Ashmount Site

Meet The Head

Parents and carers will be able to meet Whitehall Park School’s Headmistress Designate on Wednesday 8th January, 7– 8.30pm at Hornsey Lane Estate Community Centre (see poster). For those unable to make it she will be hosting an informal Coffee Morning on Thursday 9th January. See the newsletter for more details.

21/11/13 The Squatters Leave

Yesterday, 20th November, the squatters left. Over 100 of them had moved in when the caretakers left the school in early October. The Islington Gazette reports that “Witnesses said men, women, children and even dogs were seen peacefully leaving the old Ashmount Primary School building in Hornsey Lane, under the supervision of the police and Islington Council.” The squatters have until Wednesday November 27th to return two at a time to the building to retrieve any belongings that have been left behind. The Gazette had previously reported that it had spoken to residents living close to the building who had “expressed anger” at the squatters’ use of free electricity. The empty building is now being guarded by security personnel employed by the council.

15/11/13 from ASAG - The London School Atlas

Greater London Authority: The London Schools Atlas

Proof that Haringey is taking the Islington overflow...

You may have heard of the London Schools Atlas which the GLA has published to help understand where the shortfalls are in primary and secondary school places in London. ASAG has analysed this in relation to the need for places in this part northerly part of Islington (see here - 300Kb) and found that Hillrise ward has two children seeking places for each place in the only Hillrise ward school. Children have to go to Haringey schools - Haringey educates 200 more Islington children than Islington does Haringey’s, partly as a result of this shortfall of places locally.

The conclusion is clear. Owing to increasing demand, Islington already needs a 2-form entry school in the north or north-east of the borough and the Ashmount site is the only place with sufficient capacity.

Notes:

ASAG - Ashmount Site Action Group was formed to save the site of the old Ashmount School for educational use.

ASAG believes that schools are quite as important as houses.

ASAG campaigns with great support locally - a petition of 1,121 was easily gathered and presented to LBI.

ASAG has campaigned for a free access, comprehensive state-funded school.

ASAG supports the free school option since no other option is open.

ASAG campaign is described in detail here.

Note about detailed information on the school place shortage in North Islington

The Council has consistently maintained that there is no need for a school in north Islington or in the neighbouring part of Haringey and, were there to be a shortage of places, existing schools could readily be expanded to meet demand. On 17 June 2013 an independent planning inspector’s report endorsed the Council’s position. Executive members of the Council have claimed this on the record. However...

ASAG’s researches tell a different story and support the DfE’s decision to approve the free school opening on the Ashmount site. See here - 9.8Mb

Unlike the surrounding councils, which publish a comprehensive annual school places planning report, Islington publishes no detailed information for the general public. Indeed, they recently blocked access to the one document that was available by search. Information requested under Freedom of Information (such as a breakdown of a published table) has sometimes been unavailable. Figures supplied under FOI after more than one request have in more than one case conflicted with data published elsewhere.

In this context, we have had to come to some conclusions indirectly, by combining information from a number of sources, rather than by having the data we need – and that undoubtedly exists – in front of us.

But the conclusion is clear. Owing to increasing demand, Islington needs a 2-form entry school in the north or north-east of the borough and the Ashmount site is the only place with sufficient capacity.

ASAG

15/11/13 from ASAG - Message from Whitehall Park School

Message from Whitehall Park School

Dear ASAG Supporter,

Thank you on behalf of the Trustees of Whitehall Park School for all the support you have shown for the plans for our school thus far.

As you will know, we are planning to open in Islington next September with two Reception classes of 28 pupils. The school will be run on a not-for-profit basis by Bellevue Place Education Trust.

First Open Event next Thursday

Our Open Events for children starting school next September will take place at Hornsey Lane Estate Community Centre, Hazellville Road, London N19 3YJ on:

Thursday 21st November, 7.00pm – 8.30pm
Thursday 5th December, 7.00pm – 8.30pm
(Presentation at 7.30pm on both days.)

We would be grateful if you could confirm your attendance to help us plan each session. Please email openevent@whitehallparkschool.co.uk or leave a message on 0845 459 0113 stating: *your name *contact number *the number of people in your party *the session you wish to attend.

Thank you to all of those who have already confirmed their attendance. We look forward to meeting many of you at our first Open Event next Thursday!

Join us on Facebook

If you do not have children starting school next year but simply wish to support our school, we would be delighted if you would join us on Facebook. Please Like our page at www.facebook.com/whitehallparkschool.

To receive information about future events and be kept up-to-date with the school’s progress, you can also sign up to receive our e-newsletter on the Register page of our website at www.whitehallparkschool.co.uk.

We look forward to keeping you updated with our progress.

Kind regards

The Whitehall Park School Team

ASAG

84 Whitehall Park
London, N19 3TN

1/11/13 from ASAG - Admission Process Begins

1/11/13

WHITEHALL PARK SCHOOL STARTS ADMISSIONS PROCESS

Today, November 1, the admission process for the reception classes for September, 2014, and those interested in reception classes for 2015, has been opened for the Whitehall Park School, the primary school that is badly needed in this community. Ms Sam Habgood BA, PGCE, will be Founding Head Teacher until the permanent Head Teacher is announced.

A leaflet about Whitehall Park School open days and application process can be seen here (1.1MB).

After five years of campaigning to keep the Ashmount Site in educational use, a happy outcome seems in sight. The local community continues to be firmly supportive of keeping the site as their local primary and an integral part of this community, in spite of recent efforts of the Anti Academies Alliance, under the misleading name of ‘Support Our Local Schools’, to claim to speak for this community. This group, in spite of its name, supports London Borough of Islington (LBI) in their attempt to sell off the site for housing development.

Our community last year presented a petition of 1,121 signatures of local residents to LBI to keep Ashmount in education. They clearly foresaw that this area would descend into a primary school ‘black-hole’ with the removal of the local school to Crouch Hill. This has been shown by many local parents’ reporting difficulties in placing their children. Parents know there will be more than enough school children for this and other schools.

Yet at the end of 2012 LBI asked the Department of Education to agree that Ashmount ‘was surplus to educational needs’ so they could sell it off for a housing development. It was obvious from projected ‘baby boom’ figures that it remains badly needed. With LBI abrogating its responsibilities, the only alternative is a Primary Free School, which will be not-for-profit, run by a charity, and with open access and non-denominational.

ASAG

24/10/13 from PC Mick Murray, Hillrise SNT

24/10/13 from an email to WHPARA from PC Mick Murray

Squatters in Empty Ashmount School Site

I have just been in communication with the council re squatters at the above. It seems as though there are about 100 persons living on the site. The council office served official notice to quit today, telling them to leave by next Wednesday. The squatters seem organised and are unlikely to leave, therefore a legal process will have to be gone through which could take some months.

I have looked at the crime figures for the Whitehall Park area and I cannot see any marked change in the usual patterns. The area was suffering from a spate of thefts from motor vehicles and there have been a further 3 last week but likely this is not linked to the squatters.

Regards

PC 547NI Mick Murray
Hillrise Safer Neighbourhood Team

24/10/13 from ASAG - Time Bomb

Time Bomb

Some Islington officials and some local authority schools dislike the idea of a school on the Ashmount site, despite clear and objective proof that it is needed to meet the demographic time bomb we all know about - acknowledged by leaders of all parties at the national level, but dogmatically denied locally.

There are some who have spread misinformation that ill serves local parents – such as “the site is to be transferred without charge to private ownership” (it won’t), or “from 2014 there will be an additional 58 places at reception in this area” (which is misleading).

The truth of the situation on the other hand can be found in a large, exhaustively researched document on the ASAG web site here (this is a necessarily large file of 9.5Mb).

The facts are important. Bland generalisations won't do.

Act now to retain the school
If you want to retain a much needed school on the Ashmount site, and have not responded to the consultation launched by Bellevue-Place Education Trust then now is the time to act. The anti-school lobby have urged parents and others to register hostile attitudes, and so some balance is needed. This option is the only way to preserve the site for education. Every adult in the area should make their submission to the consultation. We know how popular the new school will be – because ASAG easily gathered a 1,121 name petition, but London Borough of Islington waved this aside as irrelevant.

The Consultation deadline is Monday 28th October.

