It may be a little late in the day and some will say it is just sour grapes but let's step back a minute.
The Sponsors, Mr Blackledge and Mouchel have all along said that the quality of the staff is excellent and basically everything in the garden is rosy. To those of us on the outside peering in through the window courtesy of our children this has been fanciful at best and utterly wrong at worst.
As I have gone through document after document it has become a sadly unifying fact that words rarely equal actions when it comes to anything Academy.
It is obvious to everyone involved despite what the Sponsors et al were saying getting rid of Alfred Barrow and farming it's pupils out to the other schools would mean that one third of the staff currently employed would lose their jobs.
If you were one of those staff who had to earn money like everyone else, benefit scroungers aside, to pay your way in life would you put that at risk no matter what you saw, heard or knew was going on?
I certainly wouldn't. A bad job is better than no job especially in these bizarre credit crunch times.
However on Friday The Sponsors and Mr Blackledge revealed their hand with devastating consequences and so the teachers began to blow the whistle.
Planned, incompetence, naivety, mistake, bad judgement, someone in Mouchels fault, or just their way of doing it?
The real truth will likely never surface so we are left to form our own conclusions, again.
The truth in this instance doesn't really matter because what's done is done and coming on the back of the alleged uniform order and the alleged pre planned logo design it doesn't look like Barrows Academy would be second class never mind adequate no matter how much money is thrown at it.
The Sponsors, Mr Blackledge and Mouchel have all along said that the quality of the staff is excellent and basically everything in the garden is rosy. To those of us on the outside peering in through the window courtesy of our children this has been fanciful at best and utterly wrong at worst.
As I have gone through document after document it has become a sadly unifying fact that words rarely equal actions when it comes to anything Academy.
It is obvious to everyone involved despite what the Sponsors et al were saying getting rid of Alfred Barrow and farming it's pupils out to the other schools would mean that one third of the staff currently employed would lose their jobs.
If you were one of those staff who had to earn money like everyone else, benefit scroungers aside, to pay your way in life would you put that at risk no matter what you saw, heard or knew was going on?
I certainly wouldn't. A bad job is better than no job especially in these bizarre credit crunch times.
However on Friday The Sponsors and Mr Blackledge revealed their hand with devastating consequences and so the teachers began to blow the whistle.
Planned, incompetence, naivety, mistake, bad judgement, someone in Mouchels fault, or just their way of doing it?
The real truth will likely never surface so we are left to form our own conclusions, again.
The truth in this instance doesn't really matter because what's done is done and coming on the back of the alleged uniform order and the alleged pre planned logo design it doesn't look like Barrows Academy would be second class never mind adequate no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Here I take a close look at what this teacher is saying.
Again I have consulted my sons and they assure me that it sounds like another senior teacher in Parkview.
WHAT PARENTS & PUPILS MUST KNOW!
September 2009 - THE FACTS
Parents you must be aware of the following from a Parkview teacher's perspective with 6 weeks to end of term:
There is an overwhelming feeling that provision can not match or better what is currently being provided within our school community at Parkview.
So from the horses mouth. What more proof does anyone need to understand that the sponsors are going their own sweet way whilst those who are actually teaching secondary age pupils see no evidence the Academy will be any better than the existing school. Disturbing very disturbing, in my opinion.
* Our rise in standards to above national average A* - C results and the successes of Thorncliffe and Alfred Barrow will be compromised if the Academy plan is implemented without thoroughly observing and taking on board current best practice within the three identified schools.
The Academy plan is in reality sweeping away everything in these three schools, good and bad, and the sponsors want to start from scratch except they can't because the current year 10's and year 9's are going to be taking an entirely different set of lessons to the current year 8's and 7's whilst next years year 7's will be on an entirely different curriculum. It's madness.
* At no point have current staff been observed in the classroom or spoken to on a professional basis about their skills and classroom practices. Much of the expertise will be sacrificed.
Are the sponsors their, principal and their 'management' gang useless or what?
I am only asking the question it is up to you to provide the answer. Even Ofsted who are only 'inspecting' go and watch teachers teaching in classrooms
* It would seem that the Academy process is very much 'out with the old and in with the new'. This may work in failing schools but it seems catastrophic to ignore the workings of a thriving learning community.
