Revealed: PR agency’s £180-an-hour charge for pro-academy spin

The academisation of two primary schools in Brighton and Hove shines a light on costs of public relations, and a trust's influence over the process, as revealed through a Freedom of Information response.

 

A public relations firm’s £180-an-hour charge to persuade a sceptical public to back the takeover of two local authority primary schools by a prominent multi-academy trust has been revealed through a freedom of information response.

The East London-based Eko Trust worked with the well-known communications company PLMR to devise a plan to “support a smooth transfer” of the two primaries in Brighton and Hove, with the schools eventually having to claim the money back from the government.

The total cost to the taxpayer for just one phase of this work was put at £10,000 plus VAT, though further work may have added to that bill, the release suggests.

The communications plan has been revealed in documents released to the Unison union, and seen by Education Uncovered. They also show that the Eko Trust itself provided the text of a resolution which was put to members of the two schools’ federated governing body which would have started the process towards academisation, months in advance of the consultation actually beginning.

And the schools’ executive headteacher is revealed as having argued that governors’ decision to start the process of academisation should not be shared with the community in advance of the communication campaign, because “the political situation regarding academisation in Brighton is challenging”.

Unison’s Brighton and Hove branch said the disclosures showed Eko had paid at least £12,000 “which would otherwise have been spent in classrooms, on PR advice on how to take those schools off the community as quickly and as quietly as possible”.  

The Eko Trust said: “All work carried out as part of this project was transparent and open, and we are clear that our decision to engage professional support represented excellent value for money. Both schools transferred [to the trust] on September 1^st, 2024 and both we and they are very pleased with how the partnership is working.”

PLMR has yet to respond to a request for comment.

The detail

Unison’s FOI reveals the story of how the two local authority maintained schools – Hangleton Primary in Hove and Benfield Primary in Brighton which since January 2022 had been run together as the Orchard Federation Partnership – worked closely with the Eko Trust on plans which would culminate in the schools’ academisation under Eko last September. Both schools were Ofsted-rated good, so there was no immediate pressure on them having to join Eko.

The most nationally revelatory part of this tale concerns documents dated January 2023, before the community had been told of any plans by the schools to academise and join Eko. This trust now runs eight primaries and two special schools and is based 75 miles from Brighton by road, in the East London borough of Newham.

Eko drew attention back in 2018, when the plans of governors at Avenue Primary School in Newham to join it were abandoned following a 19-day strike by teachers. The campaign against that school’s academisation featured in the 2021 film “The Great Schools Robbery”. 

The communications plan

On January 11^th, 2023, Philip Cranwell, Eko’s chief operating officer, emailed Oliver Lane, of the London-based firm PLMR, with “communications plan” as the subject line.

In it, Mr Cranwell updated Mr Lane on a meeting Eko’s chief executive, Rebekah Iiyambo, had had at the Department for Education at which its official had been “broadly supportive of [Eko’s] growth plans”.

Mr Cranwell stated that a “PR plan” around the Orchard Federation schools’ academisation proposals “would commence week commencing 20 February”. It is interesting that the trust, which would be see the schools joining it at the end of consultation which had not yet even started, appeared to be handling this process, rather than the schools themselves.

Mr Cranwell then also stated to Mr Lane: “Regarding fees we would like to agree a fee cap for the consultation phase through to the end of the consultation and then agree a new scope and fee thereafter. I would like to propose a cap of £10,000 plus VAT, which based on the proposed hourly rate would be around 56 hours. Can you advise if this is sufficient for the PR/consultation planning and implementation you envisage?”

£10,000 divided by 56 hours works out at £180 an hour plus VAT – a calculation which was underlined in the document that followed.

A document, headed “Communications Strategy: The Transfer of Orchard Federation Schools to Eko Trust” and dated January 2023, was then also revealed in the FOI. It stated: “This paper sets out communication advice to support as smooth a transfer as possible of the two Brighton schools to Eko Trust.”

The document, which appears to have been written by PLMR, set out a rough timeline for the proposed transfer, with the schools to carry out formal “due diligence” on joining Eko in late February, at the same time as the “consultation” with the community on whether it should happen at all took place.