Respond on-line here.

Key facts about the new school

1. Whitehall Park School will be not-for-profit charity. It will be non-denominational and non-selective, unlike the 15 faith primary schools in the Borough, that LBI apparently have no complaint about.

2. All Free Schools are run by what is known as an Academy Trust. An Academy Trust is a private Company limited by guarantee. All Academy Trusts are exempt charities which mean that they have Charitable status but are not registered with or regulated by the Charities Commission and do not therefore have a Charity number. Academy Trusts are regulated by the Education Funding Agency.

3. An Academy Trust may become the owner of a Freehold site from which they are to occupy and run the Free School. This freehold land will be protected by what is known as a legal charge in favour of the Secretary of State for Education. Under the Funding Agreement, the Academy Trust promises to enter this restriction on to the freehold title. This means that a Free School could not sell the land without the Secretary of State's consent. There are further restrictions within the Funding Agreement that prevent an Academy Trust from disposing of Assets which include the land.

This arrangement is exactly analogous to how Faith Schools are set up – (according to the LBI web site), “School buildings are usually owned by a charitable foundation and/or religious organisation”.

ASAG

21/10/13 from David Barry

What you should know about the proposal to establish a Free School on the old Ashmount site

This is a copy of an email sent out to all Chairs of Governors of Islington Schools.

I am writing to you as a fellow Chair of Governors at an Islington school.

You may be aware that there is a proposal to establish a new "Free School" using the Old Ashmount primary school site and building on Hornsey Lane to the North of the Borough. I happen to be well briefed on this project and the adverse consequences of it for every other Islington school. It may well also have a direct adverse impact on at least some of the children attending your school. (it is for these reasons that Islington Schools' Forum, a non political body, objects to this particular proposal) In any case I think we should all be opposing this particular project as a misguided use of public money, and in this note I will explain why.

First the Consequences

1. Mr Gove proposes, using recently acquired legal powers, to take the old Ashmount site and use it for a Free School. He can take it without paying compensation to Islington. As it is former council school land the loss of at least three million pounds funding falls on the schools capital account. This means that for every school in Islington in need of building repairs and improvements there will be less money.

2. The Council want the site to be used for social housing, with a particular aim to build housing that will free up family council social housing and would therefore mean that some of our currently over crowded children, which every school has would have better accommodation

3. Building housing itself attracts government grants, some of which is spent on school improvement. Again another loss to all schools.

4. Of course if the extra school places were needed then there would be a case to try and use the site for a new school, even though that would be very expensive. However as you know Islington is very unusual amongst London boroughs in not having a demand for school places greater than can be met using current schools. It is expected that over this year some of Islington's schools, reduced in size in the past will be able to expand again and so draw in extra resources for the additional pupils. (And even this is mostly in the south of the borough while the old Ashmount site is in the extreme North). Given that Ashmount school has not moved far, and given that Hargrave Park has capacity. what this means is that the new Free School will add an extra 58 places which will be surplus. So as a matter of arithmetic there will be 58 places vacant somewhere. It is difficult to say where they would be, but each vacant place will mean a loss of funding for the school with it. The potential for expensive disruption is obvious.

if you agree with me that this is a really bad idea, then I would ask you to:-

NOTE that there is a public meeting on 7pm Thursday 24th October Church Hall, Christ Church, Crouch End Hill, N8. It has been convened by our Local MP Jeremy Corbin. Programme details on the flyer attached as a pdf to this email. Please come if you can.

SIGN the Change.Org petition at

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/secretary-of-state-for-education-michael-gove-reverse-the-decision-to-approve-the-islington-free-primary-school-n19

if you want to know more, and have the time READ (and by all means comment on) these web postings on the Local Schools Network

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/10/islington-free-school-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem/

(a post by the chair of Highbury Grove)

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/the-new-islington-free-school/

(I wrote this one)

PASS THIS MESSAGE ON. Copy it to your fellow governors. Ask your PTA to send it out to their own email list, so that parents may know, it is their children who will feel the effects. Copy it to any local email lists you may know of.

David Barry

(note. I am not inviting you to oppose Free Schools in general. Free Schools as a policy are a matter of political controversy on which Islington Governors. parents and teachers will hold differing views. It is this particular school I urge you to object to.)

21/10/13 from ASAG - Squatters move in

21/10/13 from ASAG

This week squatters move in to the old Ashmount buildings on Hornsey Lane

Is this a Deliberate Ploy by LBI to delay Whitehall Park Free School?

The contract with professional caretakers to look after the empty Ashmount School buildings was ended in haste at the beginning of last week. The live-in caretakers, who have been there since last December were given 3 days notice to clear out their belongings. All signs relating to the company were taken down this week also.

Council officers have a duty of care to make sure council property and assets are looked after, and so it is at best a dereliction of duty that they cancelled the contract.

Two days after the Caretakers moved out 100 squatters (according to their spokesperson) moved in, including children. They were seen to have keys to the site and came in vehicles. Were they encouraged by the council and/or given the tip off of easy access into the building? The timing certainly looks suspicious. You would hardly be considered mad if you thought it was a deliberate ploy to hinder the process of setting up the Whitehall Park Free School.

The squatters say the simply found a window left open. But the fact that were seen with keys is a caution. They arrives with large pieces of furniture such as sofas and pool tables have moved into the building through doors – not windows. There are white vans now regularly entering and leaving the site via previously locked firegates (to which they have the keys) on Ashmount Road delivering furniture to the building.

Some Good News

One Ashmount resident has spoken to a representative of the Squatters and reports back that they have stated that they support the idea of returning the buildings for use as a local school. But they need a dry place to live over the winter. The representative said they are taking pains not to damage the premises and its various outbuildings, and have a clear policy of no graffiti. Hopefully there will be no damage during their stay, that could add to the building work that will be necessary before the school opens. How ironic that the squatters recognise the need to keep this site for education, while LBI refuse to accept it!

Obviously this situation plays into the hands of LBI’s campaign to stop, and failing that, delay the setting up of the Whitehall Park Free School. The less time that WFS has to set things up, the more difficult it will be to deliver a smooth opening. Hopefully the Squatters will leave at the appropriate time to allow for the Whitehall Park school to begin the work of setting the school up. But it may take legal action to do this, and this could mean delays. If it does we know who to blame!

If you are concerned about the above we urge you to write to your councillors, MP to and the local press with your views.

Lorraine Constantinou: Lorraine.Constantinou@islington.gov.uk Jeremy Corbyn: corbynj@parliament.uk Islington Gazette: news editor aimee.brannen@archant.co.uk Islington Tribune: letters@camdennewjournal.co.uk

Remember also that the consultation on the Whitehall Park Free School has 8 more days to run, so please do go on line to offer your views if you have not done so already. http://www.whitehallparkschool.co.uk/consultation/

ASAG

19/10/13 from ASAG

19/10/13 from ASAG

Dear ASAG supporter,

This is a long email, but please try and find the time to read it as it will equip you with facts and solid information at a time when there is far too much misinformation flying about.

A New Political Front

An attempt is being made to set up a local anti-free school campaign group to ‘protest’ against the proposals to establish a free primary school on the Ashmount Site, to be known as the Whitehall Park School. (Islington Gazette, October 3). This group is being led by Kenneth Muller, an Islington NUT official, who is a leading advocate of the Anti Academies Alliance of which this new group will be representative.

The campaign group will have the name – ‘Support Our Local Schools’, which has an ironic ring for members of ASAG which came into being in 2008 to prevent Islington Council from removing our local community school.

The campaign would appear to favour the selling of the Ashmount site by LBI for housing development as an alternative to it continuing in education for the benefit of the local community. This seems a contradictory idea.

Local views

According to Mr Muller: ‘Local people have not been asked if they want this school nor told about the enormous cost to local taxpayers of establishing an unnecessary new school.’

Mr Muller thereby shows a total lack of awareness of the long years of campaigning by the local community to keep the Ashmount Site in education and as integral part of their community. Nor does he appear aware of the detailed statistics that have been published (www.asag.org.uk/Resources/Ashmount_site_school_places_Giles_Taylor_v6.pdf) or (here), which show the growing desperate need for a primary school in this area now that the former Ashmount School has been relocated to Crouch Hill, with many local parents being informed that they are now out of its catchment area. Ashmount also used to serve children from both sides of the borough border (Islington and Haringey) on which it stood. Haringey parents’ needs are similarly affected.