As I've proved beyond any doubt these sponsors are hell bent on sweeping away all the existing and closing Alfred Barrow is the icing on the cake for the County Council and 'house flipper' Balls DCSF.
* The Academy vision - many promises made of world class education/establishment but little reference is made to a real forward looking or inspirational curriculum.
Corporate gobbldeygook that the civil servants and ministers at DCSF love to see. As we can see it has no meaning in reality. Shocking.
* There appears to be nothing tangible behind the visionary thinking and it will fall firmly in the laps of the teaching staff to pull a curriculum together for delivery in September.
Just go read the 'behaviour' policy on the Furness Academy web site and you will see just how true this statement really is. It's only ten pages so is a very 'easy read'.
* Teaching staff posts have not been finalised, it will be at least three more weeks before we will be able to start working within our new teams which will leave approximately 2 weeks to work on the Academy programme.
So once more we see CLEAR evidence that there really is no planning or if there is the 'planners', presumably Mouchel, Mr Blackledge and some 'consultants' are not very good at what they are doing. Perhaps they are 'not fit for purpose' to coin a phrase!
* There is no timetable, no groupings and no confirmation of who will be attending which site or which teachers are likely to populate those sites.
Yet more evidence of the 'skills' of the planners!
* We would normally begin this process much earlier in the year - a full restructure would take at least an academic year to plan, appraise and implement.
An Academic year with the full resources of the school and LA being brought to bear not some graduates, consultants, principals and fully occupied sponsors sitting in secret somewhere in the bowels of Furness College.
* A world class establishment will not happen in the near future. In the meantime, pupils will undoubtedly suffer.
No Academy yet created has come anywhere near being classed as world class despite the efforts of a wide range of high quality sponsors. Academy's by their very nature are meant to improve a situation not create something 'world class'.
* Alternative curriculum for SEN and Gifted & Talented as above, are not in existence -
More brilliant and effective planning?
* There is a distinct lack of information available to all stakeholders, misleading information and lies.
This has been present since the day the County & The DCSF got into bed together and decided NOT to involve the great unwashed or even the staffs and pupils of the schools affected. Way too much 'meddling in darkened rooms'. Very disturbing indeed.
* Pupils feeling insecure due to uncertainty of who will teach them (especially Y10)
Pupils in Year 10 have been lied to. I have heard it for myself from more than one of them that they were TOLD that they would be having the same teachers through to the end of Year 11 by a senior Parkview teacher at a Year 10 assembly.
The thing is I don't believe she wasn't lying when she said this as she either assumed what she was saying was true or she was being kept in the dark about the swinging job cuts that were about to be unleashed on her staff.
* Staff insecurity - which site will they be attached to? Teachers will effectively have to start again from scratch if placed at other campus with children that they have never taught before.
It is obvious from the 'questions' being asked of year 9 GCSE aspirants, there's a bit of Academy speak for you!, that there will be staff movements between the two schools. A brilliant and effective use of human resources I don't think.
* Admissions policy failings.
Considering Dave Kelly said that the policy was well worked out and fair and then said that there had to be an equal intake into both sites it was obvious they were going to get it wrong and they did.
* Consultation process was cursory - pupil, parent and staff voices not heard.
I have proved beyond any doubt that the consultation questions are created and approved by Cumbria County Council before being printed and they are designed to garner the correct answer. In other words support the County Council decision.
* Little or no transition work with year 6 pupils and parents
My wife has spoken with one Year 6 parent who wrote three, yes three letters, to The Sponsors requesting information and she never received a single reply not even an acknowledgement.
* Appalling treatment of staff and devastating loss of experienced, committed staff
Exactly the scenes witnessed in person by my year 7 and my year 11 neither of whom could believe that adults could be so heartless. What a way for them to have to learn a life lesson seeing their teachers so upset and angry that they couldn't talk to them.
* Some teaching staff and all support/office/maintenance staff etc still not matched to posts
No surprises there as the 'planning' is being made up as they go along.
* Functioning on two sites with one staff structure
I cannot see why this should be a problem other than the unnecessary movement of staff between the two sites but there it is.
