…. it might be now!

Sadly, Torridge District Councillors last night voted 15 to 11 not to pursue a judicial review against the Secretary of State’s decision (against all advice and the planning inspectorates recommendation) to let Route 39 Academy build their new secondary school in the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Route 39 has 123 students, less than a typical primary school and about 1/3 of the number they told the Dept. for Education they would have attending. To buy the site and build the school will now cost us all £ millions and the countryside will never be the same.

Now that the Government has announced that all schools will be Academies by 2020, why do we need this one? All the other local secondary schools have spare places available for students and most are rated good by Ofsted – Route 39 got a ‘requires improvement’ last Summer!

The Government are now teeing up all schools to be integrated in MAT’s or Multi-Academy Trusts, comprising clusters of schools with centralised financial budgets and control, ripe fruit for ‘out-sourcing’ to the likes of Babcock, Pearson, Ark, E-ACT and other large corporate ‘for profit’ education providers. These companies top slice the first 10%+ from each schools budget for their own shareholders before spending a penny on the children’s education and welfare.

I wonder how many Conservative Party supporters, donors and former Ministers sit on the boards of these organisations?

What a warped world we live in!

Route 39 – Certainly Closer to Closure?

Having taken some time to reflect upon the the documentation submitted by Route 39 to the Planning Inspectorate which; without any shred of irony, they refer to as their ‘proof of evidence’, one could again be inclined to question and challenge some of the statements that have now been put forward as justification for overturning the majority decision made last September by our locally and democratically elected representatives on Torridge District Council’s planning committee.

Playing the blame game!

In statements submitted by Mr Richard Bence, Chairman of Route 39’s Board of Trustees, Route 39 is plainly seeking to place the blame for the schools woeful record of attracting and retaining students on the fact that they haven’t been able to spend upwards of £2 million building their ‘vision’, bang in the middle of our protected AONB countryside.

The document states “Significant concern and uncertainty on students and parents who had already chosen Route 39 Academy as their secondary school and were due to start in September 2013. This led to a reduction in the number of students attending in the first year by an estimated 5 students. Continued uncertainty regarding site has led to significant student instability. In Year 1 of operation, 25 students left during the year and to date, 21 have left this, our second year. This has been balanced in part by students joining, dissatisfied with other schools. In Year 1, 20 students joined the Academy in year and to date 15 have joined this year.”

As usual, this ‘evidence’ makes completely unsubstantiated claims about parents dissatisfaction at other local secondary schools (another example of the denigration of our local school provision that Route 39 openly say they never do!) yet makes no clear comment at all about the dissatisfaction of both parents and students that have left Route 39 for a myriad of reasons, choosing only to say this was because of ‘uncertainty’.

Of the parents who have pulled their children out of Route 39, while uncertainty may indeed have played a small role in their decision, in almost all cases it most certainly was not the primary driver. The quality of teaching, the behaviour of fellow students, odd-ball teaching methods, transport costs, lack of proper governance and the strong perception among some parents that Route 39 has become a school catering predominantly for SEN children from around the wider region (in order to keep the student numbers viable) are just some of the many examples cited by some of these parents that made this very difficult decision for their children.

It is very wrong to grossly generalise the deeply held feelings of these parents, who made their original choice with the very best intentions, but who quickly found that the reality of Route 39 was far, far removed from the image that they were ‘sold’. Rather than undermine these parents, Route 39 might consider acknowledging their failures and admit publicly that their experiment in education does not, in fact, have all the answers for all parents and students.

It’s not us, it’s them!

The documents go on to blame Route 39’s inadequacies on everyone else but themselves. “While the temporary accommodation provides sufficient resources to cover the 11 to 14 curriculum, the Academy is unable to implement significant aspects of the vision including land-based learning. In addition, options for GCSE are limited as there are few specialist facilities available. We have lost a couple students recently to other schools able to offer a broader curriculum. Continued uncertainty regarding a permanent site have had a negative impact on the recruitment and retention of both staff and students. This year alone we have had two candidates refused an interview and one refused a job offer due to uncertainty regarding the permanent site.”

