Cardinal Pole silence and questions about new head

A report into allegations that staff at Cardinal Pole school were asked to manipulate pupil assessments and to follow a 'no going backwards' policy will not be made public.

The only people who will see the report will be the chair of governors, Fr David Evans and the school's 'interim' executive headteacher Geraldine Freear who has taken over after the previous headteacher, Katherine Hartigan, resigned.

A spokesperson for the school said: "We are not releasing the report as it may prejudice the actions that the head may wish to take."

The report made three recommendations: “The first recommendation relates to personnel, the second to the school’s assessment procedures and the third to clarifying leadership roles within the school."

The school said: "Staff and students can rest assured that our new executive headteacher is very clear about the recommendations and will be acting on these as a priority. She is an extremely experienced headteacher and the governors have every confidence in her ability to lead this school towards a bright future.”

However it is believed that Freear had already been working with the school since the spring before the manipulation claims were made. Blood and Property has asked the Learning Trust what Freear's role at the school was in this period and whether she had any input on changes to how the school assessed its pupils.

Freear already runs two other schools in North West London and has an impressive track record. But teachers at Cardinal Pole are aware that an employment tribunal found the treatment of a member of staff at one of these schools as "not just inept but wholly unprofessional"  in 2007. A news report of the case described a member of staff being subjected to "months of torment" by senior staff.

Blood and Property asked whether that incident was of any concern to the Learning Trust, the school, the governors or the diocese, bearing in mind the morale of the schools teaching staff? No reply has been received.

(It is hard to tell what kind of leadership school authorities are looking for in their headteachers. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Hackney superhead who will take over Ofsted in January told the TES: "If anyone says to you that ‘staff morale is at an all-time low’ you will know you are doing something right". Would he apply that in this case?)


Background:

7 Dec: headteacher resigns

21 Oct: Official investigation reported by Gazette


13 Sept: Cardinal Pole replies to coursework falsification claims


12 Sept: Hackney teachers urged to falsify coursework marks, claim

2 July: Vote of no confidence in Head

Will Cardinal Pole findings be made public?

Last week the the Hackney Gazette reported that Katherine Hartigan, the head teacher at Cardinal Pole school had resigned.

This follows an investigation into allegations that the school's senior management attempted to persuade staff to manipulate student assessments prior to an Ofsted inspection. However it is unclear whether the findings of this investigation - believed to include allegations of a "no going backwards" policy for student assessment - will be made public.

The Learning Trust, which oversees the management of Hackney's schools, said that these decisions were being taken at a school level and that the report had yet to be finalised and no decision had been made about whether its findings would be made public.

However Blood and Property has been told that one reason why the findings remain under wraps may be because other senior members of staff at the school could still face disciplinary action. A governors meeting is due to take place tonight on this subject.

Concerns had already been raised about which organisations or individuals commissioned the report and which of them had authority to say whether the findings should be made public or not.

It is believed that National Union of Teachers (NUT) members had threatened to boycott the investigation after the school's head teacher allegedly claimed that the investigation was her responsibility. Those teachers who were interviewed had to be reassured that this was not the case and some believe that the findings will be made public.

More recently there has been a stormy governors' meetings about the report and when it will be available and to whom. Hopefully there will be more news on this later in the week.

All recent Cardinal Pole stories here, and a rough timeline here:

2 July: Vote of no confidence in Head
12 Sept: Hackney teachers urged to falsify coursework marks, claim
13 Sept: Cardinal Pole replies to coursework falsification claims

Official investigation into Cardinal Pole

The Hackney Gazette has some interesting new stuff on what's going on at Cardinal Pole - there is now an official investigation by independent investigators.

This is unexpected because, on 12 September the Learning Trust, which runs Hackney's schools, told Blood and Property: “These matters have been looked into and there is no investigation at Cardinal Pole.”

According to the Gazette's front page story the Learning Trust "said they supported the governors' decision decision for an investigation this week". The Gazette reported that teachers "claimed they were told to mask results for pupils in years 7 to 9 in order to show Ofsted inspectors that achievements had improved".

Blood and Property tried to work out what was going on at the school over the summer:

2 July: Vote of no confidence in Head
12 Sept: Hackney teachers urged to falsify coursework marks, claim
13 Sept: Cardinal Pole replies to coursework falsification claims

In the last story the school's head, Katherine Hartigan, said: "As part of the drive to raise standards across the school, a new system was introduced for all staff which provided a consistent assessment framework for tracking and assessing pupil progress across the school."

