Articles

30 Turning in their graves? A tale of two coalitions
December 2012 1200 words
29 Hobson's Choice: education policies in the 2010 general election
July 2010 3700 words
28 Short and Fraught: the history of primary education in England
June 2009 8600 words
27 Us and Them: a history of pupil grouping policies in England's schools
December 2008 19,000 words
26 Never Mind the Evidence: Blair's obsession with faith schools
May 2007 8500 words
25 Axes to Grind: the first five years of Blair's academies
April 2007 5100 words
24 The Hadow Reports: an introduction
September 2006 10,700 words
23 Tricks of the Trade: whatever happened to teacher professionalism?
May 2005 10,400 words
22 Food for Thought: child nutrition, the school dinner and the food industry
July 2003 7100 words
21 The Supply Teacher's Lot
March 2003 3000 words
20 Creationism: bad science, bad religion, bad education
April 2002 6200 words
19 Glass in their Snowballs: the faith schools debate
December 2001 7500 words
18 Time to Rethink Religious Education?
September 2000 1950 words
17 King's Manor School - an experiment in privatisation?
June 1999 3860 words
16 New Labour - New Values?
June 1997 3070 words
15 Children's needs and interests and the National Curriculum
June 1995 2280 words
14 Educational Philosophy: does it exist in the 1990s?
September 1992 1850 words
13 Facing the Problem of Bullying in Schools
January 1992 4350 words
12 Deconstructing the Bible: interpretive possibilities
August 1991 4030 words
11 The Multifaith Society: problem or opportunity?
August 1991 3230 words
10 Agreed Syllabuses 1944-1988: Changing aims - changing content?
January 1991 6640 words
9 On being beaten about the head
June 1989 1800 words
8 Some principles for school managers
March 1988 2000 words
7 The National Curriculum and the role of the primary teacher in curriculum development
March 1988 2230 words
6 Whatever happened to the integrated curriculum?
October 1987 1470 words
5 Is the core curriculum ideal valid and feasible?
April 1987 2060 words
4 Plowden and the Primary Curriculum: twenty years on
March 1987 2020 words
3 The Management of Selecting, Appraising and Developing Staff
September 1987 1630 words
2 School Governing Bodies: do they have a clear role?
June 1987 1680 words
1 The Chief Education Officer: the real master of local educational provision?
March 1987 2080 words


King's Manor School: an experiment in privatisation?
Derek Gillard
March 1999

İ copyright Derek Gillard 2001
This article is my copyright. You are welcome to download it and print it for your own personal use, or for use in a school or other educational establishment, provided my name as the author is attached. But you may not publish it, upload it onto any other website, or sell it, without my permission.

Citations
You are welcome to cite this piece. If you do so, please acknowledge it thus:
Gillard D (1999) King's Manor School: an experiment in privatisation? www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/17kingsmanor.html

In accordance with the conventions set out by the Society of Authors and the Publishers Association, you should seek my permission to reproduce

  • any extract of more than 400 words;
  • a series of extracts totalling more than 800 words, of which any one extract has more than 300 words; and
  • an extract or series of extracts constituting a quarter or more of the original work.
For shorter extracts you do not need my permission (though a note informing me of your intentions is appreciated), provided the source is acknowledged as shown above.

References
Extracts from the 1998 Ofsted report on King's Manor School are İ Crown copyright. (This report is no longer available on the Ofsted website and, regrettably, I do not have a copy of it).



I began my teaching career in 1966 at Queen Eleanor's CE Primary School and then went on to teach at Westborough County Primary School, both feeder primary schools of what was then Park Barn County Secondary School in Guildford. My concern at the recent events surrounding King's Manor School relates to the direction of government education policy and, in particular, the creeping privatisation of state education.

The school and its area

Park Barn County Secondary School (pictured) was opened in the late fifties to serve a large area of north-west Guildford including Onslow Village and the Park Barn and Westborough estates. Its name was changed to King's Manor School in 1991, when parents were being given the right to choose their children's schools and it was felt that the Park Barn tag might limit the appeal of the school to residents of the estate.

The Park Barn and Westborough estates have always suffered from public perceptions of the area. Indeed, in a report on King's Manor School (11 September 1998), The Surrey Advertiser described Park Barn as 'one of the most deprived areas of Guildford'. In response to the resulting wave of protest, the paper published a piece by Simon Wicks: 'Park Barn - a crisis of identity' (The Surrey Advertiser, 2 October 1998).