* No budget in place for resourcing subject areas within the two campuses to enable the equality of learning experience that the Academy strives for and promises, as we currently do not share the same access to teaching resources.
Budget is £45 million. That figure is too immense to contemplate even for people used to spending hundreds of thousands on equipment, wages or repairs every month. It comes as no surprise that budgetary issues are so low because the sponsors will be awash with cash.
* With a funding agreement as yet unsigned the budget is unavailable.
Exactly who is paying for Doug's £2500 a week wage, the uniform lead contract costs, the consultants fees, the management companies bills, the PR company's bills etc etc and how much are 'The Sponsors' being paid?
All questions that are likely to go unanswered in this far from transparent process. Who for example is the finance officer or accountant tasked with keeping an eye on spending and who is paying them?
* Option process (as described by the Academy team) - lets the most academic down by limiting their choices to mainly block 1 and to some extent block 2.
18 diplomas coming in. Three schools being reduced to one. GCSE courses over subscribed. It might not be 'dumbing down' but it is certainly removing 'choice' from education at exactly the same time as this government is wanting to see more choice and flexibility in education.
Come out of hiding Mr Hutton and stand up for Barrows children.
* If a BTEC is chosen from one of the less academic pathways, other more academic subjects cannot be chosen alongside. Oversubscription to some courses has resulted in selection of pupils based on prior performance - is this inclusive?
No!
* Some pupils will be taught option subjects at another campus (as would seem realistic), but which again proves that provision at each campus will not be matched as promised.
Another broken promise. Surely not!
* Behaviour policy - leaves onus on the classroom teacher and is far removed from the policies that currently work well within Parkview. It does not seem to be based upon a structured system of agreed boundaries with use of praise and sanctions that the pupils have contributed to. This is not a progressive move, and will lead to disruption.
I have proved in an earlier post just how inadequate the 'behaviour' policy is as it relies on personal judgement.
* It would seem that the reason why we are involved in the Academy process is that we were identified as a failing school (CCC) and that Building Schools for the Future money was not available.
As I have discovered from the publically available documents all over the Internet but especially on the Cumbria County Council web site the primary drivers for this scheme and the two failing Academies in the north of the county are the removal of 'surplus places', which is being achieved in Barrow by closing Alfred Barrow and the entry criteria for accessing BSF funding 'suggests' that if they have already replaced some schools with ACADEMIES they will be more likely to be successful in gaining that funding.
The dice are loaded and not in the favour of Cumbria's children. The fact that Barrow is blessed with one school whose builders had the foresight to surround with acres of green grass meant that a way would be found to close Alfred Barrow and create a learning village on the green grass.
The only thing that threw these plans off course was the intervention of one John Hutton who has a bit of clout and our children could well do with a timely intervention again.
If anyone reading this agrees with just one thing this teacher has said and you are so minded please e-mail Mr Hutton and let him know your feelings because he was elected to represent your view.
Equally if you disagree with everything that this teacher says then also e-mail Mr Hutton because he was elected to represent your point of view. Once he has come to a consensus of what the real majority view is he may just act again.
I for one certainly hope so.
* The truth is, we are not a failing school and BSF money is available to South Cumbria schools. Importantly, this means that our current schools could benefit from a refurbishment programme and remain as they are.
So far, we have a name, logo and uniform design. It is not the 11th hour; it's about quarter past 12!!
Again I have consulted my sons and they assure me that it sounds like another senior teacher in Parkview.
WHAT PARENTS & PUPILS MUST KNOW!
September 2009 - THE FACTS
Parents you must be aware of the following from a Parkview teacher's perspective with 6 weeks to end of term:
There is an overwhelming feeling that provision can not match or better what is currently being provided within our school community at Parkview.
So from the horses mouth. What more proof does anyone need to understand that the sponsors are going their own sweet way whilst those who are actually teaching secondary age pupils see no evidence the Academy will be any better than the existing school. Disturbing very disturbing, in my opinion.
* Our rise in standards to above national average A* - C results and the successes of Thorncliffe and Alfred Barrow will be compromised if the Academy plan is implemented without thoroughly observing and taking on board current best practice within the three identified schools.