However neither the school nor the Learning Trust have answered any of Blood and Property's requests for details about this "new system" introduced at Cardinal Pole.

If the allegations turn out to be correct the question is whether anyone will follow up the accompanying allegation - that Cardinal Pole is behind the curve and that falsification has been going on at all the other schools?

Correction: Urswick School stats

Richard Brown, headteacher at Urswick School just called to clear up a couple of problems with the teacher/pupil ratio statistics published in the previous post.

The figures were taken from the Department for Education website and show Urswick has a much higher pupil teacher ratio than other secondary schools in the borough (20 pupils to 1 teacher while at the other end of the scale City Academy and Mossbourne have near 10 pupils per teacher).

But Brown said this was because Urswick is the only school on the list that doesn't have a sixth form (although he said he was consulting about changing that). Sixth form students have different funding and much smaller class sizes of 12 or less which brings down the pupil/teacher ratio for a school.

This means that the teacher pupil ratio provided by the Department for Education will not reflect the situation at GCSE level or lower. Consequently Urswick is one of the few schools in the borough giving a real picture of the pupil teacher ratio at that level.

Brown said that Urswick never has class sizes of more than 25 adding that many of the maths classes were smaller. The school has an annual intake of around 150 which, in other schools, would generally mean 5 classes of 30.

Brown also pointed out that year groups at the school can have very different levels of ability and that this could cause some large fluctuations in the schools performance in terms of GCSE results. Academies do not have the same problem as they use the fair banding system which grades the ability of pupils across the borough into A, B and C ability and a school can take a third of their intake from each band.

All of this means that Hackney parents will have their work cut out for them if they want to assess the schools they are expected to send their children to.

Another moral of the story is that I should check the stats better. I did try. I sent this email to the Learning Trust on 27 September 2011:

"I was hoping to get a comment from the learning trust about the significance - if there is any - of all the borough's academies having average or above teacher:pupil ratios while all non academies have average or below average teacher:pupil ratios."

The request included reference to where the stats had come from http://www.education.gov.uk/establishments/urn/134693/mossbourne-community-academy and a spreadsheet with all the details and a version of a graphic used to illustrate the differences.

No reply came.

Response time from the Learing Trust had dwindled somewhat following requests for a copy of the "assessment framework" which seemed to cause such an uproar at Cardinal Pole school last term.

Cardinal Pole replies to coursework falsification claims

Katharine Hartigan, head teacher at Cardinal Pole school in Homerton and the Learning Trust, which runs Hackney's schools, have replied to allegations that staff at the school were asked to falsify coursework last term.

The allegations in the original story were put to the Learning Trust before it was published but Blood and Property only received this short response: “These matters have been looked into and there is no investigation at Cardinal Pole.”

Teachers at the school had passed a vote of no confidence in the head teacher and voted to strike over the issues reported. Also a statement from the NUT suggested that these issues were still being looked into. So the story was not just based on staff room gossip.

The dispute appears to have been sparked by the introduction of an assessment framework for teachers to follow when assessing pupils. Blood and Property will ask for details of this framework and whether other schools in the borough have them too. But thanks to the school and trust for replying.

This is the email from the Learning Trust:

"We are extremely disappointed by this article which questions the professionalism of staff at the school, and casts an unwarranted shadow over the excellent GCSE results of the students this summer.

"Staff were not encouraged to falsify GCSE coursework.

"As part of the drive to raise standards across the school, a new system was introduced for all staff which provided a consistent assessment framework for tracking and assessing pupil progress across the school."

Katharine Hartigan said: "Differing views were expressed regarding the new internal assessment framework and it is disappointing that comments are being taken out of context. I know my teachers are professional enough to disregard any comments which do not meet the very high standards we set ourselves as teachers.

"All matters have been resolved and the governing body, staff and unions are working together to continue to build a strong future for the school."

The Learning Trust said: "This matter has been looked into and no basis for investigation was found”.

Cuts could cause Jewish influx into Hackney state schools?

Hackney's largest and fastest growing ethnic minority - its ultra orthodox Jewish community - is mainly self-catering when it comes to education. Most ultra orthodox Jewish children are educated in private schools.

But could this be about to change if, as expected, various government cuts hit this community hardest? (Effects of housing benefit cuts discussed here while East London Lines describes possible effects of child benefit cuts) When compared to neighbouring boroughs like Tower Hamlets, where the largest minority relies on state education, has Hackney got-off lightly?

