Sweeping it under the carpet?

The Harris Academy Trust accounts are revealing – just a short read and you’ll be shocked when you realise the amounts of public money being spent on redundancy payments and executive pay (£20K annual  pay rise for top man Moynihan). And you thought your taxes were being used to educate children!


Failure of academies policy – as predicted

This is the view from The Observer, 28 January:

“This week, the Observer reveals six out of 10 of the biggest academy trusts have raised serious concerns about a lack of school funding. Schools in England are facing an average 6.5% fall in real per-pupil funding by 2019-20, the steepest cuts since the 1970s. They come on top of the £3bn of annual savings schools need to find in order to counteract the impact of the rising costs of inflation, pensions and recruitment, which the National Audit Office says amounts to a further 8% reduction in per-pupil funding: a massive, under-the-radar decrease in school resources. Little wonder, then, that last year 5,000 headteachers wrote to Philip Hammondwith a “desperate” plea for more cash.

But the alarm bell being sounded by these academy trusts suggests questions that go beyond the funding challenge facing schools. It raises the spectre of what would happen if a major academy chain were to go bust.

Since 2010, the main thrust of government schools policy has been to convert council-run schools into academies run by independent trusts. More than half of secondary schools are now academies, a huge structural reorganisation that dwarfs anything that has gone before. The basis of the government’s school improvement policy is that poorly performing schools should be taken over by high-performing academy chains.

But converting huge numbers of schools into academies has not achieved anything other than removing them from local democratic accountability. There is no evidence that, on average, academy chains do any better at managing schools than the local authorities they replaced. Instead, the reforms have created a structural mess, opening up profound gaps in accountability and governance.”

‘Casts doubt…’ = what many of us have known from the start

Today’s startling (!) figures reveal what many of us have known from the very start. There is no magic bullet when it comes to school improvement. More MATs are , apparently, overseeing schools performing below average than above. So it’s difficult for ‘orphan schools’ to find  a MAT that can support them. Is an appropriate response to this staggering revelation ‘Duh!’?


Multi-academy trusts: not all they’re cracked up to be

If you are a ‘community school’ (that is, you are a Local Authority school rather than a ‘stand-alone’ academy or part of a Multi=Academy Trust), THINK very carefully before you change your status, if you have any say in the matter.


We’re here – and so is NUAST

You don’t need to know why we’ve been dormant for six months or so – six months in which so much has happened on the national and international stage – suffice it to say we are back and there’s no shortage of things to talk about!

First off has to be NUAST. You all know that the Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology is something we have always opposed: built with £10,000,000 of OUR money on a site next to a very busy roundabout with the major A52 ‘flying over’. It was built with a capacity of 800 as a 14-19 specialist ‘free school’ in Science, Maths, Technology and Engineering. For more details see our many previous blog posts.

One of our main criticisms was that we didn’t see how the academy could hope to recruit enough students, especially at the end of Key Stage 3 when parents and students do NOT traditionally think about changing schools. For them to do so could harm the continuity of their education and of course disrupt the forward-planning of the schools they might choose to leave.

Turns out we were right! By the November of its second year (2015), the Year 11 cohort at NUAST, after quite a few ‘comings and goings’, was set at around 60/61; the Year 13 (Upper Sixth) group was even fewer, down below 20 (we think around 19) after a sizeable proportion had left during the first year. The next ‘wave’ consisted of fewer than 50 in the then Year 10, with, it has to be said, a reasonable number of students into the Sixth Form (Year 12, November 2015). NB These figures reflect information supplied by the academy following Freedom of Information requests.

So, as we expected – and predicted – the sums have not added up. To reach even half capacity NUAST would need to be recruiting 120 or so into Year 10 (rolling through without loss to Year 11), and perhaps 60 into the Sixth Form (Year 12 – again, rolling through without loss to Year 13) consistently. It clearly cannot see that happening and would therefore be in breach of its targets with a risk of the school being lost and turned over to someone else (probably a Multi-Academy Trust – MAT).