Mr Muller also seems disingenuous about the ‘enormous cost to local taxpayers’ because a free school is funded from Central Government and not local taxes. If LBI engage with the DfE they can receive compensation for the site; if they do not, they the site can be requisitioned without compensation. Therefore, it is LBI who will be making local taxpayers pay those ‘enormous’ costs’.

Some history

As for the knowledge of local residents, on which he claims to speak, The Ashmount Site Action Group (ASAG) was formed on June 25, 2008, at a public meeting in St Andrews, Whitehall Park, to campaign for the retention of this local school. Although it was found LBI were obstructive in sharing information, ASAG discovered that the council had consulted architects, Purcell, Miller, Tritton (October, 2007), who had recommended refurbishment of the school as a cheaper option to relocation and building a new school on one of the only two remaining pieces of Metropolitan Open Land in Islington. Additionally, through the Freedom of Information Act, it was found that the Metropolitan Police had submitted a report which was not in favour of the new location on security grounds.

Public meetings held over the years at the Hornsey Lane Estate Community Centre were ignored by local Islington councillors in spite of invitations to engage with local residents to hear their wishes. Even the local Member of Parliament did not wish to ‘engage’ with the local community on this matter. A great deal of misinformation, some bordering on the personally insulting, was spread about ASAG by vested interests. We do acknowledge that one local councillor, when in opposition, did attend one meeting during 2011.

Sadly local Islington councillors’ attitudes compared unfavourably with the support received from local Haringey councillors in wards where residents and parents were also affected. Islington councillors ignored the overwhelming wishes of local people expressed at numerous public meetings. Two unbalanced consultation documents were sent out which many local people did not receive or were unaware of. At a cross-party meeting at Caxton House on October 3, 2011, at which local councillors with LBI officers attending, sought to impose their plans for their housing scheme on local people, they found the overwhelming view of those attending was for the retention of the school.

When told by a councillor that the council would take notice of local community wishes if they received a petition of 800 signatures, ASAG raised a local petition and within two weeks gathered 1,121 signatures of local residents. This was presented to the Council Executive’s meeting on June 12, 2012, together with a reasoned argument for the necessity of retaining the school due to the growing need for primary school places in London. Not only was the petition ignored but the figures presented were misinterpreted. Famously the Council Leader lost her temper on camera and had to apologise.

Central Government become involved . . .

Against overwhelming local opinion, during the autumn of 2012, LBI asked the Department of Education to declare that the Ashmount Site was surplus to educational needs. At that stage, LBI had not followed the general guidelines of advertising the site to any other potential education providers, although half-a-dozen such providers contacted ASAG, as well as the NUT staff at St Aloysius School who supported the ASAG petition on the grounds that their school could usefully use the space. Led by their NUT representative, Denis Doherty, they petitioned that LBI allow St Aloysius the use of the site for a Sixth Form and arts and science classes. However, as the staff was not supported by the governors, LBI were able to dismiss their appeal.

ASAG took the view that its brief was from the local community to keep the school in education, not in what manner that should be achieved. ASAG did pass on to the DfE its submissions for the retention of the site in education and a copy of the petition from local residents.

As the Department for Education produced more of its own statistics, it became obvious that growing problem of primary school places was the essential concern to be dealt with. The Department of Education decided in 2013 that the site was, therefore, not surplus to education needs.
Once that decision had been made, ASAG ceased to be a campaigning group and became a conduit to the local community as to what developments were happening with the Ashmount Site.

. . . and decide on a free school

The DfE decision allowed submissions from several school providers for the use of the site. The DfE announced on May 22, 2013 that it had accepted a proposal by Bellevue-Place Educational Trust Ltd. to provide a free primary school on the site. Detailed proposals of the ‘Islington Free School’ were placed on the internet and ASAG’s role was merely to draw attention to this on its website and to its supporters, without endorsement, so that the local community could judge. ASAG, from the outset, acted only as a conduit of the local community. Without that support it would have ceased activity entirely.

Bellevue-Place Educational Trust Ltd. received overwhelming support from local parents and residents. Bellevue-Place has recently held public consultations on what they now called The Whitehall Park School. It is patently clear that the new free school is now driven by parental demand and has the support of the community. ASAG supports their decision.

Should the Anti Academies Alliance choose to make the Ashmount Site into a political battleground in pursuit of their aims, then it is their choice and right. Supporters of ASAG, who are the vast majority of the local community, however, hope they will not follow the path of distortions and misinformation previously (and still currently being) made about ASAG, which has, regretfully, been a marked feature from those wishing to see high density housing on the site of the former Ashmount School. ASAG further hopes supporters of the Anti Academies Alliance will speak for that organisation and not claim to speak for this community; a community which considers that, since 2008, they have long been ignored, marginalised and vilified by those pushing the housing project in place of a much needed local community primary school.

ASAG

2/10/13 from David Barry

Final Primary School Admissions results for Autumn 2013

I have just returned from holiday, and now have the final figures, some weeks old, for school admissions in the Whitehall Park Area. This is not a projection, it is the actual outcome.

There are no children in the Whitehall Park area without a school place. There are five vacant reception class places at Hargrave Park. There are a further 22 vacant reception places in the North of the Borough (there are 53 vacant places in the South of the Borough). All late applicants in Islington also have places except the last three recently received, who have not yet been allocated a place, but they are not in the Whitehall park area anyway.

It is instructive to review this information, the actual admissions outcome this year, together with the two earlier statements by ASAG in which they made their own predictions of the admissions outcome. They never explained what their predictions were based on.

The full text is available below on this website, here are the relevant quotes.

ASAG 22 July 2013
“...there is already, this September, a shortage of places in the reception year in this school area.”

ASAG 2nd May 2013
“Reception classes in September 2013

It seems that there are likely to be more than enough children to fill a class if Ashmount School were to reopen as a free school this year, and probably enough for 2 classes. At present we understand that if enough parents express firm interest in a 2013 class, PLACE, one of the bidders to open a free school on the site in 2014, may be able to provide one.”

On the whole, not a completely accurate forecast by ASAG it seems.

David Barry

22/9/13 from ASAG

22/9/13 from ASAG

Whitehall Park School on former Ashmount school site - consultation has begun

This is your chance to participate in the statutory consultation that must inform the Secretary of State for Education’s decision regarding the new Free School.

Whitehall Park School will be a non-fee paying, non-selective, non-denominational, co-educational school. Whitehall Park School will welcome children from all backgrounds.

Initially opening in 2014 with two classes of 28 in the Reception Year, the school will grow organically to reach its full capacity of 392 pupils in 2020.

You can respond to the consultation on line here

... or else a leaflet with attached form can be downloaded here and printed off for posting.

As you will read:

Whitehall Park School - formerly known as Islington Free Primary School

Consultation for proposed new primary school opening in September 2014

Come to one of drop-in consultation events:

Wednesday 2nd October 7.00pm – 9.00pm
Thursday 10th October 2.00pm – 4.00pm

Hornsey Lane Estate Community Centre Hazellville Road London N19 3YJ
Consultation Period:
Monday 16th September – Monday 28th October 2013

ASAG

2/9/13 from ASAG

2/9/13 from ASAG

WHITEHALL PARK SCHOOL (FORMERLY ASHMOUNT SCHOOL)

It has been announced by Bellevue Place Education Trust that the Free Primary School planned to open on the site of the former Ashmount School in September 2014, will be called Whitehall Park School. A school logo will be revealed soon. A web site already exists:

www.whitehallparkschool.co.uk

However, it will come as no surprise to those who have been involved with the Ashmount Site Action Group (ASAG) since its foundation, at a public meeting on 25 June 2008, to know that London Borough of Islington) LBI continue to prevaricate and stonewall in their dealings with the Department for Education (DfE) over the transfer of the site to an approved Free Primary School provider.

When LBI applied to the DfE for permission in 2012 to declare the site ‘surplus to LBI educational needs’, and change its status to sell it to housing development, the application was refused by DfE, thus allowing proposals for its use from other educational users. Our legal advice is that the site, therefore, remains firmly in educational use.