These broader issues appeared during discussions about an admissions dispute at Hackney's only state-funded Jewish secondary school: the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School. The school had 231 pupils aged 11-16 when its most recent (July 201) Ofsted Report (an interim check) in which it retained its 'outstanding' rating.

In contrast to Hackney's silent Academies - Mossbourne and Petchey - Yesodey Hatorah spokesman, Abraham Pinter, provided some background during a telephone conversation. The bulk of his replies were consistent with answers officially provided by the Learning Trust (I've noted any differences in the answers).

The exchange below also includes some comments from Jewish historian and columnist on Jewish matters for the Jewish Chronicle and the Guardian, Geoffrey Alderman, who is involved in the dispute and pointed it out to Blood and Property.

The bulk of the answers come from the Learning Trust.

Blood and Property: I've been told that some parents who applied for their daughters to go to the school were originally denied but were then accepted after an appeal process. Were you aware of this?

Learning Trust: Yes

Blood and Property: If so, is it possible to get any details about these cases what the issues were?

Learning Trust: We are not able to discuss individual cases involving students. Yesodah Hatorah is an oversubscribed school. In line with other schools they follow the Learning Trust co-ordinated admissions process. (Abraham Pinter said that not all the schools places were full)

Blood and Property: Do you know of any complaints about the admissions process at Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls school? Are they more common than in other Hackney schools.

Learning Trust: The school has told us that there had been one complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman which was later withdrawn following an unsuccessful appeal.

Blood and Property: When parents appeal against the decisions of the board of governors at Hackney secondary schools is there a higher body/regulator that can judge whether a governing body is behaving properly? If so has it recently been at work at Yesodey Hatorah school?

Learning Trust: There is a statutory process for appeal. The Headteacher, followed by the Chair of Governors and finally the Secretary of State

Blood and Property: Have you had any complaints from parents about nepotism or factionalism within a school's governing body. If parents have these concerns, to whom should they present evidence, the Learning Trust? The Charity Commission? The council?

Learning Trust: There have been no complaints from named parents. The process for complaints are outlined above.

Geoffrey Alderman: I have a copy of a letter sent to the chief executive of the Learning Trust on 27 June 2010, to which there was a reply by email dated 27 July 2010.

Blood and Property: I've been told there have been difficulties in identifying who the governors of the school actually are. Should there be a formal route by which parents or any member of the community can can contact the school's governors? Or at least check that they exist?

Learning Trust: All requests for information are directed to the school This reply is unacceptable.

Geoffrey Alderman: Surely the Learning Trust knows the names of the members of the governing body. If not, how can it satisfy itself as to the appropriate governance of the school?

Blood and Property: Is the learning trust confident that there is a complete and effective governing body at the school?

Learning Trust: At the last Ofsted the school was judged outstanding. This has been achieved under the leadership of the head and the Governing body, the hard work of its teaching staff and students as well as the support of parents

Geoffrey Alderman: As a matter of fact the Ofsted inspection itself drew attention to shortcomings in the governance of the school. So this reply is being very economical with the truth. (The 2006 Ofted report gave the school's governing body a score of 3 the lowest of all its other scores got higher rated scores of 1 or 2)

Blood and Property: Is the Learning Trust aware of any investigations into admissions at the school?

Learning Trust: No

Hackney Free School - will it add £20k to your house price?

An architect is waiting to hear if her plan to set up a Free School in Hackney will be approved by the Department for Education.

Pascale Scheurer argues her case for the school in this piece in Building.co.uk.

Her opening sentence suggests she's talking to property owners: "A popular school can add £15,000-20,000 to house prices within its catchment area. So whether you have children of school age or not, may I suggest you keep a close eye on the free schools debate over the coming year."

But the real reason for her project seems to be that: "There is an “outstanding” school round the corner with the creative ethos I want but, thanks to the idiocy of the admissions process, my girls are more likely to end up in a sink school further away."

Her plan is to set up the "Hackney Free School for Creative Entrepreneurship". On her twitter page she says she's still awaiting approval and adds: "Just had great mtg with Hackney Learning Trust. Very supportive of Free School, very helpful."

She provides more details about the Hackney bid here: "In the spirit of 'augmenting the state sector', and taking on board the various concerns over Free Schools, we have contacted the LEA and other local schools, and local MP and councillors (Labour and LibDem). Heated debates as you can imagine, but everyone agrees there is a severe shortage of places and the same issues around faith and single-sex schools abound. I believe it is possible for Free and 'wholly State' schools to work together for mutual benefit, if that is set out as part of the initial core objectives. We are also getting advice from the Head of a Camden community secondary school who we've worked with for two years. Some parents who have been in touch with us live in Camden. It may be of use to share details with you at some point."

