LondonMix

Agree with that. You'll struggle to find a nanny that will do housework though a co-worker says that the nannies she spoke to through agencies specializing in Pilipino nannies (odd such agencies exist, I know) were much more open to it (though more expensive).

Also on a coffee break-- ahem... Got it, I see what you mean but I think it takes extra work to help even a bright student who has fallen behind due to an initial lack of familiarity with English. However, I agree this would allow for more scope to create value add. However when couched with the other attainment statistics, the overall picture really doesn't suggest that Harris's value add is primarily down to English language improvement. Students at all skill levels do very well there suggesting there is a lot more to the story than that. Again, that's not to knock LA schools or the LA. But one can think academies aren't a panacea while acknowledging that specific academy groups are doing very well.

"Charter had 7 pupils in their cohort with English as a second language. Harris had 50 students. Achievement of students who enter at Y7 with lower than average literacy skills will make much larger leaps in their attainment as their English improves between KS2 and KS4." This really is a churlish comment. The Harris Academy was able to achieve similar GCSE results to the Charter with a much larger proportion of low-attainers and a much smaller proportion of high-attainers. Please explain to me how that is easily done or not a significantly strong performance? Your comment suggests that it is easy to get low-attainers to improve and that one could expect that most schools with a significant proportion of low-attainers / non-native English speakers should show significant progress being made. That is patently untrue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16721884 The progress witnessed at Harris is well beyond what would normally be expected of students with the same profile nationally. Comparing like for like regarding GCSE scores including math and English, Harris?s low-attainers at K2 level performed better than Charters low-attainers, Harris?s high-attainers performed better than Charter?s high-attainers and Harris? middle attainers performed better than Charter?s middle attainers. The only reason why Charter and Harris have similar aggregate GCSE scores is because Charter has so many more high attainers and so many fewer low attainers in its intake. Again, please explain how these results are not outperformance, not only of Charter but of national performance in general? It?s good to critically scrutinize the figures but some amount of intellectual honesty needs to be applied during the process.

I agree entirely that free schools do not by themselves by virtue of not being controlled by the LA improve results and I fully appreciate your point regarding the change in intake. Looking at what they have done, particularly when you compare the GCSE results with the Charter whose intake started at a much higher point, I do believe this particular school is outperforming and a lot of it has to do with a high expectations ethos as much as anything (in my view). We got on to this as people were retorting to James that Harris is not an outstanding school but rather manipulated (intentionally!) its performance in a number of ways. They are an outstanding school by any measure, and they are doing a great job, as are various LA schools. Unfortunately, this isn't a question (due to the law if I've understood Renata) about if Harris is better than the LA. Though ED Harris is outperforming (when looking at intake) schools like the Charter, I think the LA is doing a great job locally with our primaries. However, as the LA cannot open a primary, the question is do you think Harris would do a good job based on its performance and for me the answer is clearly yes. If other posters are right and Dulwich Hamlet (an academy) expanding permanently is the only alternative, we only have academy solutions for the shortage issues at the moment and within that context I would be supportive of Harris as an option. Regarding the innuendo that Harris are doing something untoward with respect to the Project Management subsidiary. It is not and it is not a profit making business (they have confirmed) and, if you look at the HMRC link I provide, the group structure becomes easier to understand. They are not the project manager for the build but rather have a team specialised in working with the gov't appointed builder and project manager to ensure the build is to their specification. This is paid for by the federation rather than the funds supplied to build the new school. Rather than to continue to make very strong unfounded accusations on this, may I suggest you speak to Harris (they have responded very quickly to requests and been very transparent) or contact the Department of Education if you have concerns about how the process works. I believe tarnishing the reputation of an educational charity again without any proof is not defensible regardless of your ideological views on academies or the changes the coalition have instituted. I've got to work / eat / speak to my husband etc but I have very much enjoyed this debate.

Also, let's compare what Harris ED Girls achieved with its intake compared to what the Charter (a great school as well) has achieved with a much larger proportion of high attainers (37% vs. Harris's 16%) and much fewer low attainers (14% vs. 23%). http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136298 http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=132711

Here is a link to the full stats. http://www.harrisdulwichgirls.org.uk/48/exam-results Here it states that the expected number of pupils expected to achieve 5 GCSEs between A-C including English and Math based on their KS2 scores was 45%. The actual percentage achieving such results was 64%. For 3 levels progress Maths the results are particularly impressive- 87.4% vs 57% expected based on K2 attainment. Please link to what you are basing your claims on and also explain how these results do not reflect out-performance.

Okay got it. Fuschia by definition what you are saying isn't possible. If many schools achieved this or better then the predicted results based on K2 performance would be different and the performance would not be considered achievement beyond what would be expected based on prior performance. What you are claiming is statistically and logically impossible. That a few other schools may do this or even better sure, but the idea that many can is definitely not the case. By definition these results are over-performance and significant over performance at that. Regarding Harris Project Management Business, I have discovered that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the charity (not a business arm of Harris' commercial enterprises). HMRC gives some clear guidance as to why charities should do this under various circumstances. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/tax/trading/subsidiary.htm

I think you are having some phone issues as I did earlier. I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying...

