Special Free School Proposals: Some Reflections and continuing Frustrations

During the last couple of weeks Gemstones has continued to lobby local politicians and local government officers for the illusive LA statement of support, which was an essential requirement of any Special Free School proposal.  It has been eventful (and not in the way I would have desired) and typically frustrating.  At one point we thought we had struck gold with a local politician, only to find that the wheels of the internal bureaucratic machinery prove difficult to align with the other great government bureaucratic machine that is the DfE.

We finally received a definite ‘no’ from the local authority regarding a supporting statement.  The reason given is quoted in full as follows: “A key issue in reaching our decision is the uncertainty about the funding arrangements for special free schools. Following communication with the DfE it was clear that there are financial implications for the LA. Following our discussions with the DFE regarding Free School funding, it is our understanding that Free schools are effectively academies and are funded by recoupment from the LA. Therefore a potential effect of agreeing places at your proposed free school would be the impact on resources in existing Suffolk special school provision. For this reason the LA feels unable to give you the commitment that you are seeking at this stage.”

Hereby, lies the conundrum that is the Special Free School policy framework, which has no doubt been hurriedly constructed and currently proves to be an imperfect fit with the original Conservative party Free School vision.  As a result we hope that DfE will consider issuing guidance or specific direction to clarify the funding arrangements and the role of LAs in the context of the particular special Free School requirements, before the next round of Free School applications.

One interesting event I attended on 5^th September was a small focus group session, for special and alternative providers held by the New Schools Network.  Chatham House rules were evoked and specifically a 'no blogging or tweeting' warning issued about the content of the discussion.  I intend, of course, to honour that and feel I can say a few things without compromising confidentiality.  It was particularly helpful to meet three other proposers, (two special Free Schools and one AP) who had also reached the interview stage.  I think facilitation of this kind of networking would be a very helpful service for future proposal groups.

The session also brought to mind several issues about the Free School proposal process for me.  One is the issue about the LA statement of support mentioned above and the need for some policy and role clarification.  Another is the requirement about collecting sufficient parental demand and presenting this in a suitably sensitive way within the proposal document. It is clearly important and necessary to identify sufficient numbers of the relevant SEN pupil population, but the parental demand requirement is another aspect of the process that seems more obviously derived from the original Free School policy designed for a mainstream context, as it is clearly much more difficult to reach families where no central or obvious community locality exists and therefore requires a more complex and demanding communications strategy.

Finally, the issue of the blend of types of SEN that we are proposing to admit to our school, which emerged as a key line of questioning at the interview, is something else that I would ask to be reviewed by the DfE.  The Free School policy and guidance to proposers specifically states one aim is to promote innovation.  We believe that part of the innovation of our Special Free School is that mix of special needs which in our proposal is described as social communication, emotional and behavioural difficulties.  The categories we selected from the pre-populated list on the Special Free School form were SEBD, ASD and Dyslexia.

I would argue that the current categories or SEN are socially or medically constructed and do not of course adequately capture the SEN of many children.   These categories are more an administrative device than a useful one for education practitioners. The Gemstones team have found through our work in schools that, for example, the label of Social Behavioural and Emotional Difficulites (SBED), often hides underlying learning needs particularly in basic skills.   This is definitely the case in Pupil Referral Units up and down the country where there are many children or students with previously unrecognised dyslexia or other related specific learning difficulties.  It can be a matter of chance which special need becomes the primary one mentioned in the statement. 

Talking to families and other colleagues I also know that a medical diagnosis such as ASD can be applied with varying rates across localities and their populations depending sometimes on a particular medical practitioner making the diagnosis and that once applied this can hide other underlying SEN.  I would therefore like to make a plea for us to stop allocating school provision on the basis of medical diagnoses and other socially constructed categories that current accepted orthodoxies believe fit suitably together in the classroom, or definitely don’t go together and instead look at what effective learning and teaching environments and techniques can achieve for pupils with a range of ‘educational’ needs.  Indeed, working with pupils for whom English is a second language and pupils with a wide range of SEN both in special schools and in mainstream, I have always found that wherever good and outstanding practice is found in schools it provides demonstrable benefits and learning outcomes for all pupils.  

Gemstones' Mission to gain Political Support for our Special Free School

Since Gemstones attended a Free School proposers interview at the Department for Education on 17^th August, I have focused on trying to obtain the sufficiently detailed Local Authority Statement that seemed to be a particular sticking point at interview. As a result I have been on a mission trying to gain political support for our proposal.  We have contacted local council politicians such as conservative Leader Mark Bee, Protfolio Holder for Children and Young People, Graham Newman and have also written to local MPs Ben Gummer and Therese Coffey.  I am hopeful that we will obtain this important piece of the jigsaw in time to make a difference to the decision making for the next stage.

