Bitter new controversy opens over forced academy primary school

The Department for Education, which was allegedly alerted following the latest development in the Mackie Hill saga

The Department for Education, which was allegedly alerted following the latest development in the Mackie Hill saga
 

The chair of a trust which is in line to take control of a west Yorkshire primary school, in a bitterly-contested forced academy takeover, went to the Department for Education after his counterpart wrote to him asking it to pull out, it has been alleged.

 

In the latest development in the saga of Wakefield’s Crigglestone Mackie Hill junior and infant school, its chair, Denis Barry, is furious after being contacted by the DfE and also “gently reprimanded” by his local authority, Wakefield, about his letter to the chair of the incoming trust.

 

Barry said it appeared that John North, chair of the Inspire Partnership Multi-Academy Trust, had gone to the DfE to inform it of the letter, rather than responding to its points to him. The DfE had then contacted the local authority.

 

Education Uncovered has asked North, via Inspire, to comment on both this claim and of the substance of the trust being willing to take over the school, but has not had a response.

 

Barry is furious that North did not respond to him before, he said, contacting the DfE about the letter.

 

In it, Barry highlighted the progress made at Mackie Hill through a partnership which had been set up with its local high school, Kettlethorpe, the only non-academy secondary in Wakefield, where he is also chair of governors.

 

This had been set up after Mackie Hill failed an Ofsted in December 2017. By December last year, inspectors had returned to praise the “unwavering positivity and determination” of this partnership to improve the school.

 

In his letter to North, Barry wrote: “The reasons for this transformation are quite clear: outstanding leadership from Jayne Elliott, headteacher and strong, effective governance from the current governing body. Allied to the strength of leadership and governance, there is a committed, highly motivated teaching staff that Jayne has galvanised and most crucially we have the overwhelming support of all parents.”

In his letter Barry added that parents, who have watched the implosion of Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT), one of the academy sector’s most high-profile fiascos, “want their children to go to Mackie Hill School.”

 

“They do not want the school to be part of a trust or for their school to become an academy. Parents are vociferous, politicised and militant. They have protested, set up public meetings and have the full backing of the local MP Mary Creagh.

 

“I am sure you are informed about similar parental protests, which are happening up and down the country with regard to academisation.  

 

“The school has requested an OfSTED inspection as soon as possible and in my professional opinion it is on the cusp of achieving a GOOD judgement.

 

“In this educational context and school circumstances, what added value could your trust bring to the school?”

 

Barry also warned North that the school could face losing its “inspiring” headteacher if the takeover went through, and that the governing body “will resign”.  

 

He added: “I have been honest about what you are about to face and you may glibly disregard this, however, if you proceed, this will not be a smooth transition for you and will halt the momentum of progress by Mackie Hill School.

 

“Therefore I urge you to withdraw on educational grounds your intention to become the sponsor for Mackie Hill School.”

 

But as of late last week there had been no response from North to the letter, sent on September 20^th. In an email to Education Uncovered, Barry spoke of his unhappiness.

 

He said: “Experienced professionals such as the chair of Inspire Trust [who is a former headteacher] proudly proclaim on their website their leadership and senior management credentials.

 

“But when receiving a letter which asks fundamental educational questions about their plans and capability of taking over Mackie Hill, they lack the courtesy and moral courage to reply and retreat behind the DfE.

 

“The DfE and RSC [regional schools commissioner] want this conversion to go through without opposition, without comment, without dissent , ignore parents [and] ignore the wellbeing of pupils. To them the school is a name and an Ofsted category. Nobody from DFE nor RSC has visited the school to see the dramatic improvement that has been made since the Academy order has been served.”

 

No response from Inspire

 

In an email sent to the trust, I put to North Barry’s claim that the trust went to the DfE about the letter rather than having responded to him, asking him if he had gone to the DfE about it.

 

I asked whether he would be responding to Barry; whether the trust would be going through with its plans to sponsor the school; and what value Inspire could add to the work which had been done by the partnership with Kettlethorpe High.

 

I also put a comment that appeared on Education Uncovered last week by the chair of the school’s Parent Teacher Association, Catherine Holmes, stating that the school was “now thriving”, and asking why its pupils were being put through further disruption. Why was this trust prepared to go against local opinion in putting it through this change?

 

As mentioned, there has been no response from North or the trust.

 

Snap analysis

 

The notion of a “hostile takeover” is one with which the last two academies ministers, Lords Agnew and Nash, may be comfortable, given their business experience.

 

But it sits very uneasily with the world of education, and particularly primary schools, which surely should be places of stability and community, a shelter for young children as they grow up from some of the harshness of modern life.

 

How on earth has English policymaking got itself into a situation, instead, where governing bodies are arguing over who has control over a school? What would other countries, none of which are going through changes in the way England is, think?

 

It also seems shocking that a trust seemingly formed of local schools is prepared to be the vehicle by which the DfE would be able to enforce its will on this community.

 

English schools policy has embraced quasi-market competition between institutions since the late 1980s. But takeovers seem to take it to a new level, with trusts now able simply to absorb schools, in cases such as this even where this is not wanted.

 

This local situation is ludicrous. And, in the government’s apparent willingness to push on with a plan which this community has rejected in preference to a local solution which seems to be working, it illustrates the fundament weakness of institutional remoteness of decision-making under the academies policy.

 

This policy is in a terrible state.