Havering’s Academies and Community Governors

Havering’s secondary academies’ policies on school uniform and personal appearance are virtually identical. It’s as if they collaborate in an institutional Group Think. Their decision-making is embedded in collective unchallenged beliefs. No academy has councillors, parents or teachers as governors. School uniform and personal appearance policies don’t enhance educational achievement. This emphasises that the academies’ approach to micro-managing students is bizarre.

In October 2022 this blog discussed coloured shoelaces,¹which are uniformly banned. Wearing coloured shoelaces can result in students being excluded from lessons. Hairstyle conformity is also an important ‘appearance’ policy.² Schools seem unaware some ‘extreme’ hairstyles are legal and can’t be banned because of their racial context.

Race-based hair discrimination has been illegal in the UK since the Equalities Act became law in 2010 but the Halo Collective says it is still a really big problem.

A recent survey said 46% of parents say their children’s school uniform policy penalises afro-hair.³

In 2020 a Hackney student took her school to court because of the enforcement of a hairstyle policy. She won her case.

A pupil who was repeatedly sent home from school because of her afro hair wants to make sure it doesn’t happen to any other UK schoolchild.

Ruby Williams received £8,500 in an out-of-court settlement after her family took legal action against The Urswick School in east London .⁴

Excluding the community alienates the principal stakeholders. It’s difficult to believe legal Afro hairstyles are permitted in Havering’s academies for example.² Community involvement challenges extremist Group Think policies, which have no educational purpose. Academies are in an intellectual cul de sac in relation to school uniform and appearance codes.

Notes

1 Havering’s Academies: School Shoes and Shoe Laces – Politics in Havering

2 This is typical: “It will be for the Headteacher to decide if a hairstyle is “extreme”. It is difficult to definitively set out in advance what will be regarded as an “extreme hairstyle” as styles vary regularly according to fashion. Students are therefore expected to speak to their Head of Year before they alter their hairstyle or dye their hair to obtain confirmation that the proposed new hairstyle will comply with this policy.” Year-7_11_September-2021.pdf (cooperscoborn.org.uk) This can be summarised as, ‘If we don’t like it, you can’t have it.’ Compare Uniform-Expectations-September-2021.pdf (bowerpark.co.uk) And FBA-uniform-policy-June-2020-r-1.pdf (fbaok.co.uk) Frances Bardsley The other 15 Havering academies cluster in the same territory.

3 Halo Code: What is it and how does it protect afro hair? – CBBC Newsround 10^th December 2020
4 Ruby Williams: No child with afro hair should suffer like me – BBC News 10^th February 2020

How Havering’s Academies Conceal their 2022 GCSE Results

Havering’s academies are unaccountable. Their principal role is educating Havering’s children but how good are they? Looking at their websites (see Addendum) it’s more or less impossible to find out. With notable exceptions, GCSE results are concealed. Drapers Academy demonstrates it’s a choice to prevent understanding.

Drapers Academy: a stellar example of good practice

Compare this with Harris Academy, Rainham1. They present their results as though they are conducting a seminar for education professionals.

And Harris Academy isn’t the worst. Marshalls Park’s results date from 2019. And it isn’t the worst either. Other schools don’t publish results at all. They only give a link to the government website: step forward Hornchurch High School!

The Council have no role in Havering’s Academies, which is disastrous. Academies are run as if GCSE results are a commercial secret. Havering’s academies are adept at cherry picking the information they publish on their websites. Parents literally don’t know whether their children’s schools are successful or not.

Dissatisfied parent should use Freedom of Information2 requests to reveal uncensored GCSE results. Drapers Academy have shown it can be done and other academies should follow them.

GCSE results information is not a commercial secret.