An article in the Times Educational Supplement (TES http://goo.gl/gjqtu) last week made me feel that we can really congratulate ourselves in getting through to this round, especially without a sufficiently detailed and clear written endorsement from the LA.  The school in the article has the support of the Local Authority, it is an existing school with apparently a good track record with OfSTED and has received accolades from a number of high profile politicians from the previous and current governments and it did not get through on this occasion. The Free School process for Special Schools contains additional demands that do not apply to mainstream proposals and in addition, as a spokesperson for the Department said in the TES article: " This is a competitive process and we set out clear criteria which applicants have to address within the set deadlines.” Hence the reason we spent huge amounts of time scrupulously matching our proposal so closely to the 117 page handbook of guidance in what seemed to be the impossibly short time-scale.

Next week(Monday 5^th September) we have been invited to a small focus group of 6 other Special and Alternative Provider proposers being organised by the New Schools Network. The invitation says: “We would like to know what services or help you think you will require from us in pre-opening stage, should your application be taken forward by the DfE. We would really appreciate your feedback on what we are currently planning to do, and how this could be improved……..This will enable us to tailor our services so that we can be of most use to you.”

Another Milestone in the Journey Towards Opening a Special Free School

17^th August was the date set for our interview at the Department for Education. The sun shone to order that day and early indications suggested that the sun had already been shining on our proposal. As one of only 40 groups out of a total of 244 Free School Proposals submitted in June to get through to this important next stage, this is an achievement of which we are duly proud.

A small party of four colleagues from Gemstones Education Limited headed towards Westminster: Sanctuary Buildings to be precise.  The group consisted of the Chair of our Board of Trustees, the Chair of Governors, and the Finance Director and myself – Principal in waiting, or Principal Designate as the DfE would have it.  Amongst the interview panel of eight officials, there were two members who were former colleagues of mine (and in the small world of education it is perhaps no surprise that this should happen).

We were asked to give a short presentation, providing a summary of our inspiration, ambition, capacity and capability and our roles in drafting the proposal and setting up the proposed school.  The interview was set to last for 90 minutes and it fell only 3 minutes short of this.  The main lines of questioning included, the types of special educational need our school was set to cater for, how we would meet their needs, the curriculum provision, our track record in providing this, the rationale for the number of proposed places and cost implications, plus a couple of particulars about the budget.  As a process we feel the interview was both fair and thorough.

The main sticking point though, and one that questioning returned to probe in more depth, was the requirement that we had a statement of support from our local authority.   The issue here is a political and not a professional one.   Suffolk having had apparently 7 other potential Special Free School Proposers has decided that it will not provide a statement for any of them.  The reason stated is apparently to avoid accusations of favouritism.  We were told at interview that other local authorities had provided such a statement and I understand that another proposal received active support from their LA including the sending of a representative to the interview.  

Considering the stated intention that this government policy would herald a new and exciting era where  Free schools and academies would be ‘free’ of local authority control and interference, this is an interesting deviation from the stated intention in the case of the Special Free School model.  It is a shame therefore that this appeared to be the only dark cloud on the horizon for our Gemstones proposal.

Another Lap Completed, a Few More Hurdles to go.

Our group, Gemstones, has this week been informed that we are through to the next round of the Special Free School bidding process. Yipee!  It has felt already like a marathon at times and we still have some way to go, so no time to dawdle or indulge in premature celebrations. We are hugely encouraged though and committed to providing a compelling and cogent case for our school as part of the next stage of the process.     

As I have come to expect from the Free School proposal process, there was considerable detail provided in the invitation to interview about what was expected of us and what we would need to demonstrate during the interview process. It has even been suggested that we prepare as a team with mock interviews!  I am expected to provide the names of the members of our team (4 is the suggested number and no more than 6 allowed) by noon on Friday 29th July.  Considering the email invitation only appeared during Monday afternoon, the turn around is clearly tight, especially with it being in the holiday season, making contact with some of our members problematic. 

We have also had another positive meeting with the local authority. It was great to be able to share with them the news about our interview at the Department. The meeting was our fourth in the last six months and close communication has paid off.  These meetings have been very positive and encouraging, so confidence and trust in the relationship is building.  This is indeed fortunate as partnership working is essential for the success of any Special Free School proposal as unlike the situation for mainstream schools the LA will be the admissions authority. I note also with interest that because of this difference in the mainstream and special Free School processes there will be LA representation on the interview panel.

We are hoping therefore that the local authority will be with us at the finishing line and part of the medal presentation ceremony with the real prizes going to the children and their families.

Special Free School Paperwork Submitted, Now Back to Building Relationships

Having now had 3 weeks without the frantic activity associated with the writing of the proposal (which was of course in addition to the day job), I have now had the luxury of some time for reflection.   It has allowed me to identify what it is that I really love about working on important new projects and working on this one in particular.  For me it is definitely building and in some cases renewing of relationships with like-minded people.  I am reminded of a quote from the inspirational Margaret Mead who said:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

What gave me the motivation to keep working on the proposal, when I had my doubts about whether or not we would be able to meet the requirements and especially the deadlines, was the encouragement I received from parents, team members, former colleagues, teachers, headteachers and many others.  Without their support, I would not have been able to continue to hold the vision clearly in my mind and find the resources from within myself and from within our talented team, to adequately express that vision in a compelling way within our proposal.