The latest news is that the negotiations between the Education Funding Agency (EFA) at the DfE and LBI are ‘continuing’. However, it seems that EFA are still trying to pursue a ‘negotiated settlement’ over the site while having to search for alternative sites in the Borough to evidence the fact that Ashmount is the only viable site. At this stage EFA are apparently reluctant to play their trump card and go into the ‘scheming process’ and simply requisition the site.

LBI know full well that the more they stall, the more difficult it is to allow sufficient time to get the school open by September, 2014. There are still some months before the ‘critical point’ for a decision making deadline so that the school can open in 2014, but the process cannot be endless. Until the EFA gets agreement or uses its ultimate sanction, the school providers have to sit on the sidelines. Until that happens, the actual site cannot be ‘officially named’ for purposes of consultation with local people. The school providers will delay the consultation processes until they can name Ashmount as the site they are consulting on and have re-iterated that they are not interested in pursuing other site options and effectively reneging on commitments they have made to ASAG (among others). So while frustrated by the apparent lack of progress, they will allow EFA more time to negotiate with LBI.

ASAG has surely demonstrated that LBI is not up for persuasion over Ashmount. For the current administration and its officials, Ashmount has become a ‘holy grail’ in their fight, firstly against the clearly expressed wishes of the local community, and now against the Central Government free school policy.

ASAG would have thought that EFA would know that ‘negotiation’ does not exist in LBI’s vocabulary. Over the years their elected representatives have consistently refused to attend ASAG public meetings, ignored all forms of reasoned arguments, architectural reports, local petitions, consultations and protests. They have publicly tried to distort and mislead people about ASAG and its aims and arguments and whether directly or indirectly sought to mislead the public as to the situation regarding the approved provider and the ownership of the site if purchased by EFA. Today residents in this corner of the borough have found themselves in a ‘primary school black hole’; told they are out of the catchment area of the new ‘Ashmount’ (Crouch Hill) School and local children being told they could be placed in Kings Cross, Rokesly (Crouch End) or other areas or attend bulge classes and so on. It is a disgraceful position but LBI continue to be in denial. LBI now appear to be keen to enter the history books as the first Council to defy the DfE over free schools.

A significant part of the negotiations is about payment for the site. Although if compulsorily acquired there does not have to be any payment at all, LBI could (and should) negotiate to obtain some if not all of the £3 million they hoped to get for sale of the site. The council tax payers’ money that LBI are playing with is ours.

The ASAG website has published carefully researched data on local primary school provision, but just a couple of global facts:

Islington is the most densely populated London Borough
Islington has a lower primary school to population ratio than any of the surrounding boroughs (Hackney, Haringey and Camden)
It has the lowest number of secondary schools of any London Borough.

More housing is not what is most urgently wanted - more schools are.
The detailed data on the sire (sic) school place shortage in North Islington can be downloaded here (warning this is a large because comprehensive document):

www.asag.org.uk/Resources/Ashmount_site_school_places_data_Giles_Taylor_v6.pdf

All we can tell you now is that meetings are on-going between LBI and EFA. The school providers are waiting, having made progress in all other necessary areas, and now ready to proceed to statutory consultation the moment agreement is reached or it is decided requisition is the only option.

No news is good news. LBI’s delaying tactics are hardly likely to put off supporters who have been campaigning for the last 5 years to keep Ashmount as a school. It may be another month or two before there are obvious developments, but the campaign is as alive as ever. We shall, as always, let you know developments.

ASAG

27/8/13 from David Barry

27/8/13 from David Barry

Before a Free School is set up, the proposers have to hold a consultation with the community the school is supposed to serve. It is a statutory requirement. The timetable for the proposed Free School using the old Ashmount building is challenging, and it was expected that the consultation would be really soon. In fact a fortnight ago the DfE told me that the consultation was going to start last week. Which obviously it did not. It now seems there has been a change of plan. In an email sent this evening the DfE said:

“The proposer group have decided to delay the start of their statutory consultation until later in the year, on the basis that the Department’s discussions with Islington Borough Council about a potential site for the free school are still on-going and the proposers would prefer to undertake their consultation once they have a site clearly identified.

The proposers are in the process of producing a new website for the free school and a re-direct facility will be added to their existing website by early next week, details of the consultation will appear on their new website in due course.”

The phrase “once they have a site identified” would suggest that matters are not as certain as the current web site suggests. No doubt a reason for changing it.

David Barry

8/7/13 from David Barry

8/7/13 from David Barry

I now have some rather detailed figures from Haringey.

1. In the area of Highgate, Crouch End, Hornsey, Stroud Green (served by these schools Campsbourne Infants, Coleridge Primary, Highgate Primary, Rokesly Infants, St Aidan’s, St Mary’s CE Primary, St Michael’s CE Primary N6, St Peter in Chains RC Infants, Stroud Green,Weston Park) all applicants now have a place and there are three reception places unfilled. So no shortage of places this year, now confirmed.

2. The number of applicants in each year showed a clear trend of increasing each year from 625 (in 2007) to a peak of 700 in (2011) and has now fallen in two successive years to this year’s total of 629.

3. During this time the supply of places increased by 90, which is why, although there was a place shortage in 2007 on 625 applicants, there is none this year on 629.

Moreover Islington now report that all applicants have a place and there are five reception places unfilled.

David Barry

4/7/13 from ASAG

4/7/13 from ASAG

Detailed data on school place shortage in North Islington

In May 2013 Bellevue Place Education Trust won approval in the Department for Education’s free school pre-opening phase for its application to set up Islington Free Primary School on the old Ashmount site. BPET is a charitable trust and a separate legal entity from Bellevue Education Ltd, which co-administers it.

The Council has consistently maintained that there is no need for a school in North Islington or in the neighbouring part of Haringey and, were there to be a shortage of places, existing schools could readily be expanded to meet demand. On 17 June 2013 an independent planning inspector’s report endorsed the Council’s position.

ASAG’s researches over the past 18 months tell a different story and support the DfE’s decision to approve the free school opening on the Ashmount site.

Unlike the surrounding councils, which publish a comprehensive annual school places planning report, Islington publishes no detailed information for the general public. Indeed, they recently blocked access to the one document that was available by search. Information requested under Freedom of Information (such as a breakdown of a published table) has sometimes been unavailable. Figures supplied under FOI after more than one request have in more than one case conflicted with data published elsewhere.

In this context, we have had to come to some conclusions indirectly, by combining information from a number of sources, rather than by having the data we need – and which undoubtedly exists – in front of us.

But the conclusion is clear. Owing to increasing demand, Islington needs a 2-form entry school in the north or northeast of the borough and the Ashmount site is the only place with sufficient capacity. There is significantly greater basic need for a school at Ashmount Road than the Council’s preferred site for the school in Dowrey Street, N1.

The report can be downloaded from the ASAG web site or from our Downloads page.

ASAG

4/7/13 David Barry’s riposte to the ASAG post below

4/7/13 David Barry’s riposte to the ASAG post below

The latest from ASAG certainly demands reply. As their points are rather legalistic I am replying by repeating their post and interleaving.
Private Ownership?

It has come to ASAG’s attention that some people are claiming that the Ashmount site is to be transferred without charge to private ownership, specifically Bellevue Education Ltd, a commercial (for-profit) company.

This is both untrue and misleading. The site will be leased to Bellevue Place Education Trust, a non-profit-making charitable trust, for the purpose of running a state primary school for all local children, financed by central government, as stated on the school’s web site, http://www.islingtonfreeprimary.co.uk/about-us/.

The technicality, it turns out is that the land will be leased to a special purpose vehicle set up by Bellevue Ltd, the “Bellevue Trust”, which (Oh joy!) is a tax exempt charity. The lease is for 125 years at a “peppercorn” rent. Bellvue Ltd will be able to use the land without owning it, providing the Bellevue Trust, which they control, agrees to let them. That way the claim can be made that Bellevue Ltd are not getting the land, and also they will not have to pay business rates on the site. Also should the enterprise fail, then the costs of failure do not fall on Bellevue but on the trust they control. Special Purpose Vehicles of this sort are commonly used by property developers, although they are not usually allowed to be tax exempt. This one is allowed to be tax exempt due to the rules surrounding Free Schools. All quite clever, and of course the majority shareholder in Bellevue is outside the UK tax jurisdiction, so it is all quite well worked out.