Addendum: Links to each academy’s website exam results page

1 Achievement And Performance – Abbs Cross Academy

2 Key Information – Bower Park Academy Nothing on exam results

3 The Brittons Academy

4 Learning (thecampionschool.org.uk)

5 GCSE Results 2022 – The Coopers’ Company and Coborn School (cooperscoborn.org.uk)

6 Headline-Results-2022.pdf (drapers-academy.s3.amazonaws.com)

7 Emerson Park Academy – Find school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (find-school-performance-data.service.gov.uk)

8 Secondary – The Frances Bardsley Academy for Girls – Find school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (find-school-performance-data.service.gov.uk)

9 Gaynes school best ever GCSE results – News – Gaynes School

10 Examinations – Hall Mead School results for 2020 see also Subjects entered at key stage 4 in 2021/22 – Hall Mead School – Find school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (find-school-performance-data.service.gov.uk) Appears to be slightly above average

11 Examinations Results – Harris Academy Rainham (harrisrainham.org.uk)

12 Hornchurch High School – Find school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (find-school-performance-data.service.gov.uk)

13 Exam Results – Marshalls (marshallspark.org.uk)

14 Secondary – Redden Court School – Find school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (find-school-performance-data.service.gov.uk)

15 Sacred Heart of Mary Exam results 22.xlsx – Google Sheets

16 Royal Liberty School – Examination Results

17 Sanders Draper – Examination results (sandersschool.org.uk) A good analysis showing progress over 3 years

18 St Edward’s Church of England Academy – Find school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (find-school-performance-data.service.gov.uk)

Note

1 As from 14th December 2022 Harris Academy Rainham will adopt best practice.

2 How to make a freedom of information (FOI) request: Overview – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Havering’s Academies: School Shoes and Shoe Laces

Havering’s academies have an aversion to trainers and coloured shoe laces, which is pathologically irrational. School shoe and shoe lace policies are enforced as though they’re crucial to learning and achievement.

Abbs Cross Academy

“A plain design, no trimmings, no logos, no decorative buckles, no coloured laces or stitching, no labels, no tags, or other decorations.”¹

Brittons Academy

“No Vans, trainers or pumps, plain black Kickers with no colour stitching or laces are allowed.”

“[A breach that] cannot be rectified immediately, internal isolation may be imposed for the remainder of that school day or break and lunchtime, or until the student has a break in which they can safely return home to rectify the breach.” (my emphasis)²

Campion Academy

“Shoes for both boys and girls should be plain black and leather style material.”³(my emphasis)

Redden Court Academy

“Plain black leather shoes with no decoration. Black laces only. No trainers, plimsolls or canvas type shoes.”⁴

St Edwards Church of England Academy

“Plain black office type shoes (NO boots, plimsolls or trainers).”⁵ (my emphasis)

There are 18 academies in Havering and all five academies analysed have specific policies about shoes and shoe laces.⁶ That professional educators have policies about shoes and shoe laces is barking mad. Needless to relate there’s no connexion between shoes, shoe laces and educational achievement. And you don’t need a degree to know that.

Notes

1 Uniform – Abbs Cross Academy

2 Uniform – The Brittons Academy This is a typical statement about infringements of school uniform policy.

3 Home (thecampionschool.org.uk)

4 Redden Court School – School Uniform (reddencourtcloud.co.uk)

School Uniforms: A Stealth Tax on Education?

All of Havering’s academies have single supplier contracts.¹ Parents are captured by this arrangement. They’ve no choice what to buy, where to buy or how much to pay. School uniforms are mandatory. This is contrary to government advice (see Addendum). Multi-academy groups are big businesses who ‘deliver’ thousands of customers to a preferred supplier.² (It would be interesting to see what’s in it for them, but we can’t because they’re unaccountable.)

The commercial aspect is obnoxious but so’s the ruthless enforcement of uniform policies.³ Ties are crucial to learning in Havering’s secondary schools according to their discipline codes. Where else, in Britain, are expensive blazers worn? Black polished shoes but not black trainers? School logo hoodies but not ones without a logo? Havering’s uniforms are a throwback to the 1950s.