I am now continuing with the consultation and find that I derive enormous satisfaction and inspiration from the responses that I receive.  Paper work and meticulous planning is, I know essential, but must not detract from, nor get in the way of, building strong and productive relationships with key partners and stakeholders.

This small yet growing group of thoughtful and committed people helps to keep me motivated and aware of the many possibilities of positive change that we believe this Special Free School will bring to children and their families.  It also serves as a useful distraction whilst we are waiting to hear about whether our proposal has made it through into the next round. 

Some Little Gems from the Special Free School Proposal Process

I am pleased to announce that I handed in Gemstones’ proposal for a Special Free School to the Department on Tuesday afternoon, 24 hours before the deadline of 15^th June.  I decided that rather than trust the vagaries of the postal system I would prefer to make the trip myself.   Now having heard from a fellow Special Free Schooler that despite in their case, purchasing the guaranteed next day delivery service, one of their packages was still in the postal system more than two days later, I am mightily relieved that I acted as postman. 

In fact I was so relieved after handing in our proposal that I developed a migraine within 30 minutes of delivery time.  It took me two days to feel even halfway sane and out of pain. I have spent the weekend sleeping and mostly trying to relax and recover from the 18-hour days.  I imagine that the rest of the Gemstones team have enjoyed extra free time and a sharp reduction in demands by email and text asking for information or assistance of one sort or another.

The last few weeks have been hectic in the extreme.  On top of the day job I spent all other waking hours tied to the laptop typing furiously, making numerous revisions according to the feedback provided by the New Schools Network.  I continued to be amazed at the level of detail required. There were many examples but just a couple of examples will illustrate the point.

•  “You should explain exactly how you are planning to recruit governors – for example, where exactly are you planning to advertise?”  We do have 3 governors, including a Chair signed up already and I had included a recruitment plan, which was obviously not specific enough in this instance.
• A comment made about the behaviour policy we had included; “You need to give more detail about your rewards and sanctions ladder for both good and bad behaviour.”  Considering that in the first set of instructions provided in April, we were told we did not have to provide behaviour and attendance policies at this stage, I found this demand astonishing to say the least.

The real sticking point is still the LA statement, even though the LA have been supportive and have given an undertaking that the population exists for these types of SEN and that they would like to see this provision, this is not enough. “What you must do is show that the local authority would be prepared to name your Special Free School on children’s statements, in line with parental preferences.  If possible you should be able to say how many pupils the local authority would be happy to refer to you.”   I for one do not blame the local authority for declining to provide a carte blanche guarantee to place sufficient numbers of children in a school that at present, has no confirmed premises and is in all other respects effectively a virtual school. 

The Devil is in the Detail

On 16^th May a handbook was published containing a host of new detailed guidelines for the writing of Free School Proposals – all 117 pages of it!  This caused a period of frantic activity due to the huge task of amending the proposal to take into account these numerous and varied new requirements. Coincidentally, this was the very day that the window for Special Free School proposals opened. Yet another example of final details about this policy produced very late in the day.  

There are a host of new demands not contained in the original instructions.  I will not bore readers with them all (although it is quite difficult to choose one to highlight).  The one that incensed me though was the one requiring quite detailed information about parents who have responded to the questionnaire the Department ask you to set up to collect signatures of support, or more particularly those who will want to register their children at the Free School. 

The handbook produced by the New Schools Network specifies that you need to provide postcodes of families, the age of pupils along with their special educational need The example they provide is a table with individual rows for each child so that the postcode, special educational need and age of child are listed together.  The guidance also warns that the Department may at a later date ask for the names of parents and their children, although it stresses not to put these names in the proposal. Oh, and furthermore warns about the need to register with the Information Commissioners’ Office If any electronic data is held (cost of £35.00).

The Gemstones team have paid great attention throughout the document to preserving the confidentiality of respondents as we feel strongly that it is really important for us as a team to demonstrate respect for the families who have such a lot to contend with anyway. When parents or carers have provided responses to questions and we have collated and presented this information, we have done so in a way that removes anything which may identify the child, including diagnoses of one form or another, names of children, schools or any feature which I feel would breach confidentiality.

So needless to say, we have not followed the table format example provided in the handbook. We have instead grouped the information required as best we can so that special needs, post codes and an age span of several years is provided rather than a specific age.   Where there are postcodes that may be shared with only one or two houses, (which is a particular feature in rural areas), we have left off the second part of the postcode, so only a wider geographic area can be identified.   If this by itself means that our proposal is not successful, then so be it.

Are we alone in thinking this is a step too far?