In common with all free school and academy trusts, the trust will only be able to use the land for the school. If the trust were wound up, the property would pass back to the Department for Education.

Indeed, and not back to Islington, so Islington schools still lose £3m capital spending. Also if there is a business failure all the losses fall on the special purpose vehicle and Bellevue Ltd just walk away. They really cannot loose.

Furthermore, the trust will be strictly non-profit-making. It can neither make profits itself, nor are the promoters allowed to charge services to it at a profit.

Well Under the CURRENT law a “Free School” being government financed may neither charge fees nor run at a profit. But could it be that Bellevue Ltd. think this might change? After I wrote that this newspaper article appeared in The Independent. When you have read that article you can see that the deal has no downside for Bellevue, and MIGHT have a considerable upside, after the general election.

As we are being all legalistic of a sudden am I allowed to say, that at least on this point, I rest my case?

David Barry

3/7/13 from ASAG

3/7/13 from ASAG

Private Ownership?

It has come to ASAG's attention that some people are claiming that the Ashmount site is to be transferred without charge to private ownership, specifically Bellevue Education Ltd, a commercial (for-profit) company.

This is both untrue and misleading. The site will be leased to Bellevue Place Education Trust, a non-profit-making charitable trust, for the purpose of running a state primary school for all local children, financed by central government, as stated on the school's web site, www.islingtonfreeprimary.co.uk/about-us/.

In common with all free school and academy trusts, the trust will only be able to use the land for the school. If the trust were wound up, the property would pass back to the Department for Education. Furthermore, the trust will be strictly non-profit-making. It can neither make profits itself, nor are the promoters allowed to charge services to it at a profit.

ASAG

27/6/13 from David Barry

27/6/13 from David Barry

It has been confirmed to me (reliably) that the Education Funding Agency has chosen to requisition the old Ashmount Site from Islington Council, which they have the power to do, without paying any compensation to the Council.

The site is to be transferred without charge to private ownership; the site will be given to Bellevue Education Limited. Bellevue Education Ltd is a commercial (for profit) company, which runs a chain of nine for profit fee-paying schools here and in Switzerland (Ref 1). Bellevue made profits last year of £1.5m on a turnover of £3.7m so it’s what I believe one would call a “nice little business” (Ref 2). Although if you want to rush out and buy some shares you cannot at the moment as they are not publicly listed. Instead the investors are venture capitalists based in Switzerland using Russian money. Perhaps there will be a flotation at some point in the future. I am sure we will be all poised to add a bit of diversity to our share portfolios.

This decision will have some consequences for Ashmount, and indeed other schools in Islington.

First the capital account for Islington schools is now short by 3 million pounds. This was the, rather conservative, figure that Islington had assumed would be available from selling the site, at a special low price, to a housing association. It might well have been more. Consequently all Islington schools will experience a further cut in capital allocations. This is, in accounting terms, a straightforward transfer of capital resources from all the community schools in Islington to Bellevue Education Ltd. Ashmount will be less affected than some of our colleagues in the short run as our building is new. So one would hope that for a few years at least our capital requirements will be low.

From 2014 there will be an additional 58 places at reception in this area. All the indications from actual admissions figures this year is that certainly in 2014 there will be a significant surplus of places created in the immediate area. This could have the effect of intensifying competition between schools as there may not be enough school pupils to go around. The Free School website states that it will use the same admissions system and criteria as other islington Schools so the schools likely to notice this are (In order of distance from the old Ashmount site) Hargrave Park, Highgate Primary, Coleridge School and farthest away, Ashmount. (Incidentally going by the photographs on the school website they appear to expect that all their children will be white... Ref 3).

However it would be rash to jump to any conclusions about this as the Free School, at least in its first year, might have significant difficulties in recruiting pupils. We know from the experience of other Free Schools that where they have been set up in areas where there are surplus school places that, untried as they are, parents are nervous of them. By definition they have no track record of any kind, no parental opinions, Ofsteds or SATS. In this particular case there is also the issue of the building. We left it because it was terrible. We also left it because we knew that even spending millions of pounds one still ends up with a building which we thought not good enough for our children. We also know there were people in significant numbers who would not send their children to Ashmount because of the building. Our undersubscription only stopped when the move to the new building was fully confirmed. So it does seem to me, that even if they work out a way to clean the windows, that there is an issue here.

On the other hand Bellevue Education may be willing to invest some of their own resources in marketing; were they to choose to do so they could certainly outspend any community school. A reason why they might do so is related to the otherwise puzzling point as to why Bellevue Education are interested in getting involved in running a Free Primary School from which they are not allowed to make a profit. The obvious answer is that the Conservatives believe that state schools should be allowed to be owned and run by profit making companies, on a profit making basis. This is not allowed at present, because the Liberal Democrats do not agree. However Mr Gove has promised a number of times that should the Conservatives be elected to Government in the next election, fixed for the summer of 2014, when the Free School will have been open for less than a year, the law will be changed to allow Free Schools to be run at a profit. Bellevue Education could well feel that the old Ashmount Site represents a useful speculation

I would be interested in any comments, or further information, anyone might have.

David Barry

Ref 1 Ref 2 Ref 3

20/6/13 from David Barry

20/6/13 from David Barry

But will Mr. Gove still say no?

Islington have been taking part in a process regulated by law to do with long term strategic planning of the land use in the Borough. They drew up a big plan referring to various important strategic sites, which, not surprisingly included the Ashmount site. In that bit of the plan the council said they wanted to use the site for housing. The plan had to go through stages. The first was a draft stage. It then went out to consultation. There was an exhibition about it in the Hornsey Lane Community Centre relating only to Ashmount. It was amended is some respects in light of responses, and then, last December submitted to detailed scrutiny by an Independent Inspector. The Ashmount Site Action Group, some other local residents and the Highgate Society made formal written responses to the consultation, all of them strongly opposed to the site not continuing to be used for a school, and in the case of ASAG and the Highgate Society arguing that the old school building should also be retained and refurbished to accommodate a new school. all these responses can be found below, on this web site.The Inspector’s report has now just been published and will be considered by Islington next week.

The full report itself is a really long pdf, most of it concerned with other sites but paragraph 46 is what matters so far as the future of the Ashmount site is concerned. Here it is:

“46. Having carefully considered the question of educational need, I am satisfied that the Council’s evidence on this issue is robust and clearly demonstrates that the loss of this site for educational use will not undermine the future provision of school places either in Islington or in the adjacent London Borough of Haringey. Furthermore it is clear that refurbishment of the school buildings has been thoroughly investigated and has led to the conclusion that they cannot be easily adapted to meet modern educational standards. I conclude that the allocation is supported by robust evidence on the provision of educational accommodation.”

The overall conclusion of the Inspector is that the allocation of the Ashmount site “for residential and community use, including open space” is “justified, consistent with national policy and effective...”

So it would appear that the only hurdle Council must now cross is the need for permission from Mr. Gove for a change of use. As the Inspector observes “it (the site) remains in education use until permission has been granted for a change of use by the Secretary of State for Education.”
It remains to be seen how high that hurdle turns out to be.

6/6/13 from Celia Dignan

6/6/13 from Celia Dignan

SUPPORT LOCAL SCHOOLS NOT FREE SCHOOLS

Islington free primary school has been approved to open in September 2014 in Hornsey Lane on the former site of Ashmount Primary school. It will be run by two private companies - Bellevue Education Group and Place Group. Bellevue, based in Surrey, runs two boarding schools in Switzerland and seven private schools in the UK. In 2011 it made profits of £1.5 million. The company’s website states that Bellevue does not have shareholders but instead enjoys “significant financial backing from a small number of British and Swiss families who are passive investors in the group and who wholeheartedly share Bellevue’s aspirations”.

Place Group is one of the DfE’s “approved providers” of education advisory and project management services to academies and free schools. It has been at the forefront of the free schools programme. The company boasts that “By September 2013, Place will have helped over 60 schools to open including 20 Free Schools.”