Governors at Orchard and Eko would then decide on whether to proceed, and assuming that they did, said the document, the DfE’s regional advisory board would consider the academisation move at a meeting in May. The document then set out September 1^st, 2023, as the “target date for Hangleton and Benfield to transfer to Eko Trust”.

“Anti-academy sentiment” in Brighton set out

In terms of the detail of the intended communications strategy, the document then set out background which it suggested might make persuading people tricky.

It stated: “As you know, Brighton remains one of the areas of the country where there is still some strong anti-academy sentiment. [This is true: controversy over two other primaries in Hove joining a privately-controlled trust saw the plans ditched before Christmas, and the local authority has one of the lowest academisation rates in England: these schools are two of only three in the local authority to have academised voluntarily]. 

“These opponents will seek to exploit areas of perceived weakness (eg that Eko is not a ‘local’ trust; or that the two schools, both being Good, do not need the support of an academy trust) as well as coming up with spurious reasons to object. We therefore need to have very clear, positive and strong messaging outlining the benefits of the transfers.”

It added: “Our advice is that we aim to be on the front foot as much as possible, communicating proactively with audiences so we control the messaging, rather than waiting for news to reach them by third parties.

“This could otherwise leave us vulnerable as they [the community] will make up their own mind as to whether they support the transfer proposal [heaven forbid, ed] before hearing the positive reasons for it.”

During “Phase 1” of the communications plan, before the consultation began, the document suggested that a “reactive media statement” should be released “only if required”. This would highlight that Eko and Orchard “are discussing whether all parties (especially pupils and staff at the two schools) would benefit from a more formal arrangement but playing down the prospect of this happening and highlighting that it is early days”.

This was despite this document itself having referred to “the transfer” of the schools to the trust, without any uncertainty around this.

Then, when the consultation was launched, communications “should state that no decisions have been made and we want to hear all views”. As well as writing to parents and staff, “proactive letters” would be sent to the local Labour MP, Peter Kyle; local authority officers and councillors and the “heads of [other] local schools”.

Comms plan sets out political context

The document also set out the political context, in terms of likely support or not for academisation – indicating that Mr Kyle, who since the general election last year has also served as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, might be more amenable to the idea than local Green Party politicians.

It stated: “Peter Kyle has served as Labour’s schools spokesperson and has also been the chair of trustees at Brighton Aldridge Community Academy. He has also been quietly supportive of academies. We can therefore reasonably expect that he will not be unhelpful.

“The council is more difficult, with the Green Party nationally and in Brighton having clearly voiced their opposition to the academy system. Our advice is that it is much better to try and take them with you, rather than having no dialogue with them.”

Each of these “key individuals” being written to would then be invited to meetings “at the earliest time,” at which it would be explained that both Orchard and Eko were “supportive of the schools becoming academies and part of the Eko Trust” and that the meeting “will set out the strengths of Eko Trust”.

There was no guarantee that the meetings would be a success, added the document, “such is the position the Green Party has taken on this issue. However, being open and transparent, and showing a willingness to engage with dialogue and work with the local authority – and remaining resilient should the council choose to oppose – will stand us in the best position possible.”

The line “open and transparent” might strike sceptics, however, as having a hollow ring, given that this was a private document setting out a communications strategy to be agreed with the organisation on which these schools were only consulting the community to join, before anyone locally had been told of the idea.

A “phase 2” of communications work would then follow, “assuming” Orchard’s and Eko’s boards agreed in April, following the “consultation” to push ahead with the academisation. Further letters to key parties, and press releases, would follow. PLMR would also “monitor social media and provide advice on responses (if any).”

The costs

The final part of the document then set out the cost of this work.

It stated: “We have discussed how the costs should be as follows, and we are happy to agree these:

-£10,000 plus VAT for Phase 1 – from now until the end of the consultation. We propose that this is invoiced in three parts to evenly spread the costs

-TBC [to be confirmed] for Phase 2 and beyond – new scope and fee to be discussed based on position at the time.

