New East Dulwich Primary School 161/80 + 102

[Fuschia]

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05887355

The Harris company that runs the building projects

Half a ?million gross profit across the last 3 years trading accounts

[LondonMix]

That's not what that link says Fuschia. It says the company has assets worth 3m and liabilities worth 3m and a net asset value of 1 quid. That has nothing to do with making a profit. The company could make no profit at all. Still, I would like to know what it does and how it works with the foundation.

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05887355

> The Harris company that runs the building projects

>

>

> Half a ?million gross profit across the last 3

> years trading accounts

[LondonMix]

Also, up until very recently sponsors had an obligation to fund at least 2 million pounds worth of the building costs. If the sponsor is paying for the building costs, I don't really have a problem with them being the project manager. What would concern me is if now, based on the new law (after the 2010 election), a sponsor got the right to establish a school and was allowed to use tax payer money to award services to a profit making portion of their business without a tender process. This in my view would not be okay and I have asked Harris to clarify.

Also, final point on fair banding: as you can see, fair banding is supported by organisations that are champions of the state school system. http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/03/gove-declares-his-support-for-fair-banding-er-well-sort-of/ Fair banding is not a bad thing as such.

[LondonMix]

Also, regarding fair banding, if you actually look at Harris's admission policy you would see that it does not deal with unallocated places as people have suggested but instead do as follows:

This process of allocation using the criteria above will continue until reaching the

correct number in each group as identified in (7) above; If at the end of this process

there are unallocated places in any band these will be filled by unallocated applicants,

alternating between the band above and below, using the same allocation criteria set

out above and continuing the sequence of the allocation of places;

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9923&p=0

[Fuschia]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not what that link says Fuschia. It says

> the company has assets worth 3m and liabilities

> worth 3m and a net asset value of 1 quid. That

> has nothing to do with making a profit. The

> company could make no profit at all. Still, I

> would like to know what it does and how it works

> with the foundation.

If you actually log in further (I have an account in that site) it IS what it says.

The profit is transferred to Harris itself ... But it's not possible to see what payments were made to the directors of the project management company (Dan Moynihan and another)

>

>

> Fuschia Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05887355

> > The Harris company that runs the building

> projects

> >

> >

> > Half a ?million gross profit across the last 3

> > years trading accounts

[Fuschia]

I have done a lot of research into Harris's admissions policy, for other reasons. It is the case that (assuming oversubscribed for all bands) they will take equal nos from each band, giving them a 'better' intake than undersubscribed schools or other school in poor areas admitting purely on distance.

Given the admissions policy, Their gcse results should be a lot better than they are, to be honest!

Harris girls website confirms that in he basis of,prior attainment, about half of pupils (45%) if making elected progress oils achieve 5 a*-c with English and maths. 64% achieved the benchmark. That is good, but I know other schools who do as well or better.

[LondonMix]

I think you are having some phone issues as I did earlier. I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying...

[Fuschia]

Harris girls website states they predicted 45% based on ks2 results

They got 64% if I recall correctly. The 20% difference are the pupils who they made a difference for.

Those stats are probably similar or better at many schools, for instance the one I work at.

[Fuschia]

http://antiacademies.org.uk/2012/07/goves-abuse-of-power/

Harris federation employees on the ieb at downhills handed the school to Harris, in defiance of the views of patents, And were rewarded almost immediately by knighthoods!

[LondonMix]

Okay got it. Fuschia by definition what you are saying isn't possible. If many schools achieved this or better then the predicted results based on K2 performance would be different and the performance would not be considered achievement beyond what would be expected based on prior performance. What you are claiming is statistically and logically impossible. That a few other schools may do this or even better sure, but the idea that many can is definitely not the case. By definition these results are over-performance and significant over performance at that.

Regarding Harris Project Management Business, I have discovered that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the charity (not a business arm of Harris' commercial enterprises). HMRC gives some clear guidance as to why charities should do this under various circumstances. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/tax/trading/subsidiary.htm

[Fuschia]

The expected results I refer to are the '3 levels of progress' specified by the gOvt

Taking the results pupils came in with at y7 and adding on 3 levels generates a prediction of 45% getting the 5a*-c en/ma

The other pupils who got 5a*-c would have needed to

Make 4 levels of progress or more - ie more than a pupil would be expected to make. I know schools who are targeting 70% of their pupils to make 4 levels of progress or more!