Bellevue and Place are working jointly on at least two further free schools - in Balham and in Windsor and Maidenhead, both due to open in September 2014. The two companies could soon be running a chain of publicly funded independent free schools. Free schools cannot currently make a profit but Education Secretary Michael Gove has made clear that if the Conservatives are reelected they will be allowed to do so. The Ashmount school site has been paid for by local taxpayers but the Education Secretary has the legal power to hand over all the land and buildings to a free school provider for a peppercorn rent on a 125-year lease.

Free Schools do not have to employ qualified teachers or teach the national curriculum and they operate their own admissions policies. They are not accountable to local people or the local authority.

Unlike many parts of London, neither Haringey nor Islington have a shortage of primary places - in fact there are surplus places. There is no need for a new primary school locally. Where there is no shortage of places, free schools can only succeed by taking pupils who would otherwise have attended established local state schools, impacting on their funding and destabilising the local family of schools. We are fortunate to have good local schools. Don’t let a free school undermine them.

Celia Dignan

c/o 106 Rathcoole Gardens, N8 9PG

You can download her petition here

3/6/13 from David Barry

3/6/13 from David Barry

I have been informed by Islington admissions that there are, as of 3 June, 71 vacant places across 18 Islington schools. There are 136 parents who have yet to confirm that they will accept places offered. So the number of vacant places will rise, but by how much and in which schools it is pretty impossible to say. Efforts are being made to finalise this but the process will not be complete until September. There are 63 parents across the Islington area who have not yet been offered a place, offers will now be going out to them. They will be offered a place at the highest preference possible. if no place is available at a school for which a preference was shown, then they will be offered the nearest school with a vacancy.

As of today we can see from postcodes there are six people who live in the area of the old Ashmount site, (broadly defined)who have not had their places offered yet. I do not have information as to which schools they applied for in the first place but they will be offered places at the nearest school with vacancies in due course. It is not impossible that a place or two will come up at Ashmount, but Hargrave Park may be closer.
At this point it would be reasonable to ask if ASAG are still lobbying for a reception class to be reopened at the old Ashmount Site for this Autumn, and if so where the 30 children for it would come from as they must have been identified by now.

David Barry

30/5/13 from David Barry

30/5/13 from David Barry

In this area Islington Admissions have started to offer unfilled places at Hargrave Park School, including the 15 recently created. Offers are, for example, being made to applicants who live in Camden. Meanwhile in Crouch End there are no reports of a shortage of places probably because there are sixty more places than there used to be, with an extra form of entry at Weston Park and at Rokesley Infants (they were first added at about this time last year). The Rokesley radius of admission has gone up this year to 1.4 miles, which therefore covers the whole of Crouch End.

The situation remains fluid. What is clear however is that both Islington and Haringey admissions maintain that there is no shortage of places in the local area, and so the mystery as to where the demand reported by ASAG is coming from remains.

23/5/13 Article in Islington Tribune

23/5/13 Article in Islington Tribune.

22/5/13 from David Barry, reporting from a full meeting of the Schools’ Forum

22/5/13 from David Barry, reporting from a full meeting of the Schools’ Forum

SCHOOL ADMISSIONS LATEST ISLINGTON

Islington Schools' Forum met in full session today. There was an up to the minute report on admissions, an explanation of why some extra places have been created in Islington and agreement to vote the money to pay for the extra places. The admissions position (and this is a snapshot accurate as of yesterday) is as follows.

Over three hundred families who have been offered primary school places in the reception class for their children have not yet replied to say whether they want them. Some of these will decline leaving vacancies. But how many, and in which schools will not be known for a while. There are 110 vacant places in reception classes in the Borough. There are 100 children as yet “unallocated” that is their parents were not offered a school for which they had applied but are on waiting lists for those schools. While in the end there is certain to be an offer of a place for everyone and on the one hand Islington admissions do not want to keep these parents hanging on, on the other hand they do not want to make the next round of offers until they have a better idea of how many people now holding offers will not take them up. Islington admissions have started to ring parents individually to chivvy them up, and get them to reply.

Admissions believe a significant number of the outstanding offers will be declined and so a lot of the 100 WILL get places at schools to which they have applied, and at a high preference. It is these figures which lead Islington to make the bald statement repeated below that there are enough places in the Borough for all the people applying, as this is true now. Over the next few weeks the number of vacant places will rise further, but these are needed to provide a required level of flexibility in the system. The full picture will not start to be clear until the process has been worked through. Until then then no one can know exactly what it is, and how many extra places there will be, but when I get more information I will let you have it.

All these figures include the extra places created to the south of the Borough. The Forum had it explained to them that the extra places were created in popular schools located in the areas of demand ( three fourths of them in the south of the Borough) and agreed to spend the money to implement the decision.

ABOUT THE FORUM

For those of you who have not heard of this beast, which I imagine is most people reading this, it is a statutory body and every Local Education Authority in England has one. It is important because it decides how money given to Islington for schools is spent. Councils no longer do this. (Community Schools get most of their money per pupil automatically, but there is an extra bit used for various extra things like special building repairs, to help out schools with particular needs and, indeed, paying to run the admissions system). It consists half of representatives elected by the Head Teachers of Islington and half of representatives elected by Islington School Governors. I am one of the School Governor representatives. It is not a political body; only one councillor attends representing the council and he has no vote.

David Barry

22/5/13 from ASAG, in response to LBI’s statement below

22/5/13 from ASAG, in response to LBI’s statement below

There are a number of misleading statements in Islington's position. Point by point these are:

1. LB Islington applied for a change of use of the Ashmount School site from education to housing. That application for a change of use has been refused by the Secretary of State. The site can only be used for education.

2. The suggestion that Islington is now offering as a free school site the New River College Pupil Referral Unit, with no idea, no suggestion, where that Pupil Referral Unit would go, is very ill thought through. And the new site for that school would have to be wheelchair friendly.

3. That site is in a part of the Borough that is not (currently) short of primary school places. Unlike North Islington, where Ashmount is sited, which is short of primary school places. Surely a new primary school should be sited where it is needed.

4. To just say there are more school places than children in Islington, without specifying pupil ages and part of the Borough, is completely unhelpful. There are more school places in some years and in some parts of the Borough than children who need them, but in North Islington there is a stark shortage of reception places. And on planned admission numbers that shortage will soon apply throughout the primary school years.

5. It's the first we heard that the Mayor of London's office had sent anyone to look at the school to assess whether it can be brought up to standard. The Purcell Miller Tritton report commissioned by Islington themselves said that it could be brought up to standard, and all the interested free school providers who looked round the site were of the same opinion.

6. The local Haringey councillors are strongly and unanimously of the opinion that the Ashmount site should be used as a primary school, and would be dismayed to hear anyone suggest that they think otherwise. Haringey's primary school overcrowding locally is worse than Islington's.

Francis Wilkinson ASAG

22/5/13 from Islington Council, in reply to ASAG’s statement (below)

22/5/13 from Islington Council, in reply to ASAG’s statement (below)

The Government has confirmed that the Islington Free Primary School will open in the borough in September 2014. The Department for Education have not however announced the former Ashmount Primary School site as the location for this new free school. The location of the school is as yet unknown and will be decided by the Education Funding Agency and Islington Council.

Islington Council believes that the best location for this new school would be a school site on Dowrey Street N1 0HR, which is in the heart of the borough and easy for Islington families to get to. The building is already used for educational purposes and is fully accessible for disabled users. The council also believes there is local support for a new school in this area. The site is currently used by New River College Pupil Referral Unit (key stage 3). If Dowrey Street is agreed as a location for the new free school, an alternative site will be found for the Pupil Referral Unit.

The council firmly believes that the former Ashmount School site is not an appropriate site for the new free school. The building is in an extremely dilapidated state and is not accessible for disabled users. The Mayor of London's office confirmed that it would be impossible to bring the current building up to modern educational standards.

The pressure on primary school places in Islington is significantly less than in other London boroughs. Islington and Haringey councils agree that a new school is not needed in the vicinity of the former Ashmount School. There are now more school places available in the borough than children who need them.

