Tyndale goes to the Commons

Independent Educational Institutions -
"a bolt out of the blue" or "a shot in the dark"?

How is it possible to reclassify all 2000 private schools in England and Wales without them even being aware of the fact? It is very simple really - just call them "Independent Educational Institutions" and leave them as they are. The little known measure in the Education and Skills Bill 2007 which will create this new category is actually designed with quite a different aim in view. Whether it is a noble aim or not is not the question here. We ask whether it is being executed with integrity and honesty or whether it is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure. Clause 77 of the Bill has never appeared in any manifesto pledge, nor in the Queen's Speech, indeed it was not even originally part of the Bill and no professional or other interested body has asked for it.

The purpose of Clause 77 and those following it is to embrace one small tuition group operating in one of the most poorly performing local authorities in the country. That group, Tyndale Academy, has been operating since 2003 and has never had more than a dozen children in its classes at any one time. So why should such a small group have attracted the attention of the government to the extent that it has launched two full public consultations and now has drafted a chapter of the Education and Skills Bill 2007? The answer is simple. Jim Knight and his officials at the DCSF have an ideological aversion to the use of corporal punishment irrespective of parental wishes and no matter how limited its application. He expects the children at Tyndale to be subjected to the same regime from which many of them have escaped over the past 10 years - low expectations, poor attainment, bullying and teachers powerless to prevent or punish bad behaviour.

A Private Bill is an act considered by a legislature that helps a single individual, group of individuals, or corporate entity. We at Tyndale Academy believe that Part 4 of the Education and Skills Bill 2007 has all the characteristics of such a Bill although it is paraded as if it had some general benefit and application to children and those educating them. Jim Knight the schools Minister has recently contradicted this view and has gone on record in the Education Standing Committee as saying:

I do not propose to get drawn into a specific discussion on the Tyndale Academy because we are not proposing the legislation merely to deal with one institution.
(Hansard 29 February Col 773)

This assertion was repeated in an interview with the BBC in April 2008 when he said,

It is ridiculous to claim that we have singled out Tyndale Academy. We do not make legislation on the basis of one school"

Unlikely as it might seem we believe that these statements are at odds with several letters and e-mails written by Ministers and officials over the past three years. This correspondence all concerns Tyndale Academy. We are confident that Mr Knight is fully aware of what the Education and Skills Bill is about. He needs only to reread the Ministerial Submission made to him by senior officials in late 2007 to be reminded that one "school" and one "school" only lies at the root of Clause 77 and those following. This submission detailed the efforts of his officials to force Tyndale Academy to register as an independent school despite the fact that it was only providing part time education. Those same officials, who have spent five years since 2003 stumbling through this case and leaving a trail of damage along the way, needed Ministerial assistance to clear up what was a mountain of a mess made from a molehill of a dispute. That assistance came in the form of clause 77 of the Bill.

This chapter had its beginning in October 2005 when, after backing down from a threat to prosecute the proprietor of the academy earlier that year, an official wrote a minute concerning Tyndale's proprietor, Mr Lindsay, stating:

"We have therefore sought Ministerial permission to allow Mr Lindsay to continue to provide education at the premises for the remainder of the academic year, whilst we look, in detail, into the definition of FTE [Full Time Education]."
Independent Education and Boarding Team 25 October 2005

Subsequently an official wrote to Mr Lindsay saying:

"I can confirm that we will not be taking any further action, regarding the registration of Tyndale Academy as an independent school, until we have reviewed the current definition of full time education."
Independent Education and Boarding Team 29 November 2005

Two months later Jacqui Smith MP wrote a letter to Stephen Timms in connection with Tyndale Academy explaining that:

"To date schools have always registered when asked to do so but this case has highlighted the need to tighten our definition of full-time in relation to the matter of whether registration is required. It is with this in mind that we are reviewing how `full-time' is defined."
(Letter from Jacqui Smith MP to Stephen Timms MP DfES Jan 2006)

By late 2006 the first consultation on the Definition of Full Time Education in Independent Schools was carried out. In response to an enquiry from a consultee, the official responsible for the consultation replied:
"A recent case of a school that declined to register meant that we need to further consider what constitutes full time [education] for the purposes of registration as an independent school. We have therefore undertaken this consultation to enable us to provide clear guidance as to which establishments will be required to register."
(DfES Official, December 2006)

It may not be immediately clear that this "school" was Tyndale Academy but the Ministerial Submission and Jacqui Smith's letter demonstrate that it was. Despite receiving a 90% rejection rate for all of their proposals the DCSF launched a further consultation on the same matter.