[LondonMix]

Here is a link to the full stats.

http://www.harrisdulwichgirls.org.uk/48/exam-results

Here it states that the expected number of pupils expected to achieve 5 GCSEs between A-C including English and Math based on their KS2 scores was 45%. The actual percentage achieving such results was 64%.

For 3 levels progress Maths the results are particularly impressive- 87.4% vs 57% expected based on K2 attainment.

Please link to what you are basing your claims on and also explain how these results do not reflect out-performance.

[LondonMix]

Also, let's compare what Harris ED Girls achieved with its intake compared to what the Charter (a great school as well) has achieved with a much larger proportion of high attainers (37% vs. Harris's 16%) and much fewer low attainers (14% vs. 23%).

http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136298

http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=132711

[eco79]

LondonMix,

All schools look at the Value Added for each student to monitor their progress in that way. And yes, looking at these figures they've done a good job at pupil improvement, but so have a lot of schools the last few years.

My point about the level playing field is the change of intake. One year you're not an academy and you take in everyone, the next year you are, select, and improve.

But if you start to pick at these statistics you've provided....

Charter had 7 pupils in their cohort with English as a second language. Harris had 50 students. Achievement of students who enter at Y7 with lower than average literacy skills will make much larger leaps in their attainment as their English improves between KS2 and KS4.

You could be here all day. Anyway, I should go to work....

[Fuschia]

Lm, I was looking at the same figures as you. I was saying that Hsrris girls have done well there. More than the average no of pupils made the (expected) 3 levels of progress and a sizeable number have made 4, or more. My point is just that those stats are not that unusual. If I thought the academies programme or the Harris model really was proven to be the magic bullet that the government would have us believe, my views on the whole issue would be different.

Google Educational Endowment Foundation for discussion about 'what works'and attempts to find evidence to support intervention strategies. The types of support under investigation (small group tuition, effective feedback, parental involvement) don't relate at all the academy/free school push. This policy to 'privatise' our schools isn't based on evidence that in itself it raises achievement

[LondonMix]

I agree entirely that free schools do not by themselves by virtue of not being controlled by the LA improve results and I fully appreciate your point regarding the change in intake. Looking at what they have done, particularly when you compare the GCSE results with the Charter whose intake started at a much higher point, I do believe this particular school is outperforming and a lot of it has to do with a high expectations ethos as much as anything (in my view).

We got on to this as people were retorting to James that Harris is not an outstanding school but rather manipulated (intentionally!) its performance in a number of ways. They are an outstanding school by any measure, and they are doing a great job, as are various LA schools. Unfortunately, this isn't a question (due to the law if I've understood Renata) about if Harris is better than the LA. Though ED Harris is outperforming (when looking at intake) schools like the Charter, I think the LA is doing a great job locally with our primaries. However, as the LA cannot open a primary, the question is do you think Harris would do a good job based on its performance and for me the answer is clearly yes. If other posters are right and Dulwich Hamlet (an academy) expanding permanently is the only alternative, we only have academy solutions for the shortage issues at the moment and within that context I would be supportive of Harris as an option.

Regarding the innuendo that Harris are doing something untoward with respect to the Project Management subsidiary. It is not and it is not a profit making business (they have confirmed) and, if you look at the HMRC link I provide, the group structure becomes easier to understand. They are not the project manager for the build but rather have a team specialised in working with the gov't appointed builder and project manager to ensure the build is to their specification. This is paid for by the federation rather than the funds supplied to build the new school. Rather than to continue to make very strong unfounded accusations on this, may I suggest you speak to Harris (they have responded very quickly to requests and been very transparent) or contact the Department of Education if you have concerns about how the process works. I believe tarnishing the reputation of an educational charity again without any proof is not defensible regardless of your ideological views on academies or the changes the coalition have instituted.

I've got to work / eat / speak to my husband etc but I have very much enjoyed this debate.

[LondonMix]

"Charter had 7 pupils in their cohort with English as a second language. Harris had 50 students. Achievement of students who enter at Y7 with lower than average literacy skills will make much larger leaps in their attainment as their English improves between KS2 and KS4."

This really is a churlish comment. The Harris Academy was able to achieve similar GCSE results to the Charter with a much larger proportion of low-attainers and a much smaller proportion of high-attainers. Please explain to me how that is easily done or not a significantly strong performance?