Caroline Horrocks
Senior Media Officer Islington Council

22/5/13 from ASAG

22/5/13 from ASAG

The campaign to keep the Ashmount site as a school has been successful! The Department for Education has decided that the site can re-open as a free school, which will be a primary school. This is terrific news because, as many parents know, there is such a shortage of primary school places locally. PLACE, who will be operating the school, were planning to open in 2014, but we shall be encouraging them to provide classes from 2013 as there are enough local children to fill at least one class this year. We shall keep you in the picture about the negotiations.

A great big thank you to everyone who signed the petition and who has supported the effort to keep the school open throughout the long months and years while the campaign has been running.

ASAG will continue in existence as long as you need us, but the representation of local interests will soon be taken up by the new school governors. The school building has capacity for other activities beside its main use, and we look forward to it being an increasingly important part of the local community.

We shall give you more details just as soon as they become available.

ASAG

16/5/13 from David Barry

16/5/13 from David Barry

I thought fellow WHPARA members might be interested in some further information relating to how things are going with primary school admissions this year. This will add some context to the Islington Education post below. I would comment on the oddity of the situation created by the contrast between what Islington are reporting and ASAG are reporting. At this stage they are so divergent as to appear to be in parallel universes. I suppose it will become plain by Autumn which world we are actually living in.

As the school admissions arrangements in use in London were set up quite recently its worth starting by summarising them. Admissions are managed on an all London basis by a special agency. Parents looking for a place in the first year of school (reception) have to apply through the Borough in which they live. In theory they may apply for schools anywhere in London. But of course they are going to apply for schools nearby unless in the midst of moving. They can apply for up to six schools in order of their preference. Offer day is the same day throughout London. On that day if they are eligible for an offer from more than one school they still only get one offer, for the higher preference choice. If they are not eligible for an offer, and so do not get one at all, they are called “unallocated” but go on the waiting list for schools they were unsuccessful for as well as for any other schools they feel like.

Parents have a period of time to reply and accept the offer. If they decide not to, and a significant number do decline, then their places are offered on. There is quite a lot of “churn” in London, after all people have had to apply by January for a place this September and things happen. People move jobs, or often enough succeed in a long term plan to move further out, perhaps to get a bigger house, or indeed get a house they can afford at all...

OK so on the 17 April 2013 the offers went out. And this is where the worlds divide. In ASAG world:

ASAG “learned of children due to start school in September this year who have been refused places at both Coleridge and the new Ashmount primary schools. One of those children, who lives very close indeed to the old Ashmount school, has been offered a place at a school in Copenhagen Street, at the other end of the Borough”.

In Islington world no child was offered a place at a school the parents had not asked for. There were nine families who were not offered a place at either Ashmount or Coleridge having applied for either or both these schools. Five of them were offered other schools that they had put on their list of preferred schools. None of them were offered Copenhagen Street. To get such an offer they would have needed to have Copenhagen Street on their list of schools. (This would, given the distance to Copenhagen Street, have been a really odd thing for them to have done.) Four remained unplaced as they had not stated a preference for any other schools. They had only applied to Ashmount and Coleridge. They go on the waiting list for Ashmount and Coleridge as do the other parents as well, should they wish. (However, for the next few weeks it is not clear how many unplaced children there really are in this area as some parents refuse the places offered and new vacancies emerge. They could all get offers at Ashmount or Coleridge in the end).

In ASAG world by by the 2nd May:

“Many parents have been offered places miles away, both in Islington and in Haringey.”

In Islington World that did not happen on the 17 April. Could it have happened since? The only offers made after that date are of places that have now become available. And they are only made to people on the waiting lists who have said they are interested in a place at that school. Have some shown an interest in a school miles away? Surely a strange thing to do, but it’s up to them.

In ASAG world it has now been discovered:

“It seems that there are likely to be more than enough children to fill a class if Ashmount School were to reopen as a free school this year, and probably enough for 2 classes.”

So that means at least thirty children living in this area without school places and probably sixty.

In Islington World there IS a shortage, but not here. When Islington saw the pattern of applications and offers on the 17 April they concluded there were fewer places than was comfortable. So they decided to create eighty additional places for the whole borough. That, they reckon, is enough to make sure everyone gets a place AND that there are a few left over to cater for people who move in to the Borough over the year. This is easily enough done as a lot of Islington schools were bigger than now a few years ago, they reduced in size due to falling school rolls. The schools the ones they have chosen to expand are also popular schools with good Ofsteds. Of the eighty places sixty have been created to the south of Seven Sisters Road. Five have been created in Tufnell Park, and of interest to us fifteen have been created at Hargrave Park School. The issue being addressed by these twenty places is pressure created by applications from Camden in the area between Hargrave Park and Tufnell Park. (This was announced after ASAG made its claims.)

It is easy to see that if ASAG are right then Islington Admissions have failed to spot a shortage of at least forty-five additional places in this area. Are there really forty- five families in the Whitehall Park area without places for their children? I would be interested to hear from others about this. Of course time will tell. And we will find out which of the two worlds was the real one.

Note on the author

David Barry, who lives two roads away from the old Ashmount Site is an elected member of the Islington Schools Forum and has based this article partly on a briefing by Islington Officers at a Forum sub group meeting today.

8/5/13 from Islington

8/5/13 from Islington

Reception classes 2013, update from Islington Council.

The council’s schools admissions team is currently in the process of collating all the responses to the offers made to parents on 17 April 2013 (National Offer Day).

Parents were offered places only at the schools they had selected as one of their preferences on their application form. To date, we have heard back from approximately half of parents on whether or not they wish to accept their offer and we expect a significant number of places to be released over the coming weeks as this process continues. These released places will then form part of the next round of offers.

We would urge parents to ensure they have returned their acceptance form as soon as possible to prevent any unnecessary delay in offering out places that are no longer required.

Any parents with questions about their child’s primary school offer can contact the council on 020 7527 5515.

23/4/13 from David Barry, responding to the below

23/4/13 from David Barry, responding to the below

The latest posting from ASAG (immediately below) was certainly alarming. But it is not true.
The key statement is: “One of those children, ... [refused by both Ashmount and Coleridge] ... who lives very close indeed to the old Ashmount school, has been offered a place at a school in Copenhagen Street”.
No, they have not. I checked with admissions in Islington. (I checked because the story seemed odd to me). The system these days is that school admissions is run on a London-wide basis. Parents can apply for up to six schools in order of their preference.
There was no case of a child who was an applicant for Ashmount and Coleridge who was offered a place at Copenhagen school. It did not happen. The records have been searched by Islington Officers. Note that the applications are processed independently of Islington.
Further ASAG say “We have produced the statistics”. But ASAG have not “produced statistics” despite being asked to many times. Yet again we have an assertion but no evidence. The Islington figures are published. Let ASAG publish theirs so we can judge for ourselves.
It is very frustrating on such an important matter not to have the information.

22/4/13 from ASAG

22/4/13 from ASAG

Dear ASAG Supporter

SHORTAGE OF RECEPTION PLACES

ASAG has just learned of children due to start school in September this year who have been refused places at both Coleridge and the new Ashmount primary schools. One of those children, who lives very close indeed to the old Ashmount school, has been offered a place at a school in Copenhagen Street, at the other end of the Borough and much more than 1.6 miles away, which is the maximum distance that primary school children should have to travel to school according to London Borough of Islington’s own policy.

ASAG would like to hear of any other such refusals, and any proposals for 4-year-old children to travel to schools some distance away. This is important as it makes the case for the Ashmount site to remain as a primary school even stronger. We have produced the statistics, and our prediction of a shortfall in local places is being proved accurate.

Because of the delay in Islington making their application to the Secretary of State (they decided to make the application in June but didn’t make it until 4 months later) the new school is unlikely to be able to open until next year. We are expecting the Secretary of State’s decision on LB Islington’s application to demolish the school and build flats on the site next month - and we trust he will refuse this misconceived application.

ASAG Committee
www.asag.org.uk

1/3/13 from David Barry

1/3/13 from David Barry

“Town halls to decide on sites of new free schools”

There has been an announcement from the DFE that from now on money for Free Schools is to be targeted at areas with shortages of school places. And the judge of shortages, it seems, are to be the Local Education Authorities. The headline says it all really. This suggests that ASAG, if they are to succeed in getting a Free School on the Ashmount Site really need to publish their detailed figures as a matter of urgency as their conclusions are so opposed to what Islington, relying on their published figures, say.