At this point DCSF Minister, Lord Adonis was drawn further into the matter when he wrote:

"We have not previously experienced a situation in which a proprietor has been unwilling to register as an independent school when Ofsted has advised that the establishment meets the requirements to do so. In view of this situation a review of the definition of full time education was completed, insofar as it relates to an independent school and a consultation was undertaken on a proposed way forward."
(Letter regarding Tyndale Academy from Lord Adonis to Stephen Timms MP - DCSF July 2007).

Any doubt about our interpretation of this letter is dispelled by another government minister, Stephen Timms who, as constituency MP for Ferris Lindsay wrote to Lord Adonis:

"Your letter made it clear that the current consultation was initiated because of the position which Mr Lindsay has taken. You have also confirmed that you are not able to meet him."
(Letter regarding Tyndale Academy from Stephen Timms)

We believe that these e-mails along with several others demonstrate that the Department for Children Schools and Families began the process of reviewing the definition of full time education as it relates to independent schools solely on the basis of the Tyndale Academy case. There are several hundred pieces of correspondence that have passed between officials and ministers as well as OfSTED and Newham LA, the PHSO and the ICO which eloquently demonstrate the importance attached to this case by the DCSF.

Departmental officials were determined to "embrace" Tyndale Academy into the independent school system in order that it could be regulated as a school so that its corporal punishment policy could be outlawed. The Academy has consistently asserted that the children's safety and education is very adequately safeguarded by the Education Otherwise provisions of the 2002 Education Act and Section 58 of the Children Bill 2004. The Department, notwithstanding the clear rejection of its proposals went on to immediately issue a further consultation which acknowledged that the first had contained some unclear and unworkable proposals. These proposals were again rejected by over 70% of respondents. It was at this point that Ministers instructed legal officers to draw up Part 4 of the Education and Skills Bill 2007.

Part Four, and particularly its first few clauses are drafted to deal with one single so called "school" the Tyndale Academy. It is quite apparent that there has been no "problem" other than Tyndale that has "necessitated these clauses. Again, the then Schools Minister, Jacqui Smith MP is on record in answer to a Parliamentary Question as saying:

No proprietors have been prosecuted for operating unregistered schools either since, or prior to, the implementation of the Education Act 2002. The current regulatory framework has not prevented my Department from prosecuting any case under section 159 of the Education Act 2002. "
(Jacqui Smith 18 April 2006 -Col 160W) .

If there have been no problems in recent years then it is difficult to see why the DfES feels that changing patterns of educational provision should now entail the sort of uncertainty which requires legislation, particularly when there are adequate regulatory frameworks in place.

We ask you to consider holding the Minister to account on this question and asking why, when so much effort has been expended on the matter it is being presented as a mere administrative exercise.


Questions:

Why are lunch hours and break times now to be counted as "time during which education is provided"?

What is the rational behind deciding that 15 hours per week should count as part time education?
Why is it necessary to provide such sweeping regulatory powers to amend the number of weeks from the proposed figure of 28 weeks?

If 15 hours (including breaks) is now to stand as a statutory definition of part-time education does this mean that anything longer than this counts as full time education?

If parents have consented to educate their children "otherwise than at school" why should they be subjected to the regulatory framework of the schooling system?

What is the government's concern about parents delegating the power to use limited corporal punishment to a trusted adult in a non-school setting?

Does the government have further plans to extend any such ban on corporal punishment?


Action

vote against the amendment on Page 92 line 9 [schedule 1] of the Bill which will extend the prohibition on corporal punishment to Independent Educational Institutions


vote against clause 77 (3) (c) to give such wide ranging powers to the Minister as to amend the 28 week figure being proposed as a definition of part time education. Extend this period to 36 weeks.

