The role of the New Schools Network in the Government’s flagship free schools policy is distinctly murky. The newly-formed charity was awarded £500,000 in June 2010 to “give the free schools policy a vigorous kick start”, in the words of the Department for Education. Its role is to bring together and provide independent advice to groups hoping to set up their own schools. Any organisation whose role is to steer groups through the process of setting up a school, including introducing donors to parents, can have a major impact on children’s education. So it is no surprise that questions have surfaced about the NSN. Yet getting answers is proving difficult.
Taxpayers’ groups, education campaigners, fellow Labour MP Tom Watson and I have all independently sought to understand the role of the NSN, its links to government and private donors, in order to establish beyond doubt that it is genuinely independent. The concerns are obvious. The NSN was set up in December 2009 by Michael Gove’s former special advisor, and relies on the help of more former Gove aides.
At a time when the Government is committed to cutting back on the use of consultants, it is curious that this relatively new and unknown pressure group has been given such a key role in bringing radically new schools into being. Initially, the NSN was the mandatory route for parents hoping to set up free schools. However, after questions were raised, the DfE clarified it as simply the “preferred route” and amended departmental guidance. Yet the NSN is still the only organisation that people are directed to for advice by the DfE, so its independence is crucial.
The New Schools Network is a fierce advocate of free schools. It has lobbied for them along the lines of the Swedish model since it was established just six months before the general election. Yet the evidence about free schools and their benefits is extremely mixed. The former director of the national agency for education in Sweden says free schools have led to “increasing segregation and decreasing results”, but the view offered by the NSN is much more positive. This may be of concern to those seeking an impartial assessment of whether to establish a free school on the basis of evidence, not ideology.
Of more concern is the secrecy surrounding the NSN’s donors. The Government has confirmed that free schools will be not-for-profit (although they will be able to subcontract services to profit-making companies). Even if this remains the position, it will be important that those who donate to the NSN do not exert influence over the advice it gives. Gove told the Education Select Committee: “I presume that its funding is in accordance with charity law.” However, he did not appear to know who its donors are. Without this information, how can he be satisfied the NSN is able to give genuinely independent advice and that its donors’ aims do not conflict with those of groups looking to establish schools? I am still waiting for an answer.
Even more disconcerting is how the NSN came to be awarded its funding and how the timescale – just one month after the election – has allowed scope for other groups to express an interest. At the Education Select Committee, Gove said it seemed appropriate to award the contract to the NSN because other potential and appropriate organisations already received government funding. I have, as yet, been unable to discover whether he or his officials followed any kind of tendering process or kept to his own department’s guidance on awarding public contracts. However, Nick Gibb, a minister in Gove’s department has confirmed there is no formal funding agreement with the NSN.
By convention, parliamentary questions are normally answered within two weeks. I have been asking questions in the House of Commons since July and am still waiting for answers to some fundamental questions. Who authorised the NSN funding? Will the Education Secretary publish the business case NSN submitted? What criteria were used to award the contract (if a contract was issued)? Did the Education Secretary follow his department’s guidance or public regulations on procurement and public contracts? Did anyone else tender for the contract? Is there any mechanism for ensuring there are no financial conflicts of interest? It has been so difficult to get a response that I have resorted to tabling questions to find out when the questions will be answered.
In the meantime, the Government has announced that 16 free schools will open next September, two of which are to be run by a not-for-profit organisation, ARK, which is represented on the board of the NSN. Yet Freedom of Information requests to discover whether groups driven by profit motives also fund the NSN have stalled, according to the Other Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Gove and his officials may have followed an open process to award a contract to the NSN in the knowledge that it is best placed to offer genuinely impartial advice to groups hoping to establish free schools. If that is the case, I urge the Government to prove it. The ATL union suggests the Government’s real goal is to privatise state education, using taxpayers’ money. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, the unanswered questions are at the heart of what sort of administration this coalition intends to be. We deserve some answers.
Lisa Nandy is Labour MP for Wigan