For more details the relevant TES story can be seen here.

27/2/13 Ashmount site could be used for St. Aloysius sixth-form

27/2/13 Ashmount site could be used for St. Aloysius sixth-form

As you will know, Islington Council has already applied to the Department for Education to sell the Ashmount site for housing use, bringing in about £3m, but it now fears that Michael Gove could hand over the site to a free school. Two organisations have publicised plans to open a free school on the site, one being a group of Hornsey parents called the Oak School, the other from private educational businesses Palace Group and Bellevue Education. Both groups say they are confident that the existing building can be repaired.

However, there is a recent move for Islington to consider keeping the site by creating a new sixth-form for St. Aloysius College there. At a recent strategy meeting NUT reps from St. Aloysius said they had asked the council to let them use the building for a new sixth-form college so that it would not have to hold lessons in the Archway Methodist Hall, as it does now. A new £17m block at St. Aloysius had left them with even less room and the college is about to submit plans to build a new sixth-form block in its playground.

Islington’s education chief Councillor Richard Watts last week wrote to teachers and union officials in the borough outlining the Council’s argument against a free school, saying that Islington is one of the few London boroughs to have enough school places. He maintains that the old Ashmount building is too decrepit to be repaired and says that if the Council does not receive permission to sell the site then it could enter into discussions with St. Aloysius.

Related articles in the Islington Tribune: 22nd Feb 2013 and 11th Jan 2013

MH 27/2/13

25/2/13 from David Barry, replying to the letter from Francis Wilkinson (below)

25/2/13 from David Barry, Chair of the Ashmount Board of Governors, replying to the open letter from Francis Wilkinson (below)

I welcome Francis Wilkinson’s reply to Richard Watts. It might be the start of a proper public debate. The division of opinion is on the face of it simple. Islington Council in the person of their Executive member for education, Richard Watts, takes the view that there is not, in our area, sufficient demand to justify opening an extra, two form entry, primary school. He publishes in his letter official figures to make his case. Francis says this is not true. There will be sufficient demand in this area for a new, primary school. However unlike Richard Watts he just says this, he does not give us the figures, or their source, on which his calculation is based. This makes it difficult to judge how strong his case is. The answer is simple. Do what Richard Watts did and publish the figures. Then we can all see them. You say you have provided the detailed figures to Islington, so you should have no difficulty in publishing them to the members of WHPARA. By the way when you claim “that over the next 7 years the undersupply of primary school places in this Planning Area is almost exactly the same as the size of Ashmount School (just under 300 children)”.
This is certainly wrong, as the capacity of Ashmount is 420 children. This is the size of a “two form entry” school. Ashmount takes in two classes of 30 children into reception, that is, 60 children. And yes, children take seven years to go through Primary School, so the total is seven times sixty, which is 420. Your failure to get this bit of arithmetic right does not, I fear, help your credibility. All the more reason why, in order to evaluate your argument, we need to see the figures on which your conclusions are based. If, on the other hand you decline, as you have done before, to publish your figures, then we can draw our own conclusions.

Regarding the building little need be said; the building, due to age, and the properties of the glass and metal of which it is built, is falling apart. It is also, for today’s requirements, sub standard. Tritton Miller set out what needed to be done to stop it from falling apart, and the millions of pounds this would cost. So after spending millions on the refurb you would have a building that was not falling down, but was still substandard (and the most expensive to heat for its floor area in London, a bill that can only rise). So it is not that refurbishing is impossible, but I cannot think it wise.

David Barry Dresden Road

19/2/13 from Francis Wilkinson, Chair of ASAG

19/2/13 from Francis Wilkinson, Chair of ASAG , in an email to the Chair of WHPARA responding to Richard Watts’s letter (below)
I write as one Chair to another.

Thank you for forwarding the letter from Councillor Richard Watts to Islington NUT. There is some politics behind this:

The NUT is against free schools as those schools are not part of national pay bargaining for teachers so reduce the NUT’s power, as they see it.
The local NUT will therefore tend to support Islington’s opposition to a free school on the site.
Councillor Watts is of course constrained in his views by the Council Executive’s decision to declare the school site surplus to educational requirements, so he has to justify that (we say perverse) decision.

As to the detail of Councillor Watts’ letter: he is using the Council’s 2011 figures as available at their “Primary and Secondary School Places statistical update - 2011”, which can be downloaded from:

www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/documents/EducationandLearning/schoolgovernors/gov_schoolplaces.pdf.

The figures in Richard Watts’ letter are the totals for the entire borough. What you can see is that the surplus capacity is almost entirely in Planning Area 3 whereas Planning Area 1 (where we are) goes into deficit in 2016.

The local reception classes are already full this year. We have provided detailed figures to Islington showing that over the next 7 years the undersupply of primary school places in this Planning Area is almost exactly the same as the size of Ashmount School (just under 300 children). We chose 7 years because that is the time that a primary school would take to build up to full capacity on the basis that it would take one year of intake each year. Richard Watts has chosen to obfuscate the figures by giving them for the Borough as a whole - unless he is saying that primary school children will travel to the other side of the Borough to go to school. And the Council is certainly not saying that, which would be contrary to its policy for maximum travelling distance for such children.

As to the building, there were (you may recall a Council questionnaire about this about 4 years ago) 3 options for the school: refurbish, redevelop or remove. All 3 were the subject of cost-benefit plans and architects were commissioned to provide detailed reports (which were published and I believe are still available on the ASAG website) as to the viability and cost of refurbishing Ashmount. The refurbishment option of Purcell Miller Tritton (the architects) was in fact the cheapest of the 3 options. Certainly the organisations that have looked over the site and made bids to use it for a free school consider that the school is eminently ‘refurbishable’, if that is a word. It will be a source of embarrassment to Islington (and to David Barry, Chair of Governors at Ashmount) when the School is refurbished, since he continues to go round saying it is impossible, as does Richard Watts in his letter! Both of them know about the Purcell Miller Tritton report, so there is no real excuse.

As to the need for housing, it is unquestioned, but communities are not just made of houses and flats. There also has to be provision for education, among other things. The figures show that Ashmount really is needed for that purpose.

Like Councillor Richard Watts’ letter, this letter too is ‘for circulation as you see fit’. ASAG has no political axe to grind, and contains people of all political persuasions and of none. But we are a bit fed up with the constant misrepresentation of the facts by Islington, which seems to be to try to cope with the fact that the Executive has made such a mess of the decision-making over this school site.

ASAG hopes and believes that the Department for Education will say that a primary school can remain on the Ashmount site. We understand that the decision will not be known for a couple of months yet.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to reply to Councillor Watts’ letter. Do get back to me if there is anything that you feel ought to be explained more fully, or if you would like to discuss the subject.

Yours

Francis Wilkinson Chair, ASAG

18/2/13 from ASAG

18/2/13 from ASAG

Now that Islington has declared the Ashmount site surplus to their educational requirements, the only way of keeping a school there is by Michael Gove giving the site to a free school. Two free school organisations (PLACE and The Oak School) have applied to use the site, though we understand that the Department for Education could choose some other organisation which has applied to open a free school but has not specified this site.

PLACE have asked those who would like to support their bid to say so at www.islingtonfreeprimary.co.uk. The Oak School has a demand survey at www.theoakschool.org.uk. The PLACE bid is for a primary school (as Ashmount School was) and the Oak School for a Steiner School for 4-18 year olds covering a wider catchment area. If you supported the campaign to keep the site as a school then do please visit the sites and record your support.

ASAG believes that the majority local preference is for the site to be a primary school for local children. If you think so you will probably support the PLACE bid.

In any event - and not only if you have pre-school age children - do visit the websites and register your support. It really makes a difference for these schools providers to be able to say that there are plenty of local residents supporting their bid. The process of choosing the school provider is expected to take another couple of months, and every view expressed in support of a bid is important in the decision to be made.

ASAG

8/3/13 Letter from Councillor Richard Watts to the NUT

Open letter from Councillor Richard Watts to the National Union of Teachers.

Click here to download the letter as a PDF file.

LBINUT1

LBINUT2