So, according to Route 39, it’s not only the fault of all the other schools locally that have better facilities, better GCSE options and a broader curriculum, it is also the fault of those teachers that refused to join their school. Again, they put this down to that elusive condition of ‘uncertainty’. So did these professional teachers not buy in strongly enough to Route 39’s ‘vision’, were they not offered enough money (Route 39 is not restricted as to what they pay in salaries to staff) or did they perhaps see something in the way the school is actually operating that rang alarm bells? After all, Route 39 did promise its parents and students that their teachers and teaching would be ‘outstanding’, so it stands to reason that teachers would be throwing themselves at Route 39, wouldn’t they?

And while not content at simply blaming those teachers that didn’t want a job at this particular Free School, Route 39  goes on to pillory Torridge’s District Councillors on the Planning Committee. Not withstanding the fact that these people are democratically elected and that they are duty bound to exercise their duties under the Nolan Principals for Public Office, showing no fear or favour in their decision making, the statement castigates TDC Councillors by proxy because they didn’t deliver what Route 39’s board of Governors had promised to the parents, students and staff of the school. “Parents have experienced the outcome of two Torridge Planning Committee decisions and have no faith in the committee acting in the best interest of their children. It would be unreasonable to expect parents and students to have the will to endure another planning application that would require the approval of the Planning Committee once again…The delays caused by Torridge in planning applications for Route 39 Academy have had a significant impact on the short-term viability of the Academy.”

So what is the motivation?

“The progress of the Academy thus far has placed significant reliance on the team of volunteer Governors. Many have worked for four years on the Academy without pay and at significant cost personally and on their families. I am concerned that there is a point at which this volunteer goodwill becomes exhausted.” Route 39 seem, within this statement to perhaps hint that Route 39 Governors should, in fact, be paid for the work that they have done over the past four years!  This is incredible! Route 39 would do well to realise that school governors at all schools across the area and in fact across the nation, don’t do what they do for money, we all do it because it is precisely what needs to be done for the children. As Governors we volunteer to help our schools and we don’t expect to get paid for it! Why should Governors at Route 39 be any different?

The future is certainly uncertain!

Like a soothsayer reading the runes, Route 39 finally launch themselves into predictions for the future. “The viability of the Academy going forward is reliant on the number of students attending. The impact of continued uncertainty regarding the site has a high likelihood of dissuading future applicants.” they appealingly state.  “As funding is based on the number of students attending the Academy there will be a number of students below which the Academy is no longer viable. It is not possible to give an accurate figure for this as it is dependent on the needs of the students, the breadth of years and the number of students in each year.”

It might be suggested by some that this prediction is already false – the Education Funding Agency (EFA) set a minimum intake of 50 students per year into Route 39 and the academy has consistently failed to attract and, crucially, retain these numbers of students. Indeed, with only 139 students signed to attend the school from September 2015 (Update October 2015 – only 130 actually turned up in September!), the school has only 35% of the total number is stated it would have in its EFA funding application.

It is not unknown for the EFA to withdraw its (our) funding from unviable free schools and academies and with the current situation continuing, it can perhaps be said with a greater degree of certainty than ever that Route 39 is now certainly closer to closure.

Route 39 – The numbers just still don’t add up!

In a previous NDG article, ‘The prize for fiction goes to…Route 39‘, posted in January 2015, we wrote concerning the publication of the Route 39 Free School’s application to the Department of Education and the Education Funding Agency for £2 million of funding, to build a new school that nobody wanted in a place nobody wanted it!

This article, clearly pointed out the ‘demand analysis’ that Route 39 had used to justify its application, where they confidently guaranteed to the authorities that they would attract 700 children to attend the school per year, over a period of 7 years – 100 children attending in each year group.