Also, regarding fair banding, if you actually look at Harris's admission policy you would see that it does not deal with unallocated places as people have suggested but instead do as follows: This process of allocation using the criteria above will continue until reaching the correct number in each group as identified in (7) above; If at the end of this process there are unallocated places in any band these will be filled by unallocated applicants, alternating between the band above and below, using the same allocation criteria set out above and continuing the sequence of the allocation of places; http://www.bexley.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9923&p=0

Also, up until very recently sponsors had an obligation to fund at least 2 million pounds worth of the building costs. If the sponsor is paying for the building costs, I don't really have a problem with them being the project manager. What would concern me is if now, based on the new law (after the 2010 election), a sponsor got the right to establish a school and was allowed to use tax payer money to award services to a profit making portion of their business without a tender process. This in my view would not be okay and I have asked Harris to clarify. Also, final point on fair banding: as you can see, fair banding is supported by organisations that are champions of the state school system. http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/03/gove-declares-his-support-for-fair-banding-er-well-sort-of/ Fair banding is not a bad thing as such.

That's not what that link says Fuschia. It says the company has assets worth 3m and liabilities worth 3m and a net asset value of 1 quid. That has nothing to do with making a profit. The company could make no profit at all. Still, I would like to know what it does and how it works with the foundation. Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05887355 > The Harris company that runs the building projects > > > Half a ?million gross profit across the last 3 > years trading accounts

Harris has not just been assessed on their aggregate results but on individual pupil progress. Individual pupils have progressed well above what is expected of them based on their capabilities on entering the Harris school. This cannot be manipulated by fair banding. Why people refuse to acknowledge this is odd... eco79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not whether we have a new primary or not > James. We obviously need one. > > It's your repeated comments about how amazing > Harris are. I'm trying to open up for people, > exactly why academies with a selective admissions > policy can turn around their results so swiftly, > show massive improvement to OFSTED and gain their > outstanding award. They've acquired their 'good > name' at Secondary and now using it to expand into > the Primary sector. I don't feel comfortable with > it. > > We will therefore never really know if Harris are > any good, because they've never been playing the > game on the same level playing field as a true > comprehensive.

EC Harris is not the Harris Foundation! What are you doing? I work with EC Harris and its not even remotely related. Please check your facts and be carfeful before posting... Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.echarris.com/pdf/8286_Case%20Study_West > %20London%20Free%20School_Final.pdf

I have openly said I have reservations about the current system. However, I think the idea is that if 80 of the new primary school children do want a free school (as evidenced by a petition / email etc), they will apply for it once it is created and will go there. This will create more room in the LA schools that are currently oversubscribed so hopefully everyone will be getting what they want (hah!) I like the idea of parental choice but I think the way this is being implemented leaves a lot to be desired and I would like more details regarding the charity that will be running the school being awarded building contracts (if that's the case) that they can presumably make a profit on. If that's true, it shouldn't be allowed unless they are funding the build themselves. Edited to add: I'd like to see some proof on this though as it's quite a serious thing to allege. I've emailed Harris to find out.

Yes, I agree. The free school movement in both countries is more about offering parent?s choice-- ie if they don't like their local school, they can set up their own school and creating a space for alternative schools to innovate outside the national curriculum etc. That's a real simplification as that's not always the case but I think you get what I mean. It?s not meant to be the only type of school being created. simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know nothing of Sweden but in the USA free > schools are not the ONLY way to set up a new > school. Surely they should be merely optional here > too? A specialist complement to state provision?

Yes, the current free school system in the UK is based on the Swedish and American model. Others have them too. They have been more successful in some places than others.

Isn't Dulwich Hamlet an Academy already? So they are working with the LA to meet additional primary school needs in the area? Interesting.

Renata, are you saying based on current legislation the only ways to increase primary school provision is to create a free school (and that there are multiple sponsors interested), expand the facilities of the existing primary schools or continue with bulges? You all have informed us about the interest from the parents looking to set up the German / English school. Are there others? Pickle, why do you believe Harris will automatically be awarded a construction contract to build the school(s) with government money if they are succesful in their application to the Secretary of State to open the school? That would be worrying. Have I misunderstood what you meant?

Prickle, you might want to check the other threads on this in the main section of the EDF. Any potential school can try to open up in the area / on the hospital site. Any group of parents / federation, if they can secure enough registered interest from the community to fill the school can move forward. There is a separate group of parents who are also interested in the hospital site that are thinking of opening a bilingual German / English school. The various cllrs have informed the EDF of this, provided links etc and generally been supportive. However, this school is considering a number of potential sites elsewhere in London whereas Harris would be committed to the hospital site. There is no tendering process. Once there is enough registered interest in what a group is offering, they can apply to the Secretary of State to open the school. At this point, the proposal is scrutinized based on a number of criteria and they can go about trying to secure a proposed site. See link below: https://www.gov.uk/set-up-free-school

I've googled it and found nothing to suggest academies do or will recieve more funding than LA schools. That's a strong claim to make with serious implications for assessing how academies are performing and managing their finances. You need to back it up. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/academies/primary/steps/b00204848/academy-funding/lacseg-2013-14 I am going off-line as I also have work to do as well.