The Academy plan is in reality sweeping away everything in these three schools, good and bad, and the sponsors want to start from scratch except they can't because the current year 10's and year 9's are going to be taking an entirely different set of lessons to the current year 8's and 7's whilst next years year 7's will be on an entirely different curriculum. It's madness.
* At no point have current staff been observed in the classroom or spoken to on a professional basis about their skills and classroom practices. Much of the expertise will be sacrificed.
Are the sponsors their, principal and their 'management' gang useless or what?
I am only asking the question it is up to you to provide the answer. Even Ofsted who are only 'inspecting' go and watch teachers teaching in classrooms
* It would seem that the Academy process is very much 'out with the old and in with the new'. This may work in failing schools but it seems catastrophic to ignore the workings of a thriving learning community.
As I've proved beyond any doubt these sponsors are hell bent on sweeping away all the existing and closing Alfred Barrow is the icing on the cake for the County Council and 'house flipper' Balls DCSF.
* The Academy vision - many promises made of world class education/establishment but little reference is made to a real forward looking or inspirational curriculum.
Corporate gobbldeygook that the civil servants and ministers at DCSF love to see. As we can see it has no meaning in reality. Shocking.
* There appears to be nothing tangible behind the visionary thinking and it will fall firmly in the laps of the teaching staff to pull a curriculum together for delivery in September.
Just go read the 'behaviour' policy on the Furness Academy web site and you will see just how true this statement really is. It's only ten pages so is a very 'easy read'.
* Teaching staff posts have not been finalised, it will be at least three more weeks before we will be able to start working within our new teams which will leave approximately 2 weeks to work on the Academy programme.
So once more we see CLEAR evidence that there really is no planning or if there is the 'planners', presumably Mouchel, Mr Blackledge and some 'consultants' are not very good at what they are doing. Perhaps they are 'not fit for purpose' to coin a phrase!
* There is no timetable, no groupings and no confirmation of who will be attending which site or which teachers are likely to populate those sites.
Yet more evidence of the 'skills' of the planners!
* We would normally begin this process much earlier in the year - a full restructure would take at least an academic year to plan, appraise and implement.
An Academic year with the full resources of the school and LA being brought to bear not some graduates, consultants, principals and fully occupied sponsors sitting in secret somewhere in the bowels of Furness College.
* A world class establishment will not happen in the near future. In the meantime, pupils will undoubtedly suffer.
No Academy yet created has come anywhere near being classed as world class despite the efforts of a wide range of high quality sponsors. Academy's by their very nature are meant to improve a situation not create something 'world class'.
* Alternative curriculum for SEN and Gifted & Talented as above, are not in existence -
More brilliant and effective planning?
* There is a distinct lack of information available to all stakeholders, misleading information and lies.
This has been present since the day the County & The DCSF got into bed together and decided NOT to involve the great unwashed or even the staffs and pupils of the schools affected. Way too much 'meddling in darkened rooms'. Very disturbing indeed.
* Pupils feeling insecure due to uncertainty of who will teach them (especially Y10)
Pupils in Year 10 have been lied to. I have heard it for myself from more than one of them that they were TOLD that they would be having the same teachers through to the end of Year 11 by a senior Parkview teacher at a Year 10 assembly.
The thing is I don't believe she wasn't lying when she said this as she either assumed what she was saying was true or she was being kept in the dark about the swinging job cuts that were about to be unleashed on her staff.
* Staff insecurity - which site will they be attached to? Teachers will effectively have to start again from scratch if placed at other campus with children that they have never taught before.
It is obvious from the 'questions' being asked of year 9 GCSE aspirants, there's a bit of Academy speak for you!, that there will be staff movements between the two schools. A brilliant and effective use of human resources I don't think.
* Admissions policy failings.
Considering Dave Kelly said that the policy was well worked out and fair and then said that there had to be an equal intake into both sites it was obvious they were going to get it wrong and they did.
* Consultation process was cursory - pupil, parent and staff voices not heard.
I have proved beyond any doubt that the consultation questions are created and approved by Cumbria County Council before being printed and they are designed to garner the correct answer. In other words support the County Council decision.
