24 May 2002

This summarises the content of public meetings on the proposed City Academy in Lambeth held in April 2002.

Purpose/Objective
Observers from the Secondary School Campaign in Lambeth (SSCIL) attended all the public meetings, so SSCIL could provide this report to the consultants hired by the DfES, Lambeth LEA, Lambeth Council, local MPs, and, most important, local parents who have campaigned for two years for a new school.

Summary
Parents who attended public meetings about the proposed City Academy in Lambeth continued to stress their desire for a non-denominational school, attended by local children and run by a local governing body including a head teacher hired without reference to faith. Other members of the community attending public meetings expressed similar views. Nearly everyone agreed with the desperate need for a new school in the neighbourhood.

Key concerns continue to be the extent to which the new school will be Christian, the extent to it will be governed locally, and catchment area or admissions. There is also a significant level of interest in specialism--why it is needed, and what the options are.

This is consistent with SSCIL’s earlier research, e.g. the stakeholders’ meeting, public meetings, and the petitions sent to Tony Blair in September 2001 and and letters sent to MP Keith Hill in April 2002.

Detail
Each of six public meetings began with a presentation by the LEA and another by the Church Schools Company (CSC). People were invited to give their views on admissions policy, specialism, community access, and governance.

There was little comment on size of school. The proposed six form entry is broadly accepted. There was little comment on community use of school. It was not a priority for discussion in a neighbourhood where children struggle to find secondary school places. The constant responses to nudges from the chair on these questions was that “if the key issues of local governance and the right head are resolved everything else will follow”.

Key concerns were in other areas, as follows.

Christian or non-denominational/Criteria for selecting the head teacher

At every meeting many questions were asked about the role of faith in the school. Although it seems clear that the school will not be non-denominational, it is less clear what the role of Christian faith will be. There was great concern that children of all faiths and none should feel equally welcome in the school–not merely “allowed” to attend. The same feeling was extended to teachers, including the head.

Questions and reactions to answers from the Church Schools Company showed there was very little support for another overtly Christian school in Lambeth. At the Macaulay meeting a question was asked about how the new school will help to address the “imbalance of admission in Lambeth…where 50% of places give preference to faith, so some people get more choice than others”.

Parents said, nearly unanimously, that they did not want Christian faith to be considered when the head was selected--that instead, the best person for the job, regardless of faith, should be hired. Many questions about how exactly the head would be selected were asked, as people were not satisfied to delegate this to the CSC or the DfES. Many comments of support for local primary heads, and recognition of their vital contribution to the success of local schools, were made, and help show why the issue of the selection of the head was so prominent at the public meetings.

At every meeting frustration at the lack of clear answers on this issue was expressed. For example, this exchange at International House:

Councillor Roland Doven: “Does the Head have to be a Christian?”
CSC Deputy CEO Charlotte Rendle-Short: “That’s a black and white question for an issue that isn’t black and white.”
Local parent: “So if the best person was Muslim or no faith you’d hire him?”
Another local parent: “Has the CSC ever had a non-Christian head?”
Charlotte Rendle-Short: “This is not black and white.”

Later in the same meeting, Ewan Harper, CEO of the CSC, said that they would expect the head to be Christian, and that this has never been an issue before.

Governance

There was little support for proposed governance by a Trust, even with assurances that there would be one local representative on the Trust. There were questions about what precisely the Local Governing Body (LGB) will be empowered to do, and a clear preference for governance on the local community school model was consistently expressed. Again, people wanted the head to be hired by the local governing body, and the school to be run by the local governing body. For example, at International House a parent said “If the LGB had responsibility for the head, admissions policy, and hiring of staff, we’d all be reassured. Otherwise we’re delivering our children to them (the Trust).”

Questions were asked about the way the LGB would be selected and who would be on it (e.g. how many “nominees from the Church Schools Company”?). At the Clapham Manor meeting, the published suggestion of a Diocesan Board of Education representative was questioned, given that this is not supposed to be a faith school.

Questions were asked at all meetings about who gets final decision making authority, the Trust or the local governing body. For example, at Macaulay, a local governor asked “if every time the LGB takes a decision it can be over-ruled there’s a problem—who’s top dog?” The reply was that “the Trust is the legally contracted body with the DfES. It has the right to delegate rights and responsibilities to LGBs.” It was clear that the vast majority of people would like to see these rights and responsibilities spelled out more clearly and the balance of power shifted toward the local body.

