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
Monday, May 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)