I couldn't find any more details about the project and it may well be old news. Pascale will be hoping to hear from the Department for Education and get a letter like the one received by parents setting up a free school in Acton, described here by Toby Young in the Telegraph. But I don't know how large Pascale's school will be.

And I don't know which Hackney MP she is having to deal with. Diane Abbott didn't support academies until they were successful. She also seems particularly wary of middle-class white parents. In a 2006 NASUWT-sponsored paper (Academy schools: case unproven) Diane said: "... We know what parent power means in London. In practice, it means giving power to small groups of white middle-class parents..."

And Pascale's support from the Learning Trust is no guarantee of support from Hackney's biggest beast Jules Pipe (Learning Trust still disgusting... )

And then how keen will a Conservative government be to help out Hackney? And has Michael Gove dropped in for that cup of tea at Woodberry Down yet? Like he said he would.)

The 16 proposals so far accepted (from the BBC) :

Bedford and Kempston Free School, Bedford
The Childcare Company, Slough
Discovery New School, West Sussex
The Free School Norwich, Norfolk
Haringey Jewish Primary School, Haringey
I-Foundation Primary School, Leicester (Hindu)
King's Science Academy, Bradford
Mill Hill Jewish Primary School, Barnet
Nishkam Education Trust, Birmingham (Sikh)
North Westminster Free School (ARK), Westminster (ARK is an existing academy sponsor)
Priors Marston and Priors Hardwick School, Warwickshire
Rivendale Free School, Hammersmith and Fulham
St. Luke's School, Camden (Anglican)
Stour Valley Community School, Suffolk
West London Free School, Ealing or Hammersmith and Fulham
Wormholt North Hammersmith Free School (ARK), Hammersmith and Fulham (to be known as Burlington Primary Academy)

You can follow the progress of Hackney Free School for Creative Entrepreneurship on LinkedIn (search for “Free Schools Resource Group”).

Learning Trust replies to NUT allegations about Haggerston

Learning Trust response to questions about Haggerston School's Ofsted report: NUT: Learning Trust ignored warnings about Haggerston

Blood and Property: Hackney NUT has said that the Learning Trust's support of the former head of Haggerston school was a major cause of its problems - do you agree?

Learning Trust: Rather than entering a debate about the past, we’d rather focus on the future. As the Ofsted report concludes, Haggerston is an improving and forward-thinking school with a new leadership team that has made a significant and positive impact in a short period of time. We are confident, like Ofsted, that the school is well placed for further sustained and rapid improvement.

Blood and Property: An NUT press release says "At the time the NUT criticised the restructuring as being unworkable and having a major impact on student’s progress. Now OFSTED has agreed, identified this area as a weakness." - do you agree ofsted has confirmed NUT concerns?

Learning Trust: The Ofsted report makes it clear that there has been a clear improvement since the last inspection in 2006. The report rated the school as ‘good’ in over half the categories it was judged and concluded that the headteacher and senior leaders have established a culture of high expectations. Staff morale is good following the best GCSE results in the school’s history last year and we’re hopeful of even better results this summer

Blood and Property: NUT added: "This dispute could have been avoided last summer if the Learning Trust had refused to back the restructuring. Instead they helped push it through. Now they are very silent over the OFSTED report." - do you agree with this... and are you very silent?

Learning Trust: If you’re talking about local press coverage, we have provided Hackney Gazette with a detailed statement on the Ofsted report, stressing how pleased we are with the improvements identified by the inspectors.

Blood and Property: Before his re-election in May, Mayor Jules Pipe said that the Learning Trust was disgusting. Has that relationship improved?

Learning Trust: Think you’re misreporting his comments there slightly. The Learning Trust and the London Borough of Hackney share an excellent working relationship and partnership.

NUT: Learning Trust ignored warnings about Haggerston?

Hackney NUT said today that the Learning Trust's support of the former head of Haggerston school was a major cause of its problems.

The Hackney Gazette followed the story last year:
Hackney Gazette - Strike hits school in 24-hour teachers' walkout
Hackney Gazette - Haggerston headteacher in resignation shock
Hackney Gazette - Crisis at Haggerston School deepens

In September the 2009, the Times Education Supplement (TES) also described Haggerston as "a comprehensive hit by strikes, sudden resignations, staff cuts and money worries".

The NUT says its concerns about what was happening at the school were ignored.