Havering’s secondary academy parents pay about £300⁴ for uniforms to fulfil a legal obligation …sending their children to school. If they don’t buy a uniform their child can’t even enter school buildings. Not buying a uniform isn’t failing an educational requirement. It’s avoiding a stealth tax.

The education stealth tax goes like this:

Children must attend school
Children must wear school uniform
Pay up, or else!

Addendum: Statutory advice on school uniforms

Single supplier contracts should be avoided unless regular tendering competitions are run where more than one supplier can compete for the contract and where the best value for money is secured. This contract should be retendered at least every 5 years….Schools should keep the use of branded items to a minimum. (my emphasis)

Source Cost of school uniforms – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Notes

1 Coopers Coburn appear to have changed supplier but it’s unclear if that was after retendering. Research for this blog was done on 4^th August, 2022 using school websites

2 Harris Academy group has 28 secondary schools amongst which is Harris Academy Rainham. Harris academy group – Yahoo Search Results Their uniform supplier is Khalsa Schoolwear as it is for all their secondary schools. This contract ‘delivers’ about 20,000-30,000 Harris students nationwide.

3 To the point that students can be excluded from school as non-compliance is interpreted as a major discipline challenge… Like carrying a knife or selling drugs.

4 The pandemic revealed that whilst parents were shelling out for school uniforms they couldn’t afford laptops for their children. Laptops, it was quickly discovered, are essential to education in the 21^st century; unlike blazers.

Havering Council Meeting: 13th July, 2022

Ray Morgon’s cabinet has a lot to prove. None have had policy making positions and one’s only been on Council for two months. So how did they do?

Question Time was Ray’s cabinet’s first outing. Classy Conservative questions were a sharp improvement on the tedious HRA efforts we used to endure. There were two standout moments.

Dilip Patel asked about Development (@42 minutes)¹. Graham Williamson casually remarked about developing the ‘Green Belt’ in the fullness of time. This is a dramatic policy shift. I wonder if his cabinet colleagues know about it? Osman Dervish (@53 minutes) asked Oscar Ford about free school meals during holiday periods. He said there won’t be any unless government financed them and then burbled about budget constraints. Ford was unmoved when it was pointed out this meant sacrificing vulnerable children during a catastrophic cost-of-living crisis.

Sue Ospreay (@1 hour10) was emotional about derelict land in Rainham. Morgon said it was a ‘Bad Thing’. They’ll still be wringing their hands in horror in ten years.

Opposing ULEZ² in Havering (@1:38) was led by David Taylor. Keith Prince’s rant, (@1 hour50) and Judith Holt’s desire to join Essex (@1:52) convinced me some Conservatives are having a mental breakdown. Williamson (@1 hour:55) remarked that 7% of Havering’s death rate was due to air pollution. This is three deaths a week, every week, which is a good argument for ULEZ, I’d have thought.³

There were an unprecedented six Conservatives absent. They included Damian White who’ll be pleased to know his group gave a good show.

Notes

1 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com)

2 For ULEZ see Ultra Low Emission Zone (ulez.co.uk)

3 Municipality of HAVERING: demographic balance, population trend, death rate, birth rate, migration rate (urbistat.com)

Havering Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee: 20th January 2022

Item 6: Adaptations due to Covid and Covid Recovery¹

This item is extremely important and revealed more than could reasonably have been expected. Through the intervention of the chair, Judith Holt, the focus of the discussion extended beyond SEND children² to the impact of school closures on the on the more able.

Havering’s education department can be congratulated for their response to a two-year crisis. Staff training, sensitive use of Teacher Assistants, and true engagement with parents was on display. Respite care, for example, has grown in importance³. Nonetheless there’s been regression amongst some pupils, which was anticipated. Vulnerable children taken out of a structured learning environment are unlikely to maintain momentum.

