“Chaos” as primary school’s executive board chair resigns, only for council to announce the next day that it will press on with academisation

The former swimming pool at Peacehaven Heights

An unelected board, imposed on a primary school by its local authority, has done as expected in moving to press on with its academisation – though when this will happen seems to be anyone’s guess.

In a strange series of events in the increasingly surreal case of Peacehaven Heights primary in East Sussex, the chair of its Interim Executive Board (IEB) wrote to parents with news of his resignation, only for the IEB to confirm to them hours later that it wanted to academise the school.

Peacehaven has faced a confusing few months under the board, three of whose members work for East Sussex County Council (ESCC), with the fourth, Jonathan Taylor, a consultant who had borne the brunt of community frustration as its chair.

The history

Last May, the previous, community-facing, governing body had decided to put off any plans to academise, despite pressure from Conservative-controlled ESCC.

ESCC then replaced the governors with the IEB, which started work last September, with Taylor stating on its arrival that an “academy solution” was to be considered for the-then Ofsted-good rated school.

Recent events have been controversial-bordering-on-the-farcical. Over the summer the board angered the community, for which Taylor later apologised, by filling in the school’s swimming pool without consultation, arguing it was too expensive to run but with critics including the National Education Union saying this was a device to cut costs for an incoming academy chain to run.

Then the board went months without advertising for a permanent headteacher for Peacehaven Heights, after its seemingly very popular interim head, Gemma Roxburgh decided to leave at Christmas.

A decision on whether or not to seek to recruit a permanent head, or seemingly whether to press on with academisation, was scheduled for a meeting of the IEB on October 13th, although staff were told by Taylor that they would have to wait weeks - until minutes had been signed off following the next IEB meeting on November, 11^th - before knowing what had happened.

In the meantime, staff were provided with no detail on why an advertisement for Roxburgh’s replacement had yet to be placed, despite Taylor having committed to openness.

Events last week

Then, on Thursday last week, with the details of that meeting still not having been released, and with concern and requests for further information from parents and staff stacking up, Taylor announced his resignation as chair.

“Stepping down from this role has been a difficult personal decision, but I am aware of the considerable challenges the school now faces and how even more vital this role will be in the coming months,” Taylor wrote.

Many within this community have questioned how the IEB’s going at least three months between announcing the resignation of the interim head, Gemma Roxburgh, and taking any decision on replacing her, could not have added to those challenges.

Taylor added: “Unfortunately, due to my current workload, I cannot offer the time required by the role of chair of the IEB.” Taylor would, though, be continuing as an IEB member.

On Friday morning – with staff allegedly finding out just before children arrived for the last day of half-term – a letter arrived to parents and carers from ESCC. Strangely, given that the issue seemed of such high public importance for this local community, it was marked “private and confidential”.

The letter, from Anna McGrath, a senior manager at ESCC, followed on from Taylor’s resignation by revealing that Claire Roberts, another senior manager at ESCC who currently serves on the IEB, was to replace him as chair, though only temporarily, while it sought a permanent replacement.

Most importantly, perhaps, however, the letter also revealed the IEB’s latest deliberations on the school’s future. Instead of advertising now for a replacement for Roxburgh, it would be pressing on with academising the school. Whether this information would have been revealed to the community at this time without Taylor’s resignation as chair seems an interesting question.

The letter said: “At the IEB meeting on 13^th October, consideration was given to securing school leadership and recruiting a headteacher. As a result of the performance and leadership challenges the school is facing, the IEB voted in favour of pursuing an academy solution.

“It was decided that this is the best way to secure the school’s leadership and its capacity to bring about the rapid improvement that is required.”

Whether waiting since the summer to make a decision, and then voting to go ahead with the complicated and time-consuming legal changes which academisation always involves really was the best way of securing “rapid improvement” – rather than either seeking to secure Roxburgh’s services or to advertise quickly for a replacement – is a widely-asked local question.

The National Education Union, which has been scathing throughout about the situation at the school and has pointed to most staff there being opposed to academisation, issued a press releasing saying that the situation at Peacehaven had descended into “chaos”.

