Tomorrow night Bentworth Primary is hosting an open evening to discuss becoming an ARK Academy.

PACS hopes relevant and helpful information is made available at this meeting, as the information provided in the consultation document contained mainly generalities about ARK and the Academies programme.

Bentworth’s consultation document explains very little in the way of proposed changes that are really relevant to stakeholders involved in the day to day life of the school.  It says that it is laying out the implications of  becoming an ARK academy, but then goes on to only discuss what it feels are the benefits of such a transition, yet without relevant and important detail.  It puts no information forward on the potential pitfalls, how Governors have considered those pitfalls in deciding to proceed.

For example, the document mentions some of what it means for a school to become an academy.  It then says, not surprisingly, that ARK will appoint a headteacher.   It seems Bentworth will need to do this anyway.  It says they will undertake TUPE procedures for staff.   The second is a legal requirement of conversion.  There is no detail on how extending the school day might impact parents with children in different schools or childcare arrangements. No detail on if this changed curriculum will really be any different now that government is putting down powerful dictates about what will be tested and when – will it really be any different? Where is the evidence it will be better?

In the details the alleged benefits appear to be:

• Have access to the ARK curriculum.

What does this mean?  How do we know this is a good thing? It may be different – and it may not be? In what ways is it different-or the same? Why is this standalone statement supposed to be good enough for the parents and children and teachers at Bentworth?  How can parents comment appropriately upon it?

• Have access to a number of enrichment programmes, including music and performing arts.

In what ways is this different to that already available?  In what ways could this be achieved without becoming an academy -and why were these issues not presented in the consultation if this is considered a key consideration in the possibility of converting?

• Have access to additional education support including SEN, maths, English and assessment.

Same as above – in what way is the offering different and what proven benefit is there to offering a very different way of supporting children with these needs? Parents with children with SEN needs may want to know.

For those who know education, ‘Freedom from local control’ is a bit like ‘freedom from the national curriculum’ – freedoms exist already, but spinning things this way creates the idea of a prison which in reality does not exist…thereby tempting an ‘escape’…but to where?

It is difficult to know because it does not seem to have mapped it out…not for the consultation anyway…

There are precedents for consultation for public bodies, and the overarching considerations are always:

• Consultation must be at a time when proposals are at a formative stage.

PACS has not seen this document, but heard the consultation announcement was allegedly printed on ARK letterhead.  PACS is interested in seeing this document if a reader has a copy.

• The proposer must give sufficient reasons for its proposals to allow consultees to understand them and respond to them properly and intelligently.

In some views, there is not enough substance in the document on the LBHF website to do this.

Becoming an academy may or may not be the right solution for any individual school. PACS holds no ideological position with regards to academies, but feels strongly that schools conisdering academy conversion fully review the implications and options available and present them openly and fully. Our children and our society deserve a full and truthful view of all of the issues at hand in order for those interested to create a democratically meaningful consultation response.