The detailed report on SEND children was superior to comments on the more able. Responses here were anecdotal. They were hampered by disagreement as to what ‘more able’ meant. One anecdote was startling. This was that more able boys ‘thrived’ outside the school environment. Both the chair and Gillian Ford discussed this revelation without drawing a conclusion. There’s a possibility that school behaviour codes are alienating and negatively impact on achievement. More research needs to be done on this important point.

The chair called for this additional meeting and was richly rewarded.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Children & Learning Overview & Scrutiny Sub-Committee, 20/01/2022 19:00 (havering.gov.uk)

2 Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

3 £300 grants were given to certain parents who were struggling with the burden of educational provision at home. Educational equipment was also loaned out where required. It isn’t known whether Academy schools with SEND children were equally proactive.

Havering and Redbridge’s Disadvantaged Secondary Students

‘Closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers is the greatest challenge facing English schools. The gap is stubborn because its causes are entrenched and complex, and most lie beyond the control of schools and educators. However, it is clear that schools can make a difference.¹

Havering and Redbridge have 18 secondary schools each. Redbridge’s disadvantaged students do markedly better than those in Havering (see Addendum).

Schools receive additional funding through the Pupil Premium (PP) to try to alleviate the challenges disadvantaged students face. PP funding is a flat rate for eligible students.

Marshalls Park, Havering, PP £232,245

The most recent examination results were published in 2019. The academy said their students achieved “…amazing results, some of the best the school has ever had.” Their disadvantaged students achieved a catastrophic success rate of 18% at GCSE grade 5+ English and Mathematics.

Chadwell Heath, Redbridge, PP £241,230

They said, “This year [2019] our pupils have produced our best ever set of examination results.” Their disadvantaged students achieved 44% grade 5+ English and Mathematics. Chadwell Heath really has ‘Levelled-up’ giving their students a platform for ‘A’ levels post-16.

Discussion

The introductory quote neatly summarises the challenges presented by disadvantaged students. Marshalls Park focuses on, “The [attainment] gap is stubborn because its causes are entrenched and complex, and most lie beyond the control of schools and educators.” In brief, school leaders work on the theory that the attainment gap is intractable, whereas Chadwell Heath has taken heart from, “However, it is clear that schools can make a difference,” and plan accordingly.

These two sentences sum up senior management responses. Schools which undervalue disadvantaged students hamper their achievement. This is revealed in the GCSE results for the two schools. Disadvantaged students are challenging but PP funding aids skillful management offering an empathetic response. It’s clear that schools that meet the challenge are rewarded with higher achievement for every student.⁴

Addendum

Notes

1 PP-Strategy-and-Costs-Reviewed-2020-21.odt (live.com)

2 Exam Results | Marshalls Park Academy Marshalls Park Academy for government statistics see- GOV.UK – Find and compare schools in England (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) For a general look at the way that Havering schools are mediocre see Havering’s Academy Schools: Councillor Robert Benham’s Dilemma – Politics in Havering

3 Chadwell Heath Academy – Exam results (chadwellacademy.org.uk)

4 Chadwell Heath’s students at grade 5+ English and Mathematics achieved 61%: Marshalls Park 46%.

Havering’s Secondary Academies and their Disadvantaged Students

Research:

The key metric is the Gold Standard of GCSE Grade 5+ English and Mathematics. For England, non-disadvantaged students’ outcome is 50%. Havering out-performs England by a significant 5 percentage points.

The 2019 statistics are from the government website¹ (see Addendum). The benchmark is 50%.

PP = Pupil Premium this is additional funding for closing the attainment gap of disadvantaged students. A higher figure indicates a greater number of disadvantaged students in the school as it’s a per capita payment. Total PP funding for Havering’s secondary academies is £3,578,103

Coopers Coburn

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 57% PP £87,450

Sacred Heart of Mary

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 55% PP £137,889

Francis Bardsley

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 44% PP £216,440

St Edwards

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 37% PP £188,182

They tacitly blame their students by saying that “33% [of] St Edward’s students live in Barking and Dagenham (ranked fifth most deprived local authority in England).

