Risks Associated with the C-Operative Trust Model & Suggested Safeguards

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.