Academy trust advertised cleaning contract for incoming school –weeks before its governors approved it joining

“The application was therefore prepared, signed by the chair and submitted. At the point that the governing body began the consultation process, no decision had been made to proceed with the conversion. The decision to convert was taken by the Woodside governors on 18.3.19 at the end of the consultation period, after a full discussion and consideration of the information available.”

 

Questions about what critics see as the sometimes pre-ordained nature of academy conversions are likely to increase following an extraordinary case in Hertfordshire.

 Woodside primary, on London’s northern fringe at Waltham Cross, has seen an academy order application submitted – by the trust it has been lined up to join, rather than the school itself – weeks before the end of consultation with parents. The school says its governors did not take a final vote until afterwards.

 Meanwhile, Education Uncovered has learnt that the chain in question, Ivy Learning Trust, advertised for a cleaning contract which was to include Woodside even before its governing body had met for the first time to discuss and approve the academisation proposal.

The development, just one of two current controversial academisation moves affecting this small trust, is raising more questions about academy projects, which permanently change the control of schools, being imposed on parents and local people regardless of their views.

 Ivy is based in Enfield, north London, and has been operating only 18 months but is seeking to expand.

 The detail

 Woodside, a one-form entry local authority primary, is successful in Ofsted terms, having had a “good” verdict from the inspectorate only in January.

It is, therefore, not in the position of having to be forced into academy status, but can only academise if this is the choice of its governing body.

On January 28^th, its governing body “voted to apply for an academy order to convert to join Ivy Learning Trust and to carry out a six-week consultation process,” minutes of an extraordinary meeting held to discuss the plan disclose. This consultation process, then, duly opened on February 4^th.

Parents were told in a letter from the chair of governors, Rubbina Umar, that this process would last until March 18^th. There was no mention of an application for an academy order, which starts the academisation process, having been made.

A question and answer document, to which parents were directed in the letter, stated: “After the six week consultation period, governors will meet to review all comments and to vote whether to convert. Parents and staff will be informed the following day.”

However, a freedom of information response has shown that that application was submitted to the office of the Department for Education’s regional schools commissioner, Martin Post, only two weeks into the process, on February 18^th .

Also, it was Roz McLaren, chief operating officer of Ivy, who did so, rather than the school itself.

Indeed, the FOI response from Post’s office states that there had been no communication between the DfE and the school’s governing body in the weeks leading up to February 18^th, but only with Ivy.

Campaigners including Tina Graham, a parent who submitted the FOI, contend that this undermines the notion that there was distance between the school, supposedly taking the decision, and the trust, which it is now in line to join.

Graham said: “I am an advocate for change having worked in change roles in the public sector, so I know first hand the challenges the school would have faced from stakeholders about this but when we were advised as parents of the consultation it was a bit out of the blue. I was open minded initially and openly sent in questions and attended parent meetings but slowly began to question the reasoning behind the decision.

“With this I wanted to gather facts so made a number of FOI requests to the school, DfE and Ivy.

“I suspected that an application would already have been made given the way in which the consultation had been initiated.

“To actually confirm my suspicion was one thing but to learn that it was actually the Ivy Learning Trust dealing with the application for the school was quite a shock.

“The consultation became worthless to me at that point as it seemed whatever a parent or other consultee would raise would not have any weight in changing the decision the governing body had already made.

“To allow the MAT that you are consulting on joining to submit your application on your behalf is almost certainly confirming a professional relationship where you are affiliated and that is what seems just so wrong to me during what is meant to be a consultation period that supposedly had not had its final vote”.

When Graham queried this with Woodside’s head, Caroline Ginty, Ginty replied: “The application was forwarded to the relevant body by the Ivy Trust as they have been supporting us with administration and have dealings with relevant parties. A copy of the order had been signed by the chair of governors prior to being sent oFff.”  

When asked about this by Education Uncovered, Ivy also pointed out that although the application itself had been submitted by the trust, the document seeking the academy order had been signed by Woodside’s chair of governors, Umar.

The application was submitted during half term before the second of two meetings held with parents to consult them on the plans, with the formal consultation ending on March 15^th, governors meeting on March 18^th and then writing to parents on March 19^th to confirm their decision.

The academy order application, disclosed under FOI, also asked the question as to whether the Ivy Trust had consented to the school joining it. This was to be “voted on at next [Ivy] trust board meeting, 14/2/19,” said the form. So that was a month before the end of the consultation at Woodside.

Contracts

Ivy Learning Trust advertised cleaning and catering contracts, during and in one case even before the Woodside consultation period, on the basis that the school would be joining the trust.

An advert tendering for cleaning states: “This contract is for the management and provision of a cleaning service to seven primary schools and the head office of the Ivy Learning Trust located within Enfield and Hertfordshire”.

The document states that five schools in Enfield and one within Hertfordshire were covered, with the contract to start on April 1^st (Monday this week).

The advert states that the notice had been “dispatched” on 14^th January, which was two weeks before Woodside’s joining Ivy was approved by the governing body.

Until this week, Ivy had only five schools: four in Enfield and one in Hertfordshire. Graham said the other two referred to in this notice must be Woodside, which would bring the number in Hertfordshire to two, and Walker primary, in Enfield, which has – very controversially – just joined Ivy this week.

When asked, Ivy confirmed to Education Uncovered that these were the two missing schools.

It stated: “Woodside primary school was included in the tender process to ensure they would benefit from any potential savings if they became part of the trust. Walker had already voted to convert at the point that the tender documents were issued. If the Woodside governing body had voted against the conversion, the school would have been removed from the process.”

A tender notice for catering services, again for seven schools, was published on February 19^th, in this case in the middle of the Woodside “consultation” process.

All of this might seem to observers as suggesting a process which was being pushed through more or less regardless of any views this community might have about the control of its school changing.

Asked about this and whether this fitted the perception of critics that the academies policy is undemocratic, Ivy responded: “The governors voted at the EGM [extraordinary general meeting] on 28.1.19 on the following resolution ‘to apply for an academy order to convert and join Ivy Learning Trust and to carry out a 6 week consultation process’.

Timing days after parents had applied for the school

Some parents are upset about the timing of the decision-making because the academisation process had been triggered within days of the deadline by which parents had to apply for places at the school for this coming September, when the school is now due to academise.

The deadline for primary applications was January 15^th. Just two days later, a governing body meeting was held at which the academisation proposal may have been discussed. It was just 11 days later that governors voted in favour, on January 28^th.