See Pupil-Premium-Report-2020-2021-md.pdf (steds.org.uk)

Royal Liberty

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 36% PP £143,250

Harris Academy Rainham

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 35% PP £230,000 (approximately)

They arrogantly don’t give an accurate figure for their PP funding.

Abbs Cross

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 34% PP £153,340

Emerson Park

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 31% PP £218,005

Bower Park

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 29% PP £275,995

Brittons

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 29% PP £265,985

Gaynes²

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 29% PP £69,100

Hall Mead

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 28% PP £166,309

Drapers

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 23% PP £384,640

Campion

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 21% PP £67,675

Redden Court³

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 21%¹ PP £157,685

“A significant proportion of students at Redden Court School (c.25%) are disadvantaged. We never use this as an excuse; rather, it adds to our moral purpose. Our school motto is: ‘Committed to Success for All’; this is something we strongly believe in – we are, therefore, committed to the success of all our disadvantaged students.”

Pupil Premium Strategy 2020/21 – Google Docs

Marshalls Park

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 18% PP £232,245

Hornchurch High²

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 17% PP £367,218

Sanders Drapers

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 7% PP £216,785

Discussion

As both the 2020 and 2021 GCSE examinations are unnoticed on government, and usually, school websites, drawing conclusions is tricky. For example there’s a new management team at Sanders Draper Academy and schools aren’t static places. Nonetheless some broad brush statements can be made.

Correlation is poor between PP funding and outcomes. St Edwards is 10^th in Havering’s PP funding rankings but 4^th in outcomes for disadvantaged students. Meanwhile Marshalls Park is 5^th in PP funding and 15^th in outcomes.

Three average schools in Havering at co-equal 9^th

Bower Park’s 2018 OFSTED inspection rated the school as ‘Good’ in Bower Park’s case a third of disadvantaged students (49/147) are discounted as their outcomes are less than good.

Brittons 2019 examination results show that 30% of their cohort achieved the Gold Standard, which is virtually identical to those of disadvantaged students. So they are below the borough average for non-disadvantaged students but average for disadvantaged students.

Gaynes has a solid performance of 60% in English and Mathematics for the school⁵but that isn’t translated to disadvantaged students. Their statistics are affected by the small numbers in the cohort where a single student can be disproportionate.

Addendum: Covid-19 and GCSE results

Both the 2020 and 2021 GCSE examinations were teacher assessed. It’s immediately apparent that those results aren’t used in a customary way. The government website doesn’t use them and most schools publish a summary. Why? Are these GCSE results problematic? Are they fatally flawed and a pale imitation of the real thing? This places a constraint on understanding current, 2021, outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Notes

1 GOV.UK – Find and compare schools in England (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk)

2 These blogs were written some time ago and it was at that point I decided to review every secondary school in Havering. Gaynes School Gaynes School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability – Politics in Havering and Hornchurch High School Hornchurch High School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability – Politics in Havering

3 Ofsted: Redden Court School could be ‘outstanding’ | Romford Recorder

4 2771545 (ofsted.gov.uk) Bower Park is at Havering’s average along with Brittons and Gaynes at joint 9^th out of 18.

5 All schools and colleges in Havering – GOV.UK – Find and compare schools in England (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) See also Achievement and Performance – Gaynes School

Havering’s Children and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 30th September, 2021

This is an appalling committee. Judith Holt, the chair, is hapless. Her fellow councillors drift along, sleepily ignorant of what scrutiny might mean. Item 7 Schools Quality Assurance demanded intellectual curiosity.¹ Officers didn’t do much ducking-and-diving to escape embarrassment as the committee didn’t lay a finger on them.

Havering’s primary sector is good, unlike the secondary academies but councillors weren’t interested. The chair didn’t provide a steer to officers about expectations and so that’s what they got. No discussion about the fragile academy sector which is systematically under-achieving. A feeble protest from the chair was brushed aside.