These figures, which were challenged most vociferously by local educationalists and parents at the time, were highly dubious at best, however upon these numbers the DfE and EFA very generously agreed to hand over the £2 million from educational funds, effectively removing this money from thousands of local secondary school children, as this “wonderful development” (Michael Gove’s words, not mine) would “be the catalyst for a rise in educational standards locally“. The EFA even went so far as to state in their funding agreement that even if Route 39 only got 50 kids per year, they would still cough up the money!

Opening day attendance numbers were ‘adjusted’, as it soon became all too obvious to the trustees that the Year 7 applications were going to fall woefully short of their predictions, so they opened up the intake to Year 8 and even Year 9 children to make up the shortfall. Even then, they only managed to scrape through the 50 children mark, fewer than the vast majority of annual primary school intakes around the country.

The article went on to suggest that “You could be forgiven for thinking that last years intake failure was simply just ‘opening day blues’, but one year on and September 2014’s figures were no better, in fact they were even worse, with only 49 students making up the new intake and the current total standing at a paltry 107!

Now, we know the numbers for September 2015 and you’ve guessed it… again they don’t add up!

Because Route 39 are too embarrassed to reveal the numbers of students that they are attracting, interested parties have to resort to Freedom of Information Act requests to get this information.

It has been discovered that Route 39’s September 2015 intake numbers are a mere 38 from Devon and just 9 from Cornwall, a total of only 47 children. The more keenly observant reader might realise that this number is well short of the 50 children required by the EFA to continue funding and massively below the 100 children the trustees of Route 39 have always claimed, from their application and ‘demand analysis’ would wish to attend the school. Even wishful thinking can’t get them above the minimum numbers that Route 39 needs to be viable!

Isn’t it quite obvious now that there simply is not a demand for this school that the EFA were led to believe existed and shouldn’t this hugely expensive ‘white elephant’ be closed immediately and its allocated funding of £2 million be better used to help the thousands of local secondary school children in this area? Isn’t it now time to end this farce once and for good?

Route 39: Does FOI release reveal lack of financial governance?

October 6th, 2014: Update – Finally, Route 39 have complied with my Freedom of Information request and released the minutes of their Governing Body meetings and Finance and Personnel Committee meetings. They emailed me at 4:40 pm today, 20 minutes before close of business on the final day they were due to reveal the information under the FOI regulations – nice touch chaps, very mature!

The Chair of Governors kindly wrote saying: “In response to your Freedom of Information request, please be advised that ratified minutes of the Governing Body and its committees are available here: http://goo.gl/GP0p4r“.

Who is checking Route 39’s spending? Obviously not the Finance Committee!

It remains somewhat perplexing that it takes someone like myself to hold this establishment to account, and to ensure that they conform to the standards and regulations for public transparency that other schools across the nation have to abide by and to which Route 39 trustees agreed when they signed their EFA funding contract . Why are not the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency, Ofsted, the parents of students at the school and the governors themselves ensuring that this information is transparent and available for public review?

But hold on… it seems that between December 5th 2013 and June 10th 2014, Route 39 didn’t hold any Finance and Personnel Committee meetings at all, and the June 10th 2014 minutes are not accessible. Very tardy!

Does this mean that for the first six months of this year, at a time when the school has been heavily involved in funding its abortive planning application, Route 39 has been merrily spending tax payers money without any control, oversight or governance in place to monitor and review their outlay? Surely not?

Why are the DfE and EFA not investigating this poor governance and asking governors the challenging questions that need answering?

Schools have a duty to publish certain information on their school website. This includes but is not limited to: details of the pupil premium allocation and spending plans, the curriculum – content and approach, links to admission arrangements, SEN Policy, Charges and Remissions Policy and Behaviour policy. Taking its legislative basis from The School Information (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, the publication of such information is a requirement for maintained schools, academies and free schools.

I also wonder why Route 39’s Governing Body minutes are not accessible to parents and the local community via the schools website, as they rightfully should be – All other local secondary schools do this as a matter of course, but I searched tonight and Route 39’s are nowhere to be found!