NUAST governors (or ‘Board of Directors’ as they are tellingly called) are  therefore proposing a radical change, namely turning the specialist ‘free’ school into an 11-19 mainstream secondary school. These proposals are currently out for consultation – we intend to make a submission (which we have already drafted) and urge anyone else with an interest to do so too, by the deadline of 31 January. We will shortly publish our draft response here but in the meantime, here is a summary of the concerns we have:

  1. Sustainability – what evidence is there that the current parlous state of recruitment will be changed by the ‘conversion’?
  2. Health and Safety at the current site – lack of ‘playground’ facilities for younger children, insufficient ‘spillout’ area for large numbers of children coming and going en masse near a very busy roundabout and surrounding roads, dangerous levels of fumes caused by vehicles entering and leaving the roundabout and accelerating/slowing down to leave or join the A52.
  3. Gender imbalance – currently boys outnumber girls 70/30 – an ongoing problem in STEM subjects – what is NUAST’s plan to address this?
  4. Teaching and Learning – there is no evidence of even a satisfactory level of teaching and learning. As yet the academy has received no OFSTED visit – they have attempted to ‘spin’ last summer’s first GCSE and A level results but in fact the GCSE performance (from a cohort of around 60) was average at best and probably below students’ target expectations based on prior attainment. Any attempt to extrapolate from 2016 results, especially for the Sixth Form with a cohort of about 20, is highly dubious.
  5. Capacity to offer a full mainstream curriculum – the current site offers very poor facilities for teaching PE – it is not clear from the consultation document what NUAST will do to ensure it has the facilities and teaching expertise to offer arts, humanities and languages across five years – the evidence (such as it is) from last year’s results shows that only 3% of students achieved the EBacc.
  6. Ongoing collaborations – it is unclear from the plans how businesses and the University of Nottingham will have ongoing input. Whilst this was offered as a ‘unique feature’ of NUAST, our anecdotal evidence from some students,  is that this input so far has been no better than some other local secondary schools have regularly achieved through good liaison over years. Further, the involvement of the Torch Academy Gateway Trust was set to develop through a ‘merger’ which would also include the Djanogly group, which was initially closely involved in the setting up and running of NUAST. How will that affect the future of NUAST?
  7. Cost – one of our biggest criticisms was the initial cost of NUAST and, in the light of its failure to reach a viable level of recruitment, we presume, continued funding above the level justified by the number on roll. Whilst it could be argued that the proposed ‘conversion’ is aimed at reaching those viable numbers, we foresee a further injection of money will be needed for internal alterations (and perhaps purchase and conversion of outdoor space), staff recruitment and staff training. At a time of real-terms cuts to school funding across the board, how can pumping more money into this school be justified?
  8. Impact on other local schools – NUAST has a history of spendthrift advertising (glossy leaflets to thousands of homes, side of bus advertising, a tram in NUAST livery, newspaper advertising) and of aggressive marketing outside what is currently being seen as its ‘catchment’ area. At best, this marketing can be unsettling and a distraction to other local schools, at worst, if successful, it can affect their forward planning and funding.

Recruitment at NUAST

Hands Off Our Schools has just issued this Press Release:

Press Release 9 January 2016 IMMEDIATE

A campaign group is claiming that recruitment to Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology (NUAST) is “chaotic”, with low and fluctuating recruitment and a significant drop-out rate, that are putting the school at “serious risk of failure”. Secretary of Nottingham-based ‘Hands Off Our Schools’, Colin Tucker, has obtained details of the numbers of students recruited and retained, via ‘Freedom of Information’ requests.

“These show that the school only managed to recruit 67 students into its Year 10 in September 2014, of whom 14 left during the year; others apparently joined and by the beginning of this academic year (November 2015) there were 61 in that cohort. Recruitment into a school whose buildings weren’t even open might be expected to be poor – but it was even poorer during 2015 and the number in the NEW Year 10 (November 2015) is only 48!” explained Mr Tucker.

He went on, “The drop-out rate in Year 12 – first year Sixth Form – was very high. They started with 35 in September 2014 but by November of this year, that had dwindled to just 19! (in Year 13). All the more surprising, then, that numbers in the current Year 12 are high with 92 students. Recruitment is, frankly, all over the place – it’s chaotic. They clearly don’t know from one year to the next how many students they’re likely to have.” During the first academic year, according to NUAST 6 teaching staff also left. “I’m not clear if this figure includes the Principal, Mr Sohel, who suddenly disappeared in July, just before the end of term,” added Mr Tucker.

The ‘HOOS’ group supports schools that serve and connect to their local communities, and campaigns against forced academisation and so-called ‘free’ schools (NUAST is a hybrid of a new academy and a ‘free’ school). Mr Tucker says they have analysed the figures. “It always seemed likely to us that NUAST would struggle to persuade students to leave their current school at the end of Year 9 and that is borne out by the figures,” he said. “Whereas, students traditionally decide at the end of Year 11, after GCSEs, whether to stay in their current school’s Sixth Form or to go elsewhere, perhaps to a specialist Sixth Form College. On the basis of these figures, we can predict that NUAST – which we think is at serious risk of failure overall – may well end up trying to be a Sixth Form-only institution. In which case, it has failed to carry out its purpose. However, we know from staff and parents of established local Sixth Form colleges, such as Bilborough, that they are under capacity and struggling for funds. We can also see that, in three of its four year groups, NUAST is a long way from viable, and can only keep going with heavy subsidies from the tax-payer. ‘HOOS’ has consistently said that the money lavished on NUAST – the original building alone cost £10 million – could have been spent far more efficiently on enhancing facilities and teaching at existing schools.”