Vote against clause 77 (3) (b) which, according to DCSF - Education and Skills Bill -Part 4 Delegated Powers doc. defines lunch breaks, other breaks and assemblies as education"


Tyndale Academy
12 May 2008



For further information
tel: 07727 082449
Principal@TyndaleAcademy.net

Web:
www.TyndaleAcademy.net
http://tyndalebrief.blogspot.com/


Other articles

Smacking Loophole to be closed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7353245.stm
Smacking row school to hit govt with six figure claim
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=13470

New bill to curb academy that punishes by smacking
http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2560906

'Non-school' stands defiant
http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2427818

You can also see an entry re Tyndale on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Academy

Tyndale goes to Parliament

Why would HM Government concern itself with a tiny tuition group tucked away in the east end of London? Why would the Education Department (DCSF) generate several hundred pieces of correspondence in communicating with its own ministers, senior civil servants, legal officers, OFSTED, Newham LA, the Information Commissioner, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Tyndale Academy and others during the past four years? Why threaten the proprietor with prosecution and a criminal record only to back down? Why should it take an OFSTED visit and two Public Consultations to address the issues raised by this single educational establishment which has never had more than 12 children since it started 1998.

We at Tyndale believe that the answer to these questions lies in the incompetent and mendacious way in which the Department of Children Schools and Families has dealt with us during the past four years. To extricate itself from what is a mess of its own making, the Department has finally asked Ministers to draft a chapter of the Education and Skills Bill 2007.

The two audio files below will show how, what Jim Knight MP refers to as a tuition group teaching Christian Principles has exercised his government.

The first file, Tyndale 1 (5mins 39secs)is a recording of the introduction to the debate in the Standing Committee which is considering the Bill line by line. In it there is some explanation as to why the government is pursuing its line of action.

The second file, Tyndale 2, (5 min 34secs) more fully uncovers the motives of ministers in this matter. In this recording there is approximately 5 minutes devoted particularly to consideration of Tyndale Academy.

The "Ever So 'umble" Beginning

Our case began in 2003 when I opened my e-mail while on holiday in the West Country (alright, alright Bristol). The Department of Education and Skills (DfES) had written telling me that it had come to their attention that Tyndale Tuition Group had been providing education and that we needed to know that if it were full time education for five or more children ... it would have to be registered as an Independent School (serves me right for opening e mail on holiday).

We had no real worries at this point, as Tyndale had been set up in 1998 specifically to avoid meeting such criteria. In short we did not want to be an independent school. We wanted, and still want, to determine our own curriculum, discipline, employment and other policies in line with the teaching of the Bible and the law of the land. When Tyndale opened, it provided approximately 15 hours of taught time a week to four children. We knew that the Department had defined full time education as a minimum of 21 hours per week since at least 1990.

Tyndale was more open to parental scrutiny than any maintained school in the country and more than most independent schools. Advertising was done openly in the local newspaper and in the Yellow Pages and Thomspon Directories. Nothing was done in a corner. Parents were made aware at interview stage that we were not a school but rather were assisting parents in providing "Education Otherwise than at School" according to the 1996 Education Act (Section 7). I responded to this enquiry by phone on returning home and told the official of the position as we saw it. Unknown to us at the time the Department had written to our Local Authority and asked them to visit us and ascertain the nature of our provision as it appeared to them that we didn't want anybody to know about us.

An Inspector Calls

Following correspondence from the DFES and various internal discussions, the Director of Education Newham LEA concluded that any children attending Tyndale "cannot be receiving what the law requires". He then asked his Education Welfare team to arrange a visit and to be prepared to serve School Attendance Orders on the parents concerned. These were the first ill-informed steps taken by our Local Authority. If only they had consulted their own lawyers they would have found that neither their assessment nor their remedy would stand up to close scrutiny in a court.

So it was, in November 2003 we received an unannounced visit from two officers of the Education Welfare Department of our Local Authority. I "entertained" them downstairs, away from the children (who were being supervised and taught by another teacher). I told them politely (honestly) and plainly that although I did not believe they had any authority to ask to see the children and to require registers etc I would nevertheless describe our provision. I was, I think understandably nervous, having seen, from a safe distance, how easy it is for a Local Authority to exceed their powers and make a mess of people's lives only to "move on" without so much as an apology.