"At the time the NUT criticised the restructuring as being unworkable and having a major impact on student’s progress. Now OFSTED has agreed, identified this area as a weakness."

The NUT added: "This dispute could have been avoided last summer if the Learning Trust had refused to back the restructuring. Instead they helped push it through. Now they are very silent over the OFSTED report."

Before his re-election in May, Mayor Jules Pipe said that the Learning Trust was disgusting.

Blood and Property asked the Learning Trust for a comment on these issues this afernoon, and will publish a response if one appears.

Here is the NUT statement in full:

Press Release Monday 28 June 2010

Haggerston Girls School OFSTED Report

The OFSTED report on the recent inspection of Haggerston School has now been published.

It grades the schools as a “3 - satisfactory” which are the second lowest rating a school can be given.

Haggerston School was previously awarded the status of a ‘Beacon School’, meaning that it was one of the most successful schools in England. The current OFSTED Report reflects the decline in the school during the past few years.

The OFSTED report was very supportive of the quality of teaching, student progress and improved behaviour. Parents and students were very supportive of the school.

The areas identified for improvement by OFSTED arise from the previous headteacher’s reorganisation of the staffing structure.

The OFSTED Reported noted: “The school has been through a period of turbulence and instability since its last inspection, but the new leadership team has made a significant impact in a short period of time on raising expectations”

The period of turbulence refers to the strike action members of the NUT took last year over compulsory redundancies.

This improvement in leadership follows the departure of the previous head, chair of Governors, chair of Finance Committee and removal of delegated powers from the Governing body and new link with Mossbourne.

“Despite a growing number of positive features, however, the school is not yet good because its systems for identifying and supporting students with different needs are not yet sufficiently well established across all year groups to ensure that all groups of students achieve consistently well”

“As a result, the most-able students are not always fully challenged, and students with special educational needs and/or disabilities are not always given the support they need to do consistently well”.

Maggie Kalnins the previous headteacher deleted all the posts for Special Needs teachers and restructured the staffing structure so that there was no Heads of Years whose role it is to provide support and identify children who are under achieving.

NUT spokes-person said:
Last summer we had the spectacle of redundancy notes being given to teachers on sports day.

At the time the NUT criticised the restructuring as being unworkable and having a major impact on student’s progress. Now OFSTED has agreed, identified this area as a weakness.

The loss of 5 experienced teachers has had an impact on the school.
NUT took strike action last summer to oppose compulsory redundancies and this action was only called off following the resignation of the headteacher and the Union reaching agreement with the Trust.

This dispute could have been avoided last summer if the Learning Trust had refused to back the restructuring. Instead they helped push it through. Now they are very silent over the OFSTED report.

Students had their education disrupted last summer in what was an unnecessary dispute.

The school, which is an accredited language college, also made its outstanding head of foreign languages redundant last year. So no one is in charge of modern languages at the school.

Not surprisingly following such a disastrous restructuring the school has gone backwards. The blame for this rests on the shoulders of Maggie Kalnins and the Trust”

Learning Trust still disgusting? £2m playgrounds useless?

In the run-up to his election victory in May, Mayor Jules Pipe said that the behaviour of the Learning Trust was disgusting. His anger at the trust - in charge of educating 27,000 Hackney kids - was over its failure to communicate with parents and politicians.

Pipe said that the trust had failed to correct what appeared to be false fears over funding cuts and that it had also failed to explain how the cash had been re-allocated toward poorer parents. (I'm not sure if this issue was the same one raised by Times columnist and Hackney mother Rachel Sylvester back in 2008 and revisted in March 2010: Hackney class war declared by Times and Mail - if it was then the Mayor's intervention was quite late in the day)

In the mean time, should the people of Hackney wait for the Mayor's interpretation of any further Learning Trust communications on cuts and re-allocations? Here's the latest:

Nick Jackson, play development manager for The Learning Trust, told Children and Young People Now that cash to staff Hackney's four new adventure playgrounds may no longer be available due to a £5m cut to the national play strategy.

"It would seem a bit short-sighted having spent millions on playgrounds to not back that up with some funding for revenue," he says. "These playgrounds are about providing a proper childhood experience. Increasingly, children growing up in an urban environment have so many pressures and a lack of opportunities to play and be themselves."

According to the article Hackney was one of 30 authorities given £2m to refurbish or build new play areas. These areas were also give £500,000 to run the new playgrounds. Adventure playgrounds in Hackney Hackney Marsh adventure playground (Adventure playground playworker employment details: £18-£19,000 per year)