Toby Young with Boris Johnson and school pupils at the opening of his West London Free School in 2011. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The £1.1bn question: should we have the right to know why some schools succeed and others don’t?

My teacher friend requested information about free schools from the DfE under FoI law. After a year and a half of appeals ruling in her favour, the DfE still refuses to release the information. Now it’s going to court. 

By the time you read this, I’ll be in court. No, they haven’t finally caught up with me for that free cross-stitch kit I prised off the front of a sewing magazine in Worcester’s biggest Tesco in 1991 and shoved up my sleeve (although I would like to apologise unreservedly for that). Instead, I will be sitting in the glamorous surroundings of court 12 at Field House in London, exper­iencing something called a first-tier tribunal.

But let’s rewind. The story starts in October 2012, when my old friend Laura Mc­Inerney, a teacher-turned-education PhD student, asked the Department for Education (DfE) a simple question under freedom of information (FoI) law. Could it publish the applications made by everyone who wanted to open a free school and the letters accepting or rejecting them? Similar information had been available prior to 2010 and since the coalition was proposing to spend £1.1bn on the free schools programme, it would surely be in the public interest to see how the money was being spent.

Such disclosure seemed particularly important, given the autonomy of free schools. Outside local authority control, their founders are more able to experiment with their management and curriculums – which can encourage either free-thinking and entrepreneurism, as Michael Gove hopes, or rampant amateurishness and expensive disasters, as their critics allege. The National Audit Office found that £700,000 had been spent on schools that had passed the application stage but never opened and £241m had gone to schools in areas where there was no need for extra places.

The DfE shuffled its feet for a bit, then announced that handing the information over would encourage people to copy the best applications. (Horror!) Worse, scrutiny of the forms could lead to the “embarrassment, harassment or even ridicule of applicant groups”. (Which makes me think: if Gove really wants to protect Toby Young from ridicule, he should have a quiet word with him about how weird it looks to make more than 100 edits to your own Wikipedia page.) The department concluded that these factors outweighed the public interest of releasing the information.

After a year and a half of ever-higher appeals ruling in Laura’s favour, the DfE still refused to release the information. Michael Gove told an education select committee that he would do “everything possible” to stop it. “I do not think that people who made applications on the basis that those applications would be treated in confidence, and who may, if they have been unsuccessful, expose themselves to the risk of intimidation, should be exposed to that risk by my actions,” he told the Labour MP Pat Glass on 18 December 2013.

Here’s the thing: I’m looking at one of the original free school application forms right now and at the end it says: “Please note, all information provided on this form will be published on the Department for Education website . . . Submission of this form will be treated as consent, from both you and anyone else whose personal data is contained in this form, to the sharing of this information, as set out above.” It even mentions that the applications will be subject to FoI law.

I’ve been involved only tangentially up to this point and my role in the court case is to be Laura’s “FoI friend” because she’s representing herself. (I will be passing her notes like they do in Judge John Deed. If she’s lucky, some of them may even be relevant to the case.) But the process has made me remember something that Ben Goldacre – who is also running a campaign for transparency; in his case, the publication of all clinical trial data – once said: “It seems to me that a lot of the most important stuff in this world has a large tedium shield erected around it.”

The principle behind our freedom of information is a beautiful one: that the public interest is usually best served by knowing what our elected representatives are doing with the money we give them. How is any normal person – sorry, Laura, but you know what I mean – supposed to wrestle with the pages of legal arguments riddled with impenetrable jargon I’ve seen generated by this case? The DfE certainly doesn’t seem to think that FoI laws are the domain of the average citizen – one of its arguments is that Laura is “burdensome”. This makes me feel pretty damn burdensome, as it happens. She’s researching a PhD on free schools and is asking for the best available information on free schools. By this logic, every pupil in the country is even now burdening their teacher with their irritating desire for knowledge.

So why does this small, technical fight in a dusty courtroom matter? Because every new government comes to power mouthing platitudes about openness and transparency and then promptly discovers that it would really rather operate in secret, if that’s all the same to you.

Whether you agree with the free schools programme or not, it is a giant experiment – and if it goes wrong, there’s no chance for the children involved simply to start the experiment from scratch. The big bundle of documents we’ll be taking to court includes an Ofsted report on the al-Madinah free school in Derby. Not the one from October 2013 that labelled it “dysfunctional” and inadequate in every category, but the pre-opening report, which raised serious questions about its child protection arrangements, first aiders and fire exits.

Some free schools, such as al-Madinah, will crash and burn. Others will thrive, like the three-quarters that were rated good or outstanding in their first Ofsted inspection. But why would you want to stop anyone from trying to find out which are which as soon as is humanly possible? We’ll find out in court.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 04 June 2014 issue of the New Statesman, 100 days to save Great Britain

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.