question for them.
The Co-operative trust governance model creates several additional layers of bureaucracy (many rural schools are already working collaboratively, so why add layers of unnecessary bureaucracy and cost?). There’s the board of trustees, to whom the schools’ land and assets will be transferred to be held indefinitely. There will also be a community membership forum, of whom there will be 3 representatives elected to the trust. In contrast, according to the National Governors Association, any number of corporates, for example, can become trustees as “external partners”, each with their own vote.
Good parents might be tempted to ask what due diligence has been carried out to safeguard against the possibility that, in 5-10 years time, our children’s nativity plays aren’t entitled, “Driving Jesus to Bethlehem in a Landrover Jaguar iX35, sponsored by Tesco, because for struggling schools, “Every little helps”.
The Co-Op man will protest that the schools’ assets can only be used for educational purposes and cannot be for profit. The bad parent will have done their homework. They will know that case precedent already exists in this country allowing a Trust school (in Suffolk) to operate for profit, thus undermining any previously espoused legal safeguard in that regard. They will also know that there’s nothing (legally) from preventing a scenario whereby trustees convert school assets into a high tech sports facility, sponsored by McDonalds and Coca Cola (as trustees), who will have their wares on sale therein. As long as you can wangle an educational angle, anything is possible.
Principled parents with inside knowledge of corporate shenanigans are the worst troublemakers. They will object on ideological grounds. They will argue that there’s no place for private industry in a decision making / vote holding / power wielding role in children’s education. That their ethos and values (making profits, to hell with people) are diametrically opposed to that of pastoral care and critical thinking (as opposed to corporate indoctrination) that educational institutions are charged with nurturing in our children. They will point to the recent spate of student protests against the marketisation of university campuses which is killing democratic debate and dissent. The pragmatic bad parents will be enthusiastic about building links with all businesses in the community but will argue vehemently against them influencing educational strategy.
One of the arguments for becoming a trust is that it will open up new revenue streams. The bad parent will say, “Show me the money”. Schools that already enjoy charity status are not exactly flush. The only way of generating revenue, that I can see, is from private investors or "sponsors".
It would be a mistake to confuse being a nice person and having good intentions, with due diligence. With the best will in the world, being a head teacher (even the excellent ones in my area) doesn’t necessarily lend itself to grasping the legal, political and strategic ramifications associated with substantive organisational change. In the same way that my expertise in governance, ethics and organisational change doesn’t qualify me to be a head teacher or conduct brain surgery.
I want my local high school to be there for my child in 5 years time but not at any cost. If the price of having a high school in my community, which has thus far resisted any corporate takeovers on the high street, is having “Sponsored by Land Rover” above the front door, it’s a price I’m not willing to pay.
If my local authority attempted to close down our high school I would fight it tooth and nail. I wouldn’t be deflected by claims of there being no money left for schools. If there’s money in the pot to rescue failed banks and to pay RBS’ bankers’ bonuses, there’s money in the pot for our children.
If we participate in a process that will potentially change the landscape of children’s education for ever, we’d better know what we’re doing. Our children and grandchildren will judge us harshly if we get this wrong.
When I went to a public “consultation” meeting last week, which the public didn’t know about until a couple of days beforehand, via literature that indicated (to many) that attendance was superfluous to requirements as the outcome had already been decided, it came as no surprise to find a practically deserted hall. What I didn’t expect, was for the chair to open the meeting with the words, “It’s great to see so many of you here”. Out of a combined population of over 2,000, there were 20 odd people present
It reminded me of the first time I attended an all party parliamentary debate in the House of Commons. I took up my place in the press gallery, just as the then secretary of state for International Development, Hilary Benn, stood up. His opening words served as my first lesson in political chicanery, “I am delighted to see such a full house”. There were 6 people present, including himself.
Afterwards, in the commons bar, I asked my then MP, the affable current speaker, John Bercow, what was behind Benn’s remarks. He said, “One word Tess. Hansard” (the official public record of proceedings). Poor representation with a variety of voices, opposition and dissent, undermines the democratic process, ultimately leading to poor decisions.
So when I found myself in a hall to rubber stamp, I mean discuss, the proposal for local schools to form a Co-Operative Trust, with the chair exaggerating the turnout, it went down hill from there.
A friend of mine once opined, if you don’t want your child to be the donkey’s backside in the nativity play, just keep your head down and your mouth shut. To do her bit as a good parent, she became a school governor for the sole purpose of ingratiating herself with the head. That would explain why Ofsted warns that governing bodies are too weak and not challenging enough of their heads.