In short, I told the Senior EWO that if we were an independent school then the Local Authority had no educational responsibility for us at all as we would be entirely under the authority of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). On the other hand, I said, if we were a tuition group then the LA had no supervisory powers in respect of the education we provided. Their only powers and duties were towards individual parents and children (not towards the group as a whole). They were told that we had informed parents that we would be happy to assist in any "inspections" that might be made of their provision. Our reasoning in this case was that we would not be happy for the LA that had so expertly ruined the education of so many children to attempt to exercise any powers in any attempt to "assist" our group.

When you're in a hole...stop digging

The Education Welfare Officers reported back to the Deputy Director of Education on their visit to Tyndale and from this point onwards it became clear that there was confusion in that department. This confusion was with regard to whether we were, in fact, providing full time education and whether or not School Attendance Orders could be served on our parents. During December the Director concluded that "the school should not be registered". However, following his Christmas Break he concluded that the hours offered to the over eights "might be sufficient to justify a claim of full time education." This was translated by the DfES to say Newham was "of the opinion that it does provide full time education and should be registered."

The upshot of all of this was that the DfES again wrote to us telling us to register Tyndale as an independent school while helpfully reminding us that "anyone who conducts an independent school which is not a registered school is breaking the law and may be liable to a fine or imprisonment." After protracted phone calls and letters from Tyndale the DfES wrote to Newham again, on 11 March 2004, concluding (how many conclusions does that make??) that "The Academy does not appear to offer full time education and cannot therefore be registered as an independent school. I propose to write to Mr Lindsay confirming the position but feel that I should give you the opportunity of commenting before doing so."

In apparent desparation Newham wrote back on 17th March (never seen them move so quickly) and said that they could not approve of any parent educating their child with Tyndale because the Authority had "no right of inspection of the Tyndale Academy". The desparation of the Authority to have us registered is clearest in their opinion that "in view of the ... difficulties which will arise from any attempt by it to pose as an establishment providing part-time tuition only, I believe that the Tyndale Academy should be expected to register and an independent school". This reasoning threw the DfES into the kind of Yes Minister panic that spells trouble for all (especially for us). The hole was well and truly dug -but there was yet more digging to be done (in the land of metaphors anything is possible).

It growed and growed like Topsy

The Department attempted to extricate itself from its uncertainty as to whether we were providing full time education by passing the ball to OFSTED. They arranged for inspectors to make an unannounced visit to Tyndale Academy in the autumn. As it turned out OFSTED informed us of the visit a few weeks ahead of time. The purpose of this visit was to ascertain whether we were providing full time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age. If we were then we would be guilty of "running an unregistered independent school". Before the inspection HMI asked for various documents such as names and addresses of children. Some of these documents were refused on the grounds of confidentiality but otherwise we made it clear that the inspectors were welcome.
Two of them came along on 17th November 2005 and spent the whole day with us. We made it clear that we believed they were only there to ascertain whether we were providing full time education. They made it equally clear that they had wider responsibilities and powers. The day went very well and in fact an excellent and detailed report (not for our eyes) was sent to the DFES. We gained sight of it later under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the end of the day the inspectors asked about the discipline policy of the school (at the time we were unaware that the Department had asked them to find out details of our policy which they knew included corporal discipline). This policy involves an occasional smack to the hand with the hand for deliberate misbehaviour and is exercised only with parental consent.
The inspectors made it clear that they felt that the relations between children and teachers was good and gave no cause for concern . They added that had they felt there was cause for concern they would have been duty bound to relate this to the local authority.

The inspectors commented that our setting of homework when considered alongside the fact that even our breaktimes were educationally productive meant that we were full time. This conclusion was directly contrary to the Department's guidance (Circuler 7/90) on what constitutes "taught time" and the inspectors own guidance which holds that less than 18 hours cannot be considered full time (ROIEJ/OFSTED). The inspectors were apparently unaware of either and made no reference to them. Nevertheless they wrote to the DFES saying that in their judgement we were providing full time education "of a rather good quality at that".