* Little or no transition work with year 6 pupils and parents
My wife has spoken with one Year 6 parent who wrote three, yes three letters, to The Sponsors requesting information and she never received a single reply not even an acknowledgement.
* Appalling treatment of staff and devastating loss of experienced, committed staff
Exactly the scenes witnessed in person by my year 7 and my year 11 neither of whom could believe that adults could be so heartless. What a way for them to have to learn a life lesson seeing their teachers so upset and angry that they couldn't talk to them.
* Some teaching staff and all support/office/maintenance staff etc still not matched to posts
No surprises there as the 'planning' is being made up as they go along.
* Functioning on two sites with one staff structure
I cannot see why this should be a problem other than the unnecessary movement of staff between the two sites but there it is.
* No budget in place for resourcing subject areas within the two campuses to enable the equality of learning experience that the Academy strives for and promises, as we currently do not share the same access to teaching resources.
Budget is £45 million. That figure is too immense to contemplate even for people used to spending hundreds of thousands on equipment, wages or repairs every month. It comes as no surprise that budgetary issues are so low because the sponsors will be awash with cash.
* With a funding agreement as yet unsigned the budget is unavailable.
Exactly who is paying for Doug's £2500 a week wage, the uniform lead contract costs, the consultants fees, the management companies bills, the PR company's bills etc etc and how much are 'The Sponsors' being paid?
All questions that are likely to go unanswered in this far from transparent process. Who for example is the finance officer or accountant tasked with keeping an eye on spending and who is paying them?
* Option process (as described by the Academy team) - lets the most academic down by limiting their choices to mainly block 1 and to some extent block 2.
18 diplomas coming in. Three schools being reduced to one. GCSE courses over subscribed. It might not be 'dumbing down' but it is certainly removing 'choice' from education at exactly the same time as this government is wanting to see more choice and flexibility in education.
Come out of hiding Mr Hutton and stand up for Barrows children.
* If a BTEC is chosen from one of the less academic pathways, other more academic subjects cannot be chosen alongside. Oversubscription to some courses has resulted in selection of pupils based on prior performance - is this inclusive?
No!
* Some pupils will be taught option subjects at another campus (as would seem realistic), but which again proves that provision at each campus will not be matched as promised.
Another broken promise. Surely not!
* Behaviour policy - leaves onus on the classroom teacher and is far removed from the policies that currently work well within Parkview. It does not seem to be based upon a structured system of agreed boundaries with use of praise and sanctions that the pupils have contributed to. This is not a progressive move, and will lead to disruption.
I have proved in an earlier post just how inadequate the 'behaviour' policy is as it relies on personal judgement.
* It would seem that the reason why we are involved in the Academy process is that we were identified as a failing school (CCC) and that Building Schools for the Future money was not available.
As I have discovered from the publically available documents all over the Internet but especially on the Cumbria County Council web site the primary drivers for this scheme and the two failing Academies in the north of the county are the removal of 'surplus places', which is being achieved in Barrow by closing Alfred Barrow and the entry criteria for accessing BSF funding 'suggests' that if they have already replaced some schools with ACADEMIES they will be more likely to be successful in gaining that funding.
The dice are loaded and not in the favour of Cumbria's children. The fact that Barrow is blessed with one school whose builders had the foresight to surround with acres of green grass meant that a way would be found to close Alfred Barrow and create a learning village on the green grass.
The only thing that threw these plans off course was the intervention of one John Hutton who has a bit of clout and our children could well do with a timely intervention again.
If anyone reading this agrees with just one thing this teacher has said and you are so minded please e-mail Mr Hutton and let him know your feelings because he was elected to represent your view.
Equally if you disagree with everything that this teacher says then also e-mail Mr Hutton because he was elected to represent your point of view. Once he has come to a consensus of what the real majority view is he may just act again.
I for one certainly hope so.
* The truth is, we are not a failing school and BSF money is available to South Cumbria schools. Importantly, this means that our current schools could benefit from a refurbishment programme and remain as they are.
So far, we have a name, logo and uniform design. It is not the 11th hour; it's about quarter past 12!!
Leave a comment