A good parent may wonder why a pugnacious (as described by a consultee) Co-operative College rep was chairing a process about whether or not our schools should have anything to do with his organisation. They may query what’s in it for the Co-Operative College, given there’s ostensibly nothing to gain from cash strapped schools. What they won’t know, is that the Co-Op College offers a “consultation package (which includes “chairing discussions & collating feedback)”, which will cost the first school £4,000 and £700 for all other schools involved in the consultation process. If there are 7 schools involved, like in my area for example, they won’t get much change out of ten grand (incl VAT), shared out collectively. That’s not counting the legal costs, which could be double that.
The Co-Op College also offers an all inclusive, “Package of consultancy and project management services throughout the conversion to academy status process”. They anticipate more red tape after conversion so have another package to help schools with that too. In fact, there’s a package for just about everything. At a cost.
With so many vested interests, and with schools having invested so much in the consultation process alone, it’s little wonder the purveyors of awkward questions are made to feel verbally kettled. The Co-Op man is hardly impartial which, to my mind, risks gravely undermining any trust in the integrity and independent outcome of the process.
Good parents may have consulted the aforementioned Hansard and discovered that schools that have first converted to Co-Operative Trusts find less resistance when converting to academy status later. They may have gleaned that the conversion rate from Co-Operative trust to academy status is rising and are concerned about the risk of becoming an academy by the back door. But they will keep their council. There is inevitably a bad parent in the audience who will ask the question for them.
The Co-operative trust governance model creates several additional layers of bureaucracy (many rural schools are already working collaboratively, so why add layers of unnecessary bureaucracy and cost?). There’s the board of trustees, to whom the schools’ land and assets will be transferred to be held indefinitely. There will also be a community membership forum, of whom there will be 3 representatives elected to the trust. In contrast, according to the National Governors Association, any number of corporates, for example, can become trustees as “external partners”, each with their own vote.
Good parents might be tempted to ask what due diligence has been carried out to safeguard against the possibility that, in 5-10 years time, our children’s nativity plays aren’t entitled, “Driving Jesus to Bethlehem in a Landrover Jaguar iX35, sponsored by Tesco, because for struggling schools, “Every little helps”.
The Co-Op man will protest that the schools’ assets can only be used for educational purposes and cannot be for profit. The bad parent will have done their homework. They will know that case precedent already exists in this country allowing a Trust school (in Suffolk) to operate for profit, thus undermining any previously espoused legal safeguard in that regard. They will also know that there’s nothing (legally) from preventing a scenario whereby trustees convert school assets into a high tech sports facility, sponsored by McDonalds and Coca Cola (as trustees), who will have their wares on sale therein. As long as you can wangle an educational angle, anything is possible.
Principled parents with inside knowledge of corporate shenanigans are the worst troublemakers. They will object on ideological grounds. They will argue that there’s no place for private industry in a decision making / vote holding / power wielding role in children’s education. That their ethos and values (making profits, to hell with people) are diametrically opposed to that of pastoral care and critical thinking (as opposed to corporate indoctrination) that educational institutions are charged with nurturing in our children. They will point to the recent spate of student protests against the marketisation of university campuses which is killing democratic debate and dissent. The pragmatic bad parents will be enthusiastic about building links with all businesses in the community but will argue vehemently against them influencing educational strategy.
One of the arguments for becoming a trust is that it will open up new revenue streams. The bad parent will say, “Show me the money”. Schools that already enjoy charity status are not exactly flush. The only way of generating revenue, that I can see, is from private investors or "sponsors".
It would be a mistake to confuse being a nice person and having good intentions, with due diligence. With the best will in the world, being a head teacher (even the excellent ones in my area) doesn’t necessarily lend itself to grasping the legal, political and strategic ramifications associated with substantive organisational change. In the same way that my expertise in governance, ethics and organisational change doesn’t qualify me to be a head teacher or conduct brain surgery.
I want my local high school to be there for my child in 5 years time but not at any cost. If the price of having a high school in my community, which has thus far resisted any corporate takeovers on the high street, is having “Sponsored by Land Rover” above the front door, it’s a price I’m not willing to pay.
If my local authority attempted to close down our high school I would fight it tooth and nail. I wouldn’t be deflected by claims of there being no money left for schools. If there’s money in the pot to rescue failed banks and to pay RBS’ bankers’ bonuses, there’s money in the pot for our children.
If we participate in a process that will potentially change the landscape of children’s education for ever, we’d better know what we’re doing. Our children and grandchildren will judge us harshly if we get this wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)