Blair's Vardy Academy in Trouble
Tom Sacold
Parents rebel at 'Dickensian' school run by millionaire evangelist friend of
Blair
Backlash over emphasis on religion as suspensions soar in 'covert' selection
Matthew Taylor
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Guardian
Among the parents who had gathered in the back bar of the Moorends Hotel
there were tales of curious expulsions and strange practices. One mother
said her daughter had been removed from school after being accused of
wearing the wrong trousers, another that her son had been permanently
expelled for smoking.
A father claimed his son had been sent home for walking the wrong way down
the corridor, another that his 16-year-old daughter was kicked out after
getting a kiss from her boyfriend at the school gates. And underlying it all
was a feeling that Trinity, the third state funded secondary to be run by an
evangelical Christian and friend of Tony Blair, Sir Peter Vardy, was pushing
an aggressive religious agenda. Cindy Denise, whose two children are both at
Trinity, claimed pupils were disciplined if they did not carry the Bible on
certain days and summed up the mood at the meeting, describing the school as
"a complete joke". "They are kicking children out for nothing and won't
listen to anyone who wants to know what is going on."
Trinity opened last summer next to the chicken factory in the former mining
town of Thorne, near Doncaster, and is the latest school in the government's
controversial academy schools programme. In its first six months 148
children have been suspended, leading many parents to claim that it was
using excessive discipline to weed out children it does not want to teach.
The 1,250-pupil school strenuously denies the charges but the parents at the
Moorends Hotel insist that the school is operating a system of covert
selection to get rid of difficult to teach children. They say the problems
surfaced before Christmas when their children began complaining of
"Dickensian-style" discipline and parents noticed an "excessive" number of
students being sent home. Pauline Wood, whose daughter was excluded after
being accused of having bought her school trousers from the wrong shop,
decided to call a public meeting. A few weeks, and several home-made posters
later, more than 200 people turned up to air their concerns.
"We thought it was just one or two cases to start with but when we talked we
realised the scale of what was happening," said Mrs Wood. "We were really
surprised at the strength of feeling at that first meeting and the stories
that were coming out about what was happening in the school.
"The strong feeling locally is that the school is aiming to get rid of the
pupils that have problems or are considered difficult, they've already got a
waiting list with kids from outside the area and they want to get them in so
the exam results go up and they can say the school is a success. But what
happens to our kids - the kids they don't want?
Under-achievers
"When all this started we thought they were trying to get rid of the
under-achievers but now we think they are getting rid of any child,
regardless of academic ability, who thinks for themselves, who challenges
things ... I don't care what anyone says, it's covert selection."
Sarah French, a spokeswoman for Sir Peter's Emmanuel Schools Foundation,
which runs the school, denies the allegations. "The idea that we are
selecting pupils is a complete red herring and really quite offensive. There
is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, in fact we give priority to
children with special educational needs and although we have the right to
select 10% of our children by aptitude as an academy we don't because we aim
to help each child achieve its potential."
The school says more than 200 pupils were suspended in a similar period at
the school Trinity replaced. "The vast majority of parents back what we are
doing and see that the measures we have in place are helping change the
ethos allowing the children to work in a stable, calm environment," said Ms
French.
But parents say the figures do not reflect what they are seeing on the
ground. "There was a clampdown at the old school once they knew it was going
to be an academy and it has just got worse," said Mrs Wood. "I don't know
how they are measuring it but we are certainly seeing more and more children
being sent home or kicked out."
Although the allegations of tough discipline and covert selection are the
parents' main concerns, some are also uneasy about the religious ethos
behind Trinity, citing the decision to give each child a bible as proof that
religion pervades every aspect of the school. "They get into trouble if they
don't have it [the Bible] with them on certain days," said Ms Denise. "It's
not what I want my kids to be doing in school, but I don't have a choice
because this is the only school round here and they won't listen to us."
These concerns reflect allegations at another of Sir Peter's state schools -
Emmanuel College in Gateshead, which has been repeatedly accused of teaching
pupils creationism alongside science.
Tracey Morton, a mother who successfully campaigned against a proposed Vardy
academy in nearby Conisbrough in 2004, agreed that the religious nature of
Vardy's schools was a real worry for many parents. "These schools peddle a
hardcore Christian message and parents don't have any choice about whether
that is what they want for their children," she said.