In his piece, Wicks pointed out that Park Barn comes 28th in the county's league table of thirty deprived areas. Quoting Wendy Allison of the North Guildford Project, he wrote, 'Park Barn and Westborough have one of the lowest income per capita ratios in Surrey and the educational abilities of young children entering school there are considered to be relatively low.' According to the Surrey Area Profile, Westborough has 7.3% unemployment, 18.9% of children are in low-income families and 43.6% of the residents rent from the local authority. In terms of resources, however, the area is relatively well off. The council houses are 'smartly double glazed and centrally heated.' There are plenty of play areas and a new £1.3 million day centre for the over-55s.

Community worker Jonathan Hayes told Wicks, 'This is a mixed community, with university lecturers and the long-term unemployed among its residents. Crime is low. It has been tagged "deprived" because of the concentration of rented housing and the fact that national housing policies mean tenancies are only awarded to those with "genuine need".'

'It is partly the contrast between the various sectors in the community that has affected King's Manor School. Parents, given more choice nowadays, choose not to send their children there because the area is deemed to be "deprived" and the label becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Inevitably, a label that is appropriate for a section of the community ends up colouring the whole area. A falling school roll means less funding which in turn means the school cannot function as well as it should. Under-resourced and with falling morale, it becomes a "failing" school according to Ofsted's criteria.'

Today, the school roll stands at just 395, with 23 in the sixth-form.

Ofsted itself (1998) identified a number of factors affecting the school, including

  • its situation in 'an area of some social deprivation';
  • the attainment profile of pupils on entry, which is 'skewed increasingly towards below-average attainment';
  • the fact that, since 1994, the school has received a 'significant proportion of pupils during the school year ... including pupils excluded from other schools';
  • a high proportion of travellers' children;
  • twenty-two per cent of the pupils are eligible for free school meals;
  • twenty-five per cent have special educational needs, including nine per cent with statements, ranging over physical disabilities and emotional and behavioural difficulties.
The previous Ofsted inspection, in December 1993, had identified strengths but also some behavioural problems among pupils, and weaknesses in the quality of teaching and learning and in some aspects of provision for pupils with special educational needs.

In 1997, the school carried out an internal review, and this was followed by an LEA inspection. As a result of these, the school began to address a number of urgent priorities including standards of achievement, the quality of teaching and the school's ethos. Guidance and policies relating to these were put in place, and the senior management team and heads of faculty began a programme of monitoring the effects of these initiatives.

The 1998 inspection

Ofsted inspectors visited the school on 14-15 May and three HMIs carried out a Section 10 inspection of the school on 6-7 July. Following these inspections, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector concluded that 'the school requires special measures, since it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education'.

The following are extracts from the 1998 Inspection Report, which drew on the evidence of both the May and July visits.

'The main findings of the inspection are:

  • in 1997, overall GCSE results, and results in the core subjects, were low, even in comparison with schools with some similar characteristics. At Key Stage 3, results in the statutory tests were low in English and mathematics; there are weaknesses in the standards achieved by pupils in the classroom in all the core subjects, especially in English and mathematics, and in standards in basic literacy and numeracy skills;
  • the progress made by pupils was satisfactory or better in just under half of the lessons;
  • the quality of teaching was satisfactory or better in just under three-fifths of the lessons;
  • in some parts of the school there are good learning environments and evidence of pupils' hard work in preparing coursework for GCSE, for example in the library and in the technology faculty, and also in other subject areas including art and science;
  • provision for pupils who have special educational needs is well organised by the learning support faculty. The school is beginning to work towards a whole-school approach to meeting the needs of these pupils, but practice is not yet consistent across faculties;
  • the behaviour of pupils around the school is broadly acceptable, with some exceptions. The significant numbers of disabled pupils in the school are treated with consideration and respect by their peers, and by the staff of the school. In the classroom, pupils' behaviour is variable, in response to the quality of teaching. When teaching is less than satisfactory, there is evidence of some uncouth behaviour, inattention, restlessness and disaffection.
  • Pupils' response was satisfactory in three fifths of the lessons;
  • attendance rates are poor and unauthorised absences and temporary exclusions are high;
  • the senior management team has correctly identified urgent priorities for the school: raising standards; improving the quality of teaching; and addressing the ethos of the school. These three strands are sensibly reflected in the governing body's committee structure. The leaders and managers of the school demonstrate, in their recent thinking and activity, clear vision and a sense of priorities, but they have not yet managed to achieve a positive impact as a result of these initiatives;
  • senior and middle managers are increasingly involved in monitoring the quality of pupils' work and of teaching, and in planning, year-on-year, for improvement, but there has been no longer-term planning in recent years, and there are weaknesses in the detail and style of the current year's management plan;
  • the senior management team is large for a small school, with a range of roles of varying status, and some complex and somewhat confusing lines of management. It is necessary for these to be clarified, and for the headteacher, supported by the governing body, to draw on the varying strengths within the team to push harder for full implementation of the policies now in place;
  • the commitment of staff to the school and the pupils is strong, as are their feelings of uncertainty about the future of the school. It is necessary for the school's leadership to address the needs of those staff who have difficulties with the undoubtedly challenging mix of pupils, and to raise their expectations of the pupils in order to focus on raising standards.'
'In order to improve the pupils' quality of education further, the governors, headteacher, staff and the LEA need to address the following key issues:
  • improve the progress pupils make in subjects, in lessons, and over time, and by that means to improve their attainment;
  • raise teachers' expectations of what pupils can achieve, and improve the quality of teaching and lesson planning;
  • make better use of time in lessons so as to stimulate pupils' attitudes, interest, motivation and willingness to work;
  • develop more comprehensive literacy and numeracy policies, and a whole-school approach to their implementation;
  • improve attendance;
  • improve pupils' behaviour, through more effective implementation of the behaviour policy, and reduce the number of exclusions;
  • improve the effectiveness of leadership and management, in order to implement the range of policies now in place.'
In the aftermath of the inspection, Surrey County Council proposed closing the school. They were somewhat taken aback when five hundred angry parents turned up to a meeting to demand that it should be kept open. Ben Cartwright, chairman of the King's Manor Community Group, told Jamie Wilson and Rebecca Smithers (The Guardian 9 February 1999) that:
'the school began to run into difficulties ten years ago. It was under-subscribed, and children excluded from other schools were sent there. Matters came to a head last year when the local education authority published a paper on the Future of Education in North Guildford. They recommended closing the school. As a result, the Community Group was set up. We won that battle, but the next thing the LEA suggested was privatisation.'
My correspondence

I first became aware of the situation when letters supporting the school began to appear in The Surrey Advertiser.

On 22 September I wrote to the Head Teacher, Greg Gardner, 'to offer my moral support to you and your staff in your present circumstances'. In his reply, he said he was sad that the strategies which he and his staff were putting in place were not to be allowed to bear fruit. Of himself, he said:

'I am thinking of joining voluntary services - something they cannot sack you from - to carry on the fight to correct some of the appalling inequities in a society where the gap between the rich and the poor has reached grotesque proportions.'
On 17 October I wrote to Heather Hawker (Chair, Surrey County Council), Dr Paul Gray (Director of Education, Surrey County Council), Andrew Smith (my MP) and Education Secretary David Blunkett.

I pointed out

  • that King's Manor School suffers from the effects of selection by other secondary schools in the area,
  • that a third of its pupils have either been expelled from other schools or have special needs of various types,
  • that it does an outstanding job for pupils with physical disabilities, and
  • that its work on literacy (with its feeder primary schools) has been recognised by the government with a grant of £100 000.
I suggested that the fact that Ofsted considered it a failing school 'merely demonstrates the absurdly narrow definitions within which Ofsted inspectors work'. 'In my experience,' I wrote, 'most Ofsted inspectors wouldn't recognise real education if it hit them in the face'.

However, my main criticisms were not of Ofsted, nor of the County Council, but of the policies of both the previous and the present governments which, in my view, had caused this situation:

'The combined effect of league tables and parental choice is, inevitably, to cause good schools to become more popular and poorer schools (usually those in less affluent areas) to become less so. As these schools become less popular, so they find it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain good staff. It is a vicious circle. Rather than improve the situation for pupils in the poorer areas, therefore, it actually exacerbates the problem and widens the divide.'
In my letter to David Blunkett, I asked why he was not prepared to end the iniquitous practice of selection of pupils by ability or aptitude. I reminded him of the words he had used before the election: 'Read my lips. No selection.'