Four academies are failing,² but the officers won’t name names. A lay member asked about St Edwards and was fobbed off.

Academies are unaccountable, arrogant businesses.³

Hall Mead is a high achieving academy. Examining their statistics shows Pupil Premium student outcomes are weak.⁴They receive £166,000 for vulnerable students, which doesn’t level-up achievement. Hall Mead fails these students in exactly the way that the other 17 academies do. Draconian discipline codes and an obsession on school uniform is a failed strategy. Perhaps they should try something else?

Because this committee is pathetic, crucial issues like Item 7 escape scrutiny. It’s obvious the council’s policy is to avoid damaging the reputations of academies. Or, to put it another way, they prefer that children receive an inferior education. In secret.

Notes

1 From 1 hour 5 minutes to the end. The presentation lasts until 1:16. Councillors Misir, Lawal, Carol Smith, Durdin and Whitney. Gillian Ford bogs herself down in petty detail. The committee relies entirely on lay members for scrutiny.

2 See Havering’s Academies’ GCSE Results, 2021 – Politics in Havering

3 The Loxford Trust runs Abbs Cross Academy amongst others. The CEO gets £260,000 p.a. Loxford 2020ACCSWIZ.cvw (loxfordtrust.s3.amazonaws.com) p70 The Harris Trust has many schools with one in Rainham. It has four staff earning between £200,000 and £460,000. 1222_H0147_Signed accounts 2020_Buzz.pdf (harrisfederation.s3.amazonaws.com) p49

4 Hall Mead School – GOV.UK – Find and compare schools in England (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) The statistics are buried in the summary but can be found at Disadvantaged children.

Havering’s Academies’ GCSE Results, 2021

“The government…announced that it would not publish school or college level results data on Compare school and college performance (also commonly referred to as school and college performance tables) in autumn 2020 or autumn 2021, and that this data would not be used to hold schools and colleges to account” (my emphasis)¹

Havering’s academies awarded GCSEs in 2020 and 2021 through teacher assessment. Most of them interpreted the government’s position to mean they shouldn’t publish detailed GCSE results. As a consequence there’s no celebration of achievement or any accountability to students, parents and the people of Havering.

Abbs Cross: their most recent data for 2021 is devoid of content. The summary statement for 2021 is an obfuscation. What does “9-4 English and Maths 78%” mean? This entirely undifferentiated statement is meaningless. Likewise, “9-4 Best English.”² They do say Pupil Premium students achieve significantly less well than the rest.

Marshalls Park: their most recent data is from 2019.³They’ve published a subject list and grades without saying how many students sat each subject. This makes the data ambiguous. Bizarrely the Romford Recorder published a report on Marshall Park’s 2021 results even though the academy didn’t. The most successful students were female in a ratio of 9:4.

Coopers Coburn: is Havering’s Gold Standard for transparency in publishing their 2021 GCSE results.⁴Their data is intelligible and unambiguous. Each subject is listed with the numbers of students and the outcome grade-by-grade.

Coopers Coburn demonstrate how the 2021 exam results should be published. They are the template and inspiration for the other 17 academies.

Conclusion

Havering’s Academies ‘coast’ by dodging scrutiny.⁵ They specialise in misinformation and fluffy generalisations. Positive and negative feedback is avoided by concealing GCSE results. Havering’s academies are excellent at bombastic drivel. Harris Academy Rainham said this 2020, “We are….immensely proud of our students for the results they achieved and wish them well with the next stage of their education.”⁶ Needless to relate there wasn’t any data supporting this statement.

Havering’s academies are doomed to repeat the same failed teaching strategies each year as they don’t engage with the actuality of their performance. Public accountability is an essential part of the learning process that all organisations must undertake as part of constant improvement.

Addendum: research note

Research for this blog was done on October 10^th 2021. Eleven Academy websites were reviewed and there was a consistent theme of shifty evasion about GCSE results.