Protest
The parents' group in Thorne say they had no idea what they were letting
themselves in for before the school opened and they intend to step up their
campaign with a march and a protest outside the school gates. Ms Wood said:
"Of course we welcome a new school, but we need it to be run by a fair
system. There was only a few weeks consultation here and we weren't told
anything about what the school would really be like. We want the local
education authority to get back involved because at the moment the school is
not accountable to anybody. We have no one to go to when things happen - not
local councillors or the MP because there is nothing they can do. The school
has 100% power over us and all we can do is try and highlight what is going
on."
The school denies the claim. Last night a DfES spokesman said academies were
improving results. "Quite rightly academies are putting discipline first
because it is vital to help children learn, and the early signs are that
behaviour is improving and the number of exclusions falling," said a
spokesman.
The history: Schools founded on discipline
Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation runs three schools, two in the
north-east, one of which was opened by Tony Blair, and the Trinity academy
in Thorne, near Doncaster. Sir Peter is a millionaire car dealer and
evangelical Christian whose beliefs pervade every aspect of his schools -
they all have a reputation for discipline.
Although academically successful, the schools have been dogged by
controversy. Emmanuel has been repeatedly linked to the teaching of
creationism - most recently in a Channel 4 documentary - and Kings was
criticised for having an exclusion rate 10 times the national average.
Last year, as part of a wider investigation, the Guardian revealed that the
number of children eligible for free school meals at Kings, the standard
indicator of deprivation, had dropped by more than 100 compared with the
school it replaced, leading to renewed claims that it was cherry-picking
pupils who were easier to teach.
The foundation says that all its lessons comply with the national
curriculum, and that creationism is taught in RE rather than science
lessons. But according to the head of the foundation, Nigel McQuoid,
"schools should teach the creation theory as literally depicted in Genesis"
because creation and evolution are "faith positions".
Both Kings academy in Middlesbrough and Emmanuel college in Gateshead have
improved their GCSE results. At Emmanuel 97% of students gained five or more
GCSE passes at grade A*-C in 2004 (the national average is 52%). The first
set of GCSE results at King's showed that it has more than doubled the
performance at its predecessor schools, with 43% of pupils now getting five
or more good GCSEs.
Matthew Taylor
Gaz
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1785743,00.html
>
>
> Parents rebel at 'Dickensian' school run by millionaire evangelist friend
> of
> Blair
>
>
It is a good thing that schools are able to set their own discipline code,
and enforce it. Some people allow their children to do whatever they want,
when these children are introduced to boundaries at school, they have
problems.
AFAIK, there is a long waiting list to get into these academies.
Gaz
buzzbomb
> Tom Sacold wrote:
>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1785743,00.html
>>
>>
>> Parents rebel at 'Dickensian' school run by millionaire evangelist friend
>> of
>> Blair
>>
>>
>
> It is a good thing that schools are able to set their own discipline code,
> and enforce it. Some people allow their children to do whatever they want,
> when these children are introduced to boundaries at school, they have
> problems.
There seem to be two keys issues at play here. One is that it appears
arbitrary "discipline" is being used to manipulate the pupil population
to create a illusion of academic success.
The other, wider issue is that academies exist outside the normal school
structure so there is no oversight or appeals process against such
arbitrary justice.
>
> AFAIK, there is a long waiting list to get into these academies.
Any school that has bucket loads of cash and effort thrown at it is
likely to be a success. Its not unsurprising that parents wish their
children to go to successful schools.
B.
Ian
> Gaz wrote:
>> Tom Sacold wrote:
>>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1785743,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Parents rebel at 'Dickensian' school run by millionaire evangelist
>>> friend of
>>> Blair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It is a good thing that schools are able to set their own discipline
>> code, and enforce it. Some people allow their children to do whatever
>> they want, when these children are introduced to boundaries at school,
>> they have problems.
> This can be taken to extremes though.
One person's extreme is anothers norm. That is why there will never be
universal agreement on the best way to run a school.
> There seem to be two keys issues at play here. One is that it appears
> arbitrary "discipline" is being used to manipulate the pupil population
> to create a illusion of academic success.
Again this depends on your perspective. It would not surprise me if a
side-effect of removing non-compliant kids was to raise exam performance
simply because there is more collective focus on the exam outcomes. If you
are the parent of a child that conforms you might well think this is a
good thing. If you were the parent that thought their child would conform
but then finds out they don't and they get expelled you are likely to have
a different view of things. Conformity has advantages and disadvantages
from an education view point.
> The other, wider issue is that academies exist outside the normal school
> structure so there is no oversight or appeals process against such
> arbitrary justice.