PLMR’s hourly rate is £180.”

An email then sent by Mr Cranwell to Mark Goodson, Orchard’s chair of governors, and Emma Lake, its executive headteacher, stated Eko’s plan itself to pay for the communications strategy around the academisation  – but with the idea of then claiming the costs back from the government.

Mr Cranwell wrote: “Just to confirm that we will under-write the costs of the PR support until the conversion grants of £25k per school are received.

“I am developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that sets out confidentiality, our respective responsibilities and the financial arrangements including the use of those conversion grants and expenditure. We would ask that you review, agree and sign the MoU before we commission PLMR to commence their work.”

All of this was before any consultation with the community, or “due diligence” by the schools about the trust, had taken place.

The “conversion grants of £25k per school” referred to the amount the former government was giving to schools to pay for the costs around academy conversions including legal fees and, as in this case, public relations – until these grants were stopped at the end of last year.

Eventually, the consultation was put back to later during 2023, with the schools not actually joining Eko until September 2024, for reasons which are not apparent from the correspondence.

Further background: Eko’s close involvement with Orchard in 2022

The documents also show that Eko was closely involved in discussions with Orchard even before this communications plan was hatched, to the extent of the trust drafting a resolution on academisation for the federation to approve, but this then being shelved initially, only for governors to then swiftly change their mind.

An email exchange between Ms Lake and Ms Iiyambo, in late September 2022, appeared to be lining up a meeting that Ms Iiyambo and two others from the trust would have with governors from Orchard, with Ms Lake stating she had also invited “a couple of other heads who are interested in just meeting you”. This meeting appears to have taken place on September 29^th.

The next day, an email from Mr Cranwell to Ms Lake was sent, with “Eko Trust joining process” as the subject line.

It said: “Dear Emma,It was great to meet you again last night. We really enjoyed being challenged by your governors and we hope they got what they needed from the meeting. As promised I attach the document that sets out the joining process. It sets out in detail the objectives, activities and outouts [sic] of each phase culminating in the Gateway outcome.”

Eko’s document headlined “Joining Process” was also provided in the FOI release. It sets out four stages in a school’s journey to joining the trust, or “phases and gateways of the joining process”. These run from “Gate 0” – “exploration, presentation, visits: ‘chemistry test’” – via “Gate 1” – “due diligence” – “Gate 2” – “consultation” to “Gate 3” – “application and conversion”.

Mr Cranwell continued by summing up the progress so far – and the hope that, at a meeting of the federation’s board the following month, governors would approve moving to the subsequent stages, starting with due diligence.

He wrote: “Obviously we have been in phase 0 – ‘the chemistry test’ and we would hope that at the October 11^th meeting your governors would agree to proceed to phase 1 of due diligence…can I just emphasise that doing so doesn’t commit the Federation or the Trust into the schools joining.”

He added: “If you need suggested wording for the Governing Body resolution for Gateway 0 please do let me know.”

Then on October 11^th, the day for the federation board meeting, Mr Cranwell did come back with suggested wording for a resolution, to be put to the governors. This set out how the governing body would embark on due diligence with the trust, on the subject of possible future “membership of Eko Trust”.

Board minutes keep academisation discussion secret

Minutes of the federation’s October board meeting were also provided via the FOI. But, remarkably, they keep all of the deliberations on academisation secret. Under item 7, “Future of the OPS [Orchard Schools Partnership], the minutes simply state “This item was minuted as confidential.”

However, an email sent the next day by Ms Lake to Mr Goodson, discussing an email that the former would send to Eko, indicates that governors decided to put the academisation move on hold. Ms Lake suggested saying to Eko that at the meeting, there was a “robust and honest conversation with governors and we decided, in the end, to revisit the situation at our May meeting”.

There were two reasons for this delay, one around arrangements for working with another local school, and the second about anti-academy sentiment in Brighton. On the latter, Ms Lake wrote: “The appetite for academies in Brighton is very low and there is a great deal of very negative press about schools that consider academisation. This is concerning, as we do not necessarily feel that we want to be the first schools to raise our heads and therefore bring negativity from staff and parents.”

