James stephenson A successful Conference against City Academies was organised Birmingham NUT and Islington Campaign against Academies on October 8. The 85 delegates attending included representatives from 6 parents action groups, 27 NUT associations, about 15 local campaigns and the campaign CASE.
In the first session Ken Jones from Keele University gave an overview. Pointing out that education was being taken out of the state's hands, he asked how opposition springing up as a reaction in local conditions could be generalised into national opposition to this privatization program.
Richard Hatcher from the University of Central England and Birmingham NUT, intropaigners illustrating the methods being used by academy supporters to substitute PR for proper consultation.
He also demonstrated the negative impact such manoeuvres had on parents.
There were a range of informative reports from about groups round the country. An Islington delegate confirmed that academy supporters are using a DES manual, 'Academies; marketing tool kit.'
He reported that a parents' meeting had been successful because it had been held on the estate where most of them lived. It thwarted the attempts by the academy supporters to stage manage the consultation process.
He also pointed out how sponsors, who in this case were city financiers with no expertise in public services or education.
A Natthe speaker warned of the dangers to national pay and conditions, with city academies being in the forefront of the 'new flexibilities' to fragment
A Lambeth delegate reported the success around Glenbrook primary school, detailing the attempt to take over one of the few green spaces in that part of London whilst cramming 1500 pupils into a smaller unsuitable site elsewhere.
A ballot of parents in the area showed 84 per cent opposed to the proposal.
A parent from South Durham spoke of the city academy to be set up in Alan Milburn's conof two other schools, one of which is in the Prime Minister's Sedgefield constituency and "is one of the best performing schools in the country". The previous day the Times Educational Supplement had reported how schools described as failing by the government and replaced by academies had, in fact been performing satisfactorily.
One London parent, with children at an academy, stressed the importance of continuing to campaign within existing academies because of the attacks on staff conditions and pay levels, but significantly because democratic accountability to parents is weak.
The themes emerging from the reports included: democratic consultation are often counter-productive.
• There is an optimistic feeling about these campaigns.
• The sponsors' weak point is their sensitivity to public scrutiny of their intentions and motives. Their backgrounds must be researched and the information shared.
• The consultation process is where they are at their most vulnerable
• Head teachers are putting pressure on staff in schools threatened with takeover not to speak out.
• Falling rolls are being used as an excuse to establish academies
• The positive arguments about comprehensive education must be emphasised.
• Campaigns need to get started early and mobilise as widely as possible.
• Parent-teacher alliances are important to avoid isolation.
• Campaigns should be action based, imaginative and use humour.
It was agreed to set up a national umbrella group with a steering committee and to participate in other campaigns organized by the TUC, NUT, CASE et al.
Further ideas included: drawing up a campaigning guide; drafting a statement of intent to be signed by as many people as possible and widely publicized; linking up with anti-privatisation groups; campaigning for boycotts against academy sponsors and organising a national demonstration.