Phil Clarke, Branch Secretary of East Sussex NEU, said: “The board, supposedly brought in to provide stable leadership, has provided nothing to the school beyond concreting over the pool then moving on the very successful interim head. Now we have the farce of having its own chair resigning at the very meeting it decided to push through privatisation.”

What happens now: academisation under STEP?

What happens now is, of course, the key point. Strangely, the ESCC’s letter said the IEB would remain in place “at least until the end of the 2020/21 academic year”.

That would make it at least two full academic years in post. This seems remarkably long, with unelected IEBs supposed to be short-term measures supposedly to drive the “rapid improvement” of which ESCC talks. Two years sounds like a very long “interim” period, with the letter even suggesting this locally unpopular body could continue for longer, as its term beyond summer 2021 would be reviewed after the spring.

If the IEB were to be in place only until July, it would also mean at least another nine months before academisation were completed. Again, sceptics will wonder whether it would not have been more efficient simply to appoint an effective new leader, without academising.

The academy chain STEP seems to remain in poll position to take over this school in the long run, given that it has been providing an interim headteacher to work alongside Roxburgh this term, as well as other school improvement services.

It did, however, walk away last year from possibly taking control of nearby Moulsecoomb primary, in Brighton, following another vociferous anti-academisation campaign.

Will it take this one on? Predicting anything in relation to this beyond-strange saga – going on as it is despite the coronavirus crisis – would appear to be foolish.

Academy chain apologises about the manner of its imposition of uniform requirements – but will still be breaking its promise

The Avanti Schools Trust has issued an apology to parents for the way it introduced new uniform requirements at three of its schools.

As Education Uncovered has reported, the trust, which took over three former Steiner free schools in the South West last November, announced this month plans to introduce a uniform from January.

This was despite a curriculum document, and question and answers published by the trust in response to its own curriculum review in May, having earlier stated only that a consultation was to be held on whether a uniform was to be introduced this coming September.

Petitions at two of the schools followed, with several commenters beneath them pointing to this move having added to parental financial hardship during the coronavirus crisis.

The trust then backed down on some of the proposals last week, with the introduction of uniform of any kind put back until March and with plans for blazers to be made a requirement from September put back indefinitely.

Now a letter has been sent to parents from Mike Younger, Avanti Schools Trust’s chair, and Molly Warrington, chair of the three schools’ trust-controlled local governance board.

It states: “The trust understands that this is a contentious issue, and we apologise to those of you who feel we have been high-handed or duplicitous in how we have dealt with this.

“This has not been our intention, but we accept that we could have dealt with the issue more sensitively and reflected back more thoughtfully on the original statement made when we published the curriculum review.

“We acknowledge that many of the concerns raised are genuine and heartfelt…nevertheless, for the sake of balance, we should say that the principals have also been contacted by a [unspecified] number of parents wholly supportive of the uniform plans. It is also the case that a large number of the free jumpers the trust will be providing have been already ordered by parents.”

The letter then seemed to hint at more flexibility on timing, beyond March, saying: “Some members of the hub board did express reservations as to timing, and for this reason the decision was taken to support a phased introduction of uniform between January and September; this remains our intention, and we expect all pupils at the three schools…to wear uniform at the latest by September 2021.”

The letter, while seeking to sound conciliatory, then appeared to sign off with an implied “we know best” message for its readers.

It stated: “We acknowledge the depth of feeling that has been expressed, though it is the case that many thousands of children in this country do wear similar uniforms to school each day, and are proud to be identified with successful schools. They grow up as balanced people, able to express their own individuality.”

And yet the promise earlier this year seems to have been a consultation on the possibility of uniforms, rather than parents and children simply having to accept what happens elsewhere.

It seems surprising that the history of these schools, catering as they were for the children of families many of which had rejected the mainstream offering of state-funded education in England – under a free schools policy which had been set up allegedly to offer diversity -  seems still not to be being fully acknowledged.