The replies

In her reply, Heather Hawker said she was 'pleased that the Education Committee has committed itself to the continuation of a school on the King's Manor site. My personal belief is that everybody involved (the school, the community and the LEA) share a common goal which is to see the creation of a thriving school to serve the Park Barn area. We are pursuing a range of options including a partnership with the private sector but at this stage no decisions have been taken.'

Surrey's Director of Education, Dr Paul Gray, wrote:

'It is precisely because King's Manor has, in effect, become a "poor relation" locally that I decided some fifteen months ago to intervene directly. For all of the reasons you have described, the roll at King's Manor has plummeted and its intake is unbalanced. LEA inspectors identified serious weaknesses and there then followed a period of even more intensive support from the County Council. In the event (and despite the best efforts of all concerned) we have been unable to turn the school around and my politicians felt strongly that it should close. I took a different view, believing that it is possible to have a successful school on the Park Barn site but that it must be sufficiently distinctive to be attractive to parents in the Guildford area.'
Replying on behalf of David Blunkett, Andrew Smith wrote:
'We have encouraged LEAs to use innovative approaches to tackle failure. These may include seeking private sector advice and consultancy. I hope that Surrey will bear three principles in mind. First, the law does not allow the governors or the LEA to abandon their responsibility to raise standards. Second, the choices they make about how to carry out that responsibility must be motivated by the best interests of pupils. Third, they must ensure that any expenditure represents the best possible value for public money.

'There is no question of a state school being run for profit by a private company. Governors control school budgets and they must be spent for the benefit of pupils. This does not rule out buying services from private companies. That is common practice for services like cleaning and catering. Buying educational or management advice is less common. It is certainly not unlawful nor - where it represents good value for money in terms of raising school standards - objectionable.

'Our policy is to focus on standards, not structures. We are not in the business of ruling out solutions which might help failing schools get back on their feet more quickly. Whatever the decision on King's Manor we will wish to see whether it is effective. Our prime concern must be to ensure that pupils receive the excellent standard of education to which they are entitled, and as soon as possible.'

The process

At the Education Committee meeting on 2 November, Paul Gray promised to 'keep the options open for King's Manor School' and said that one of these options would be 'keeping the school under local authority control.' Concerns were expressed about the costs of the tendering process and the timescale, and doubts about the legality of paying a management fee over and above the cash provided per child (The Surrey Advertiser 6 November 1998).

There were nine replies to the request for 'expressions of interest'. The parents' preferred bidder was the Guildford Community Education Trust. It was the only local one, set up for the purpose by fourteen local churches. It was not shortlisted. Surrey County Council would not say why, though it is believed it is because, being newly set up, it could not demonstrate a track record, financial resources or expertise. However, when the Edison Project, the American backers of one of the four shortlisted bidders, withdrew their support for the bid, the Council was obliged to think again. They couldn't be seen to reject the local bid on the basis of a lack of track record whilst allowing a bid from an organisation which also now had no track record.

Proposals had to be submitted by 18 January. Francis Beckett, writing in The Guardian (19 January 1999) said, 'It was all done with obsessive secrecy ... Substantial bonuses were secretly offered to the successful bidder if pupil numbers rose.' Surrey County Council 'refused to tell parents, governors, teachers or even Mr Gardner anything at all about who is bidding or what is on offer.' The Parents' Action Committee request to have a representative on the King's Manor Contract Sub-committee was refused, even though one could legally have been co-opted. Dr Andrew Povey, Conservative Education Chairman said, 'Some of the Parents' Action Committee have a political agenda.'

In the event, the contract was offered to 3Es Enterprises. Jamie Wilson and Rebecca Smithers reported that 'the 3E's bid was the unanimous choice among local people' (The Guardian 9 February 1999). 'Inside the school, a small band of parents cheered when the Head, Greg Gardner, announced the result.'

3E's Managing Director, Stanley Goodchild (former Chief Education Officer for Berkshire), told Simon Wicks (The Surrey Advertiser 26 February 1999) that his firm was pledged 'to transform the ethos of the school and drag it from a downward spiral that has seen pupil numbers fall by 50%. We want this school to be a school of distinction and we want it to be owned by the local community.' He believed that, with local support, it could become a 'college of national and international repute, with very clear specialisms.'