They are still subject to OFSTED inspections and at least one has been put
in special measures. The reason for Academies is to provide more
flexibility so it seems likely that that will result in more management
freedom. If they are over-subscribed, its likely that there will be places
in other schools with different values so parents are free to move their
children to them and allow others who agree with the Academy's value to
take a place.
>> AFAIK, there is a long waiting list to get into these academies.
> Any school that has bucket loads of cash and effort thrown at it is
> likely to be a success.
Not the real experience. There is not a lot of correlation between the
schools with the highest funding (These tend to be ones qualifying for
grants in areas of deprivation) and performance. Its complex and there are
plenty of examples of schools that have had bucket fulls of cash that
failed. I inspected one that was spending more than double the national
average per pupil but it still ended up being closed.
> Its not unsurprising that parents wish their children to go to
> successful schools.
Indeed, but many Academies are formed from unsuccessful and unpopular
schools. Money on its own is not the key, the way the school is managed
and the quality of the teachers is far, far more important.
--
Ian Lynch
www.theINGOTs.org
www.opendocumentfellowship.org
www.schoolforge.org.uk
buzzbomb
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 09:48:14 +0000, buzzbomb wrote:
>
>> Gaz wrote:
>>> Tom Sacold wrote:
>>>> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1785743,00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Parents rebel at 'Dickensian' school run by millionaire evangelist
>>>> friend of
>>>> Blair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is a good thing that schools are able to set their own discipline
>>> code, and enforce it. Some people allow their children to do whatever
>>> they want, when these children are introduced to boundaries at school,
>>> they have problems.
>> This can be taken to extremes though.
>
> One person's extreme is anothers norm. That is why there will never be
> universal agreement on the best way to run a school.
>
>> There seem to be two keys issues at play here. One is that it appears
>> arbitrary "discipline" is being used to manipulate the pupil population
>> to create a illusion of academic success.
>
> Again this depends on your perspective. It would not surprise me if a
> side-effect of removing non-compliant kids was to raise exam performance
> simply because there is more collective focus on the exam outcomes.
because they have to accept the "problem" children. This is where you
get into arguments about whether schools should be judged as standalone
institutions or should be viewed as part of a wider community.
> If you
> are the parent of a child that conforms you might well think this is a
> good thing. If you were the parent that thought their child would conform
> but then finds out they don't and they get expelled you are likely to have
> a different view of things. Conformity has advantages and disadvantages
> from an education view point.
I would rather have my children educated as thoughtful, questioning
individuals rather than drones
>
>> The other, wider issue is that academies exist outside the normal school
>> structure so there is no oversight or appeals process against such
>> arbitrary justice.
>
> They are still subject to OFSTED inspections and at least one has been put
> in special measures. The reason for Academies is to provide more
> flexibility so it seems likely that that will result in more management
> freedom. If they are over-subscribed, its likely that there will be places
> in other schools with different values so parents are free to move their
> children to them and allow others who agree with the Academy's value to
> take a place.
I wasn't aware OFSTED provided a route for individual parents to
question disciplinary issues.
>
>>> AFAIK, there is a long waiting list to get into these academies.
>> Any school that has bucket loads of cash and effort thrown at it is
>> likely to be a success.
>
> Not the real experience. There is not a lot of correlation between the
> schools with the highest funding (These tend to be ones qualifying for
> grants in areas of deprivation) and performance. Its complex and there are
> plenty of examples of schools that have had bucket fulls of cash that
> failed. I inspected one that was spending more than double the national
> average per pupil but it still ended up being closed.
You will note I said "money & effort". I accept that vast sums of money
can be spent with no significant impact. I tend to think that the whole
exercise of Academies & Trust Schools will by its very nature attract
ambitious, motivated staff who will then find themselves well resourced.
I have no doubt that such circumstances can give rise to impressive
results. I believe the success of these schools will be down to such
people and the resources they have available to them - not the
Academy/Trust status per se. The real challenge, and the one I think
this government has seriously avoided, is how to create such conditions
throughout the education system.
This will also tend to deprive those schools that do not fall into line
of both good teachers and resources. Coupled with the issue of
overt/covert selection I strongly believe we are moving towards as two
tier education system.
>
>> Its not unsurprising that parents wish their children to go to
>> successful schools.
>
> Indeed, but many Academies are formed from unsuccessful and unpopular
> schools. Money on its own is not the key, the way the school is managed
> and the quality of the teachers is far, far more important.
>
Agreed - but a good teacher with resources....
B.