A privatisation too far - that's Falmer

11:58am Friday 27th June 2008

Comments (12)   Have your say »

The universities of Brighton and Sussex have been lined up as partners for the new academy planned to replace neighbouring Falmer High School. But not all their lecturers are in favour. At least three of them are definitely not. Jim Guild, Tom Hickey and Linda Newman, a former pupil of the school, explain why.

The proposal to close Falmer High School and replace it with an Academy School in 2010 is an issue which will affect the whole of secondary education across Brighton and Hove and will put the education of the children who are directly affected into the hands of one unaccountable individual.

It is, in effect, a privatisation of the school. In this case, it is the destruction of a school that is NOT failing, in order to replace it with the type of school whose current record is worse than that of state schools. This makes no sense educationally or economically, so why is it being done?

What is an academy?
Academies were introduced in 2000 by the Government as "schools to make a difference in areas of disadvantage". Academies are effectively owned by their sponsor - a person or organisation invited to contribute up to £2 million to the capital costs of building a new school. The rest of the money , about £28 million in this case, comes from the taxpayer.

Brighton and Hove Council will have to give, not sell, the land that Falmer sits on to the sponsor. Falmer Academy would then be a company limited by guarantee, with charitable status. It would be financed directly by the Government, not through Brighton and Hove City Council. Residents would thus lose any influence over its purpose or educational direction. Its governing body would not have the powers and responsibilities of other state-funded schools and education law would not apply to Falmer as it would to all other schools. It would be subject to no democratic accountability.

The sponsor would make all the key decisions, such as appointing the headteacher and determining the budget, will have the right to appoint the majority of the governing body forever and to allow only one elected parent governor. The funding agreement for the academy is confidential between the sponsor and the Government while being negotiated.

Evidence from the 83 academies already in operation shows they skew their intakes in favour of kids from higher-achieving backgrounds, exclude more students and take fewer special needs and looked-after children.

Falmer Academy will not be required to teach the National Curriculum but can provide a "broad and balanced curriculum with a particular focus".

The sponsor chooses the school's specialist subject.

Teaching staff will not be employed within the legislation on teachers' pay and conditions so the sponsor would have a free hand in local negotiation (if there were any negotiations) - bad news for teachers and parents if lower pay and conditions turn into poor morale.

Why do we oppose Falmer Academy?
Firstly, Falmer is not a failing school. Why interfere in the running of a school which is making great strides to improve the performance and enhance the experiences of every pupil?

The chance to get a new building is blinding some of those involved to the reality of what the proposal actually means in the long run: the privatisation of Falmer High School, acting independently of any other school in the city, accountable to no one but its sponsor, himself a self-selected benefactor, with no educational expertise. It is a reinvention of 19th century education.

Secondly, even if Falmer was a failing school, academies have not proved to be the solution to failing schools.

Ed Balls, the schools secretary, recently named 638 schools which needed to improve or they would be closed and replaced with academies.

Unfortunately for the advocates of privatisation, 26 of these schools are already academies and represent 31% of the academies currently in operation. So the failure rate among academies is higher than that among state-maintained schools.

Thirdly, Falmer Academy could distort secondary education all over Brighton and Hove.

With its secretly negotiated funding agreement, it could devise an admissions policy which poaches high-achieving pupils from all over the city and create a disciplinary ethos which increased exclusions and limited the number of pupils with special needs. It could create the perception of success through selection and exclusions which would merely export problems to other schools.

The schools we need must be forces for equipping future generations with the knowledge and skills to enable them to live free and fulfilling lives in a tolerant and civilised society.

A good local school should be one that is an integral part of the community. It should be a place where all parents and pupils feel welcomed and valued.

It should provide a happy and supportive learning environment where individuality is respected and diversity is celebrated.

It should be inclusive and accountable and value all forms of personal achievement.

It should not be exclusive or specialist or the plaything of an unaccountable individual however well motivated.

The proposal to close Falmer High and open Falmer Academy is not about education. It is about bricks and mortar, land ownership, and personal influence and identity. It has nothing to do with the kids currently who are at Falmer, or who are planning to go there. Surely it is their educational needs that need to be considered first, before the question of buildings and facilities. Let's leave Falmer alone to achieve great things for its pupils and prevent this destructive move. It is a privatisation too far.

• Jim Guild, Linda Newman and Tom Hickey, members of the University and College Union at Sussex and Brighton Universities, can be contacted at ucusussex@sussex.ac.uk

Do you agree with the lecturers? Tell us below.