However, Ms Lake, who confessed to Mr Goodson that the governors’ decision had left her “feeling a bit flat,” also proposed writing to the trust that “we are still very interested in moving forward…an element of the conversation…was around what if we miss this very exciting boat…so we would like to request, that if you have conversations and commitments from other schools, that would affect the positions of our schools joining in the future, please can you let us know.”

Writing back to reassure her that “I don’t think you should be feeling flat,” Mr Goodson then acknowledged that academisation “is a contentious subject” and that the conversations at the board meeting “were typical of the conversations that will happen in the community when this subject is made public”. He signed off: “Pop your seat belt on as it might be a bumpy ride!”

In an email in response to Ms Lake’s communication of the board meeting outcome, Ms Iiyambo wrote: “Obviously this is disappointing news given we had sensed Governing Body enthusiasm at the meeting on September 29^th. We absolutely respect the Governing Body’s responsibility to make the right decision for their school at the right time….however we don’t think either of these considerations need delay due diligence…

“We have had plenty of experience of anti-academy feeling. We would fully support you and the Governing Body [seemingly in addressing this], including using our retained communications adviser who, like Philip, has had much experience managing communications and consultation in such environments.”

The response, however, appeared to include an implied threat that, if Orchard did not move forward with the proposal, Eko might link with other schools.

Ms Iiyambo wrote: “We are so excited by the idea of Orchard Federation becoming part of Eko Trust…however, your Governing Body’s seeming enthusiasm for Eko Trust is not unique and we are in a number of very positive discussions [with other schools]. You will understand we have very limited resources and Trustees want us to direct our efforts to those schools and federations who are keen to join more immediately. One further benefit of joining sooner rather than later is that you and your team will have the opportunity to shape the trust unlike later joiners. We very much hoped that you and your team would be participants in this part of our journey. So I would ask that your Governing Body reconsider the decision not to commence due diligence.”

Despite what Ms Iiyambo said about interest from other schools, however, other than the Orchard Federation only one other school has joined it in the more than two years since this email was sent.

Ms Lake, however, then wrote back to Ms Iiyambo, stating that, after having had a “good robust conversation” with her chair, Mr Goodson, “I think we will be reviewing the [due diligence] decision” at the very next governors’ meeting, on December 6^th.

It looks, from the correspondence, as if senior figures from the federation were invited to an Eko Trust “governance away day”, which then took place in November.

Ms Lake then wrote back to Ms Iiyambo and Mr Cranwell, on December 9^th, to reveal that: “As a result of a vote taken on Tuesday evening at the Full governing board meeting of Orchard Federation, the governors voted that we would like to move to the due diligence stage of the Eko growth process.”

Despite what the communications plan would later say about the need to seen to be “open and transparent,” Ms Lake’s email added: “As you know the political situation regarding academisation in Brighton is challenging. So we have made it clear to governors that we are not sharing this decision with anyone outside of the people at that [board] meeting. We would therefore like to have a meeting with you, where obviously we can discuss the next steps but also about communication to the community – including staff.”

The communications plan, put together by PLMR for Eko, around a consultation which was of course not the latter’s to control, would then follow.

Responses

Matt Webb, of Brighton and Hove Unison, said: “It took a Freedom of Information request to piece together what had actually been taking place behind the backs of staff, unions, parents, the community and the local authority.

“Decisions were made in meetings behind closed doors that were kept confidential, for the simple reason that they acknowledged would be terribly unpopular, which it was and still is. Those important and already-made decisions were then hidden behind very expensive sham consultations. The consultations saw the Eko Trust pay at least £12,000 of the schools’ conversion grant, which would otherwise have been spent in classrooms, on PR advice on how to take those schools off the community as quickly and as quietly as possible. The Eko Trust wins, the PR firm wins, the taxpayer pays through the nose for it and the community loses two schools.”

The Eko Trust told me: “The two schools wanted to join our trust by converting to academy status so they could continue to develop the excellent quality of education and care they were providing to their pupils. We were keen that they received professional support through the process so enlisted an experienced firm to carry out this work.