The message on local governance from Charlotte Rendle-Short of the CSC did change during the course of the meetings, probably in response to the consistent input from local people. After the first meeting, in which the CSC expressed confidence their model of education could be transferred to any new environment, in subsequent meetings people were assured that: “fundamentally it’s about working locally” (Macaulay meeting), that “we’d delegate as much as the local governing body would want delegated”, “ultimately it’s here, at local level, that solutions will be found”, and “constitutionally there are no constraints on the range of decisions that can be delegated” (Henry Cavendish meeting). Again, people at all the public meetings said that the division of powers and responsibilities between the LGB and the Trust needs further clarification.

There were also questions about failure: how it would be judged, who would own the school if it failed and needed to be relaunched, etc. It was explained that Lambeth is leasing the land to the Trust for 100 years (probably), and the DfES will own the building.

Admissions/Catchment area

The proposed site’s position at the very edge of the borough was criticised because it is in an area perceived to be more affluent than most of central Lambeth, and because it means that places could be lost to Wandsworth children already well served by local secondary schools. Many questions were asked about the options for setting the catchment area and other admissions criteria. There was interest in a feeder school strategy, in a policy that favours siblings, and in preference for walking or biking to school. Parents understood and approved that faith would not be a criterion for admission.

It never became clear whether the City Academy would have to follow the Greenwich Judgement or not.

Banding/Fair banding: People need more information to be able to give views on banding. It was clear from discussion that most were not familiar with the ways banding can be done, and what the issues are. There was clear frustration with the number of exams children must sit to get into secondary school, and preference for a single exam or use of Y5 test results rather than a new exam for the City Academy. On banding, however, people had to ask so many questions there was no opportunity to come to a point of view in the meetings.

Specialism

There was confusion about the need for a specialism. Once this was explained, and the existence of a set list of specialisms revealed, there was almost no public support for business and enterprise.

Because the list was not made available in the first meetings, or in the questionnaire, an opportunity to learn what specialism local people would prefer has been lost. Of those who did have an opportunity to review the list, there was some preference for the modern language specialism, because it would work with Lambeth’s multi-cultural and multi-lingual strengths.

No one had a real opportunity to consider the issue of specialism in the context of what is on offer at other schools, as this information was never made fully available in public meetings. For example, at the Macaulay meeting some people were interested in performing arts as a specialism. The consultants said this wouldn’t work as there were already “two or three” Lambeth schools with this specialism, but then they were unable to name the schools or explain the role of the specialism in them.

There was no support for allowing 10% of children to be admitted on the basis of specialism i.e. people agreed that all the spaces should be generalist, local places, regardless of specialism.

The Church Schools Company

The CSC fielded many questions about the reasons they wanted to enter an educational sector in which they have no experience—publicly funded inner city schools. People want the CSC to be much more clear about the extent to which the school will be Christian, and the extent to which the school will be locally accountable and locally governed.

Other Issues Raised

Opening date /Temporary site: Many questions were asked about the timing of the new school. Parents want the school open as soon as possible, and asked for a September 2004 opening date. Parents prefer the school to be open earlier even if this means using a temporary site, e.g. the Haselrigge School site.

There was little support for perceived privatisation of education. So there was very little praise for the City Academy programme. There was much criticism of the DfES and Lambeth recommendation of Christian sponsor when so many local people had made the case for a non-denominational school.

Some aspects of the consultation were publicly criticized. Late and limited notice of meetings was an issue—for example, information about the second of six meetings was given out the week of the meeting. There was almost no public notice of the first meeting so very few people attended (e.g. of the handful of people who attended the first meeting, half were only notified by a SSCIL poster in the Clapham Manor playground). The first meetings suffered from a lack of information and therefore informed questions and much time was wasted, not just on the specialisation point but on ignorance as to the definition of, and necessity for, a City Academy. The quality of debate and informed opinions in the beginning was in stark contrast to the last meeting at Clapham Manor School, which was attended by more than 100 parents from many schools.

Documents for the consultation were also criticized. There were no brochures available for the first meeting and still two versions of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was criticized for asking leading questions and failing to provide information needed to answer questions intelligently (e.g. at International House a local parent said “It is a gross oversight that the list (of specialisms) isn’t included in the questionnaire”). A local councillor demanded that the list of specialisms be added to the phone questionnaire. Other people were very concerned that the report, and the data supporting it, be presented for public review, including the list of stakeholders interviewed. This was promised by the middle of June.

Unfortunately the DfES did not send anyone to any of the public meetings.

Prepared by SSCIL: 24th May 2002

If you know of any news to to with the campaign for a new secondary school let us know. Contact us at SSCIL