3Es will set up a voluntary aided school on the King's Manor site in September 2000. The firm will be paid 'a management fee and generous performance bonuses'. The county has also promised £1 million for refurbishment and £150 000 for new technology.

The contest was won on the basis that 3Es would set up an arts and technology college, with an emphasis on vocational qualifications and commercial sponsorship. Their plans include a name change - possibly to Kings' College for the Arts and Technology, entry tests to ensure a fully comprehensive intake and extensive community involvement.

Mr Goodchild and his wife Valerie Bragg, principal of Kingshurst City Technology College, also have telling experience of reviving under-achieving schools, including Garth Hill in Bracknell. ... [Mr Goodchild] could not offer guarantees that existing staff would be kept on if they did not subscribe to the 3Es ethos. (Simon Wicks The Surrey Advertiser 26 February 1999)

Greg Gardner remains puzzled. Why is Surrey County Council, which is proud of the reputation of its education service, so keen to enter into an arrangement which will, inevitably, take away a level of local control? What is the nature of the contract about to be entered into? What happens if it goes wrong? And will the parents - who have campaigned so effectively for the retention of the school - still feel it is 'theirs' when it is run by a trust whose approach may cut across their interests?

Conclusions

I don't know the staff of King's Manor School. I don't know how good they are as teachers and managers. I don't know how far they themselves have contributed to the situation in which they now find themselves.

But it does seem to me that here is a school trying to offer a good, humane education to all its pupils, a large proportion of whom are disadvantaged or disabled. I am not alone in this view. From the many letters which have appeared in The Surrey Advertiser, it is clear that the school enjoys a high level of support among parents and the local community. Francis Beckett, writing in The Guardian (19 January 1999) pointed out that the school's unit for pupils with physical disabilities was 'widely admired'. And Jamie Wilson and Rebecca Smithers reported that:

King's Manor, a 1950s red brick structure, lies in one of the most depressed areas of the town. But from the inside you would not know it was a failing school. There are no broken windows or litter; instead the rooms are bright, with decorations on the walls. Last night pupils were rehearsing for a production of The Wizard of Oz. (The Guardian 9 February 1999)
So why does the school find itself in its present situation? The following factors have all played a significant part:
  • public perceptions of the area the school serves;
  • inflexible funding formulae;
  • annual budget cuts;
  • an imposed and restrictive curriculum;
  • testing and league tables and the resulting view that a school can only be as good as its test results;
  • parental choice;
  • pupil selection;
  • the level of exclusions from other schools;
  • the culture of 'name and shame'.
What, I wonder, could the present staff have achieved with a management fee, generous performance bonuses, £1 million for refurbishment and £150,000 for new technology? We shall never know. They are to be sacrificed on the altar of New Labour's vision of education for the twenty-first century.

But what is that vision? Perhaps there is a clue in Hackney. Following a fairly damning Ofsted report, some of its services are to be hived off to outside contractors. (Rumour has it that Downing Street wanted the whole LEA contracted out but apparently the Ofsted report wasn't quite damning enough).

Why should Blunkett want private contractors to run Hackney? Decca Aitkenhead (The Guardian 12 March 1999) offered two possible explanations:

The more hopeful one would be that Blunkett is in torment with every day that passes and every Hackney school pupil doesn't have a place secured at Oxbridge ... Alternatively, it might be the case that the Department for Education is currently awash with advice from consultants, all "advising" that schools would be transformed if only the Government would let private companies such as Nord Anglia or Edison get their hands on them ... the Chair of the Local Government Association's education committee warns of "shadowy creatures" lobbying in their own interests ... it is clearly the case that these consultants stand to profit in the long run if they can convince the Government that local authorities have no right, God given or otherwise, to run their own education.
In practical terms, having a private contractor run some of Hackney's services will actually make very little difference, since local authorities now have very limited responsibilities and very little to do with the day-to-day running of schools.
If you wanted to make a dramatic improvement to Hackney's schools, changing the organisation which looks after data analysis and the like would not be your biggest priority. If, on the other hand, your main concern was to start setting precedents for privatisation; if you wanted companies to secure some experience; if you wanted to steer towards a system where state education was no longer the norm, it would make sense to start in Hackney. (Decca Aitkenhead The Guardian 12 March 1999)
Or in King's Manor?

  • This article is a modified version of that published in Forum 41(2) Summer 1999 47-50.