That's not exactly right. The Tea Party is not strictly Libertarian as such. The Libertarians I know in the US are not socially conservative at all. They tend to be more of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" sort so are usually against the welfare state in many respects but none would oppose things like gay marriage for instance. The dichotomy in the US is much more social-conservative + small government OR socially+liberal plus big government than in the UK. I'm not against big government per se. I think the government has a role to play, as long as whatever they are using taxes for is sensible investment given the impact taxes have on the private sector. Defense, education, infrastructure etc. But trains running empty, education spending that doesn't improve results etc infuriates me.

Fuschia has revealed the figures behind the spin!?! Sorry, but the links she has posted are largely spin themselves. A link claiming that it?s shocking that 29 members of staff across 19 schools earn more than 60k when its well-known that the LA pays Head Teachers in inner-city schools up to 150k is pure spin! Fuschia also claimed that Daniel Moynihan makes 300k which is untrue. His pay (according to her own link) including his pension was 243k and a performance related bonus. The LA example (which may or may not be a comparable job) earns 150k excluding pension. If you add on the equivalent civil service pension to the LA salary, the comparable annual pay would be 195k vs a base pay of 243k for Moynihan. Also, according to her own links, Moynihan is paid LESS than other people in similar positions at other academies. This of course is irrelevant. We know that academies receive the exact same operating funding as LA schools (again confirmed by her own links). We know Harris pay their teachers more than the LA and pay their management well. So either Harris has found a way to pay more and achieve better results with the same money or the charity itself is paying the additional salary costs. How is either of those possibilities a scandal? Harris?s results stand up to scrutiny and claims that an exclusion rate of less than 1% is responsible for their performance defy all common sense. The attainment and progress of individual pupils is clear. All academies are not created equal. Some could very well be worse than the LA at providing a quality education and they are not a panacea. Even when you have a great academy, ideological concerns remain about the fragmentation of education provision and the role of the private / charity sector in something as important as education. However, I find it offensive that in furtherance of an ideological argument against academies in general, some feel it?s appropriate to tarnish the reputation of a very successful educational charity in the process. I think that?s deeply irresponsible particularly when done with inaccurate statements and unsubstantiated claims. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well put Fuschia and thank you for taking the time > posting and providing figures behind the spin . > > I find the profilation of original Academies ,new > Academies ,Free Schools confusing and I completely > understand thats many are so busy getting through > life that their main concern is a place for their > primary school child . > > > I think the current set up is wrong - I don't want > a fragmented education system in the hands of a > number of individuals with much power ,many > freedoms ,little control ,opaque motivations and > varying degrees of success. > And who I've not voted for . > > And the fact that I don't know what the answer is > and can't come up with alternatives ,doesn't mean > that what we have now in Southwark is ok .

I don't know, I haven't heard that. Are you saying the 25k or potential 65k conversion grant per school is why the academies are performing so well? In an area the size of ED that is about 6 GBP per person as a one off cost. If it results in a better performing school are you saying that's a waste of money? Really going to bed now- I am risking divorce and loss of employment if I don't ease up on my forum addiction! Edited to add: Harris increases the performance of already capable students as well (it Crystal Palace academy illustrates that very well). I don't want to create the impression that Harris only does a good job for poor / failing students.

Okay, but building a school is always building a school if one is needed surely. The conversion grant is a 25k one off per school and anything above that the school (not the tax payer) has to pay for. The links you posted suggest that the funding to replace LA services was breakeven. The articles highlight academies' financial vulnerability rather than suggest they are rolling in cash. I can't see how any of this explains Harris's results. Going to bed myself now. Goodnight, LM

Academies are most similar to Charter schools in the US. In some circumstances (NY) they have dramatically improved outcomes. In other states, they haven't at all and at times performed worse! The devil is clearly in the details and choosing the right academy is key to it being a benefit to the local area. The Harris academies seem to have found a formula that works very well. No one argues that an LA school could never replicate their results but so far, they haven't locally as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected based on individual pupil progress stats). Do you have specific figures on how much the Harris Academies cost the tax payer to run as I think that would be interesting. Based on the information I have found, the funding for academies and maintained LA schools is like for like: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/academies/primary/faqs/a00204912/finance-faqs#faq2 (extract below) Will schools be worse off financially if they convert to academies? The general principle is that schools are no worse off as academies than they would have been as maintained schools. Academies are funded on a like-for-like basis with local authority maintained schools, with the addition of funding for services that the authority provides free of charge to its schools. If academies are more expensive to run, is it the charity that is footing the bill?