“As with any project, it is important to plan ahead and for different scenarios, and clearly the schools couldn’t have held a consultation unless they had developed plans for stakeholders to consider. The [PR] document was written in January 2023 before any decisions had been taken, and it quite rightly sets out proposed actions should the schools and DfE have decided at later dates that they wished to go ahead.

“In November 2023, the then-governing body carefully considered the outcome of the consultation and were satisfied it had been comprehensive and meaningful, and then made its decision. All work carried out as part of this project was transparent and open, and we are clear that our decision to engage professional support represented excellent value for money. Both schools transferred successfully on September 1^st 2024 and both we and they are very pleased with how the partnership is working.”

I asked the trust to specify how much money was paid to PLMR for its entire work supporting the academisation process of these two schools, and whether the trust had planned for the £25,000 payments from government not materialising, in the event of academisation not happening.

However, the trust responded: “Eko Trust declines to comment further on this matter.”

 

Context and analysis

Sceptics and critics of the academisation policy might see this all as extremely controversial, with three reasons for that suggesting themselves as most obvious.

First, this was a multi-academy trust which was to be the beneficiary of the outcome of a consultation which was yet even to start, coming up with a communications plan for which it would, initially at least, be paying.

Sceptics will, again, see this as somewhat perverse: to pick a comparison off the top of my head, it seems akin to healthcare companies paying for national consultation on whether the National Health Service should be fully privatised. If there needs to be a communications plan around such a scheme, the public might expect the organisation deciding on what the outcome of the consultation would be to be in charge of it, rather than the potential beneficiary.

Second, of course, is the cost. £180 an hour plus VAT, totalling £10,000 just for phase one of this project – this would equate to only a week-and-a-half’s work for PLMR – is money not being spent on children’s education. Instead, it would be spent on a communications campaign arguably at least partly predicated on presenting to the public a not-fully-honest picture of this proposal – that it was still at an early stage whereas, as the FOI makes clear, the parties had been deeply involved in talks, on  the assumption that academisation under Eko would eventually happen, for months in advance of the anticipated start of the “consultation”.

Indeed, on the costs, the fact that under the Conservative government each school involved in an academy transfer in England was entitled to at least £25,000 just to pay for the overheads of conversion, including legal costs, is significant. With more than 10,000 schools having converted, this would equate to more than £250 million having been spent, on what, again are overheads not directly benefiting children’s education.

The payment mechanism suggested in this FOI trail – that Eko were to foot the communications bill themselves, initially, with the money then claimed back by the schools through those £25,000 grants, is itself revealing.

There is no sign, in the correspondence, of Eko considering, in advance of the consultation, that academisation might not happen, with the result that the conversion grants did not materialise. In other words, it was taken as read that the proposals were going to go ahead – it was a done deal – even before the community had any knowledge of the plans.

The third conclusion is perhaps the most significant: that the whole affair underlines the lack of openness, which can slide even into dishonesty, around academy conversions.

Defenders of the process around these conversions would argue that some sense of confidentiality is important and necessary. Negotiations do need to happen between schools and the academy trusts that they might join, before the school gets to the point of bringing a formal proposal to the community.

However, the level of secrecy can seem excessive, and could seem also to be framed by a sense of self-interest. It is absurd, for example, that governing body discussions around an academisation plan, which will be just about the most important decision that a governing body can ever make – for ultimately it is signing away its future decision-making power - are marked as confidential and therefore not for public consumption. While the parties would no doubt feel it more convenient not to have to discuss matters with their communities when plans are at a genuinely formative stage, the public interest would appear to point in another direction.

Ms Lake’s suggestion that the schools would not initially be sharing the governors’ plan to start the academisation process as “the political situation regarding academisation in Brighton is challenging,” really gave the game away, on that front. If governing bodies are confident in their plans, they should be open with their publics from the outset, and let their communities reach their conclusions based on the facts. That, surely, is how public services in a democracy should work.

There are other aspects to this story, as unveiled through this FOI, that Education Uncovered hopes to cover in the coming weeks.