Your comment suggests that it is easy to get low-attainers to improve and that one could expect that most schools with a significant proportion of low-attainers / non-native English speakers should show significant progress being made. That is patently untrue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16721884 The progress witnessed at Harris is well beyond what would normally be expected of students with the same profile nationally.

Comparing like for like regarding GCSE scores including math and English, Harris?s low-attainers at K2 level performed better than Charters low-attainers, Harris?s high-attainers performed better than Charter?s high-attainers and Harris? middle attainers performed better than Charter?s middle attainers. The only reason why Charter and Harris have similar aggregate GCSE scores is because Charter has so many more high attainers and so many fewer low attainers in its intake. Again, please explain how these results are not outperformance, not only of Charter but of national performance in general?

It?s good to critically scrutinize the figures but some amount of intellectual honesty needs to be applied during the process.

[intexasatthe moment]

Just a few facts about sponsorship funding -

Since 2009 no funding has been required .

Since 2007 a "comparable professional commitment " was acceptable instead of a financial one .

Prior to this ,discounts were available and taken advantage of for sponsors with more than 3 Academies .

With tax relief and sponsorship taking the form of endowment funds the actual cost of funding which as said was UP to ?2 million is reduced .

Two more points

since 2007 the government has given Academies ?288 million in start up funding . This is money over and above amounts paid to ordinary state schools .

It is no longer given but certainly gave sponsors a head start to establish their reputation .

As at March 2010 of Academies pledging endowment fund sponsorship , only 11% had paid what was pledged ,58% had paid nothing .

All figures from National Audit Office http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11410/1/1011288.pdf

I am not suggesting that Harris hasn't paid what it pledged but illustrating why I dislike and distrust sponsorship .

And of course there is my main concern - why should our children's education be dependent on cash sponsorship from private individuals ?

To me it smacks of a return to Victorian philanthropy .

[eco79]

No, sorry, I'm not saying it is easy to get low attainers to perform. EAL students make greater leaps in achievement as their English improves. They are not low attainers, they are hindered by language skills at the outset. Therefore a Y7 EAL student may be presenting as a lower attainer but are actually bright. Therefore their progress looks more obvious.

Does that make sense?

(break time iPhone use is currently hindering my performance ;))

[LondonMix]

Also on a coffee break-- ahem... Got it, I see what you mean but I think it takes extra work to help even a bright student who has fallen behind due to an initial lack of familiarity with English. However, I agree this would allow for more scope to create value add. However when couched with the other attainment statistics, the overall picture really doesn't suggest that Harris's value add is primarily down to English language improvement. Students at all skill levels do very well there suggesting there is a lot more to the story than that.

Again, that's not to knock LA schools or the LA. But one can think academies aren't a panacea while acknowledging that specific academy groups are doing very well.

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

But I can't change national policies. Working within the system is our only practical option.

We need 2-3 new schools locally. Harris have agreed to apply with less time than they would normally make such applications. Other providers have not expressed any interest when asked and the Judith Kerr may or may not happen locally.

Of all the possible providers Harris seems the most straight forward and most likely to achieve outstnaidng schools for us.

[intexasatthe moment]

Shame nobody worked within the system when Southwark were going down the Academy route and giving away all their secondary schools .

And who'll remember now what your take on that was ?

[prickle]

LondonMix, a point of info, Charter (and ALL Southwark secondaries) are academies not LA

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

But Academies were the only practical route then under a Labour Govt.

If an LA built a school they had to offer it up and could only run it themselves if no other group showed an interest.

Equally the capital for a new secondary school is ?15-25M. Going the Academy route meant that central government funds paid for it. Using council capital to do that would mean longer delays before other LA schools had repairs, council housing, etc.

I'm sure you're right no will remember or care. But it did lead to the ED Harris Boys Academy happening without which local secondary capacity would be an even bigger issue.

Hi Fuschia,

Harris have confirmed that the limited companies are subsidiaries of the charity and all profits are gift adied to the charity to further its charitable aims.

[LondonMix]

I am aware of that but thanks. My points about LAs were generic. I was comparing Charter to Harris as I believe most people agree that the Charter is a high performing school. Breaking down compartive performace by intake was a way to address the fair-banding points raised by others regarding Harris's improvement (which are legitimate and make deeper analysis necessary rather than just aggregate performance post conversion).