At the turn of the year…

It has to be said right from the start that 2015 has not been a good year for those of us who defend publicly-accountable education. Obviously the election was a big blow and, although a Labour victory would hardly have heralded the end of campaigning, the Conservatives in government on their own, spells real trouble. The recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader has led to a change of heart in the Opposition who have finally come out unequivocally against ‘free’ schools and academies but that will be of little consequence if the Conservative ‘project’ is fully entrenched by 2020,  before any conceivable Labour-led administration can begin to undo the mess.

‘Mess’ is undoubtedly the right word. It has been obvious to many of us from the word go – back in 2010 – and should be crystal clear to everyone else by now, that the Conservatives are intent on changing a publicly-funded and publicly-accountable state education system into a fragmented and privatised (albeit ‘quasi’ privatised) one, but still supported entirely from the public purse. Gove and now Morgan have ignored and brushed aside any objection or evidence-based argument against their relentless drive. We have said many times before but it is worth stating again, in the most straightforward of language: there is no evidence that turning schools into academies makes them any better, or that ‘free’ schools perform better than their Local Authority equivalents. 

The Conservatives are running a two-track policy: on the one hand, teachers and other education professionals are attacked and undermined, not just for their opinions or attitudes but at the most basic level in terms of funding, salaries, pensions and so forth, leading  not only to public confusion and apathy but also to the diversion of union energy from the existential fight over the purpose of our education system. The Conservatives therefore present themselves and their policies as improving so-called under performing schools and teachers: a crusade against children having to languish in failing schools. Meanwhile, their policies stealthily remove schools from local and parental accountability and effect changes to the GCSE syllabuses, even the exam’s grading system (from A* to G to 1-9) and the abolition of the use of National Curriculum levels (chaos and confusion now reigns as no-one seems to know how to communicate attainment to parents or fellow professionals). As so often with any recent government, and certainly with one headed by Cameron, PR is high on the agenda. The most important consideration is, how can we make it appear to the general public? Hence, for example, Troops to Teachers, the approval of the Sevenoaks ‘grammar school’, The National Teacher Service.

Over at OFSTED, Wilshaw appears to plough an independent furrow and occasionally to contradict government policy. Yet his and his organisation’s malign influence is fundamentally assisting in the whole scheme. The changes in the criteria for inspecting schools and judging good from bad have led to caricatures, whereby schools everyone locally knows to be perfectly OK, are damned. Perhaps the cleverest, but most nefarious, move was for Wilshaw to start talking (in his annual report) of the numbers of students in schools that were ‘failing’. In a simple stroke, having reclassified ‘satisfactory’ as ‘requires improvement’. Wilshaw was able to give the impression that hundreds of thousands of children were being badly let down.

Locally, we have campaigned against two local academisations of primary schools (Beeston Fields and Edwalton) and, with the use of Freedom of Information, tried to expose their scandalously pitiful ‘consultation’. The fact that they can so easily get away with this means that, right though campaigners were to rail against Morgan’s removal of even this skimpy veil from the new measures to fast-track academisation, in reality, it makes little difference. We have got the evidence but no-one in the media seems interested – even our local paper didn’t pick it up. Even worse, when we thought we’d got a proper ‘scandal’ (the hasty departure of the Principal of the Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology just before the end of the academic year), the local press – despite requesting and getting our FOI information – let them off the hook.

So, is it all doom and gloom? It does look that way – the only prospect we can see of anything changing soon,  is if the wheels start to come off the ‘Gove-Morgan Project’. There has been a steady stream recently of stories about teacher shortages from a number of sources that are hard to argue against, as these represent the real experiences of head teachers in real schools. The DfE response – that there are more teachers now than ever – seems pretty thin. How long before the shortage raises practical problems and impacts on real students and their parents? In addition, some time in the next two or three years, GCSE results will start to appear in large numbers from enforced academies and ‘free’ schools so that campaigners will be able to demonstrate trends – though these will be hotly contested and ‘spun’ by government apologists – to replace the anecdotes of poor practice we mainly have at the moment.

As 2015 ends, a story reaches us of a mother and son in the teaching profession. The mother loves it so much she was planning to keep going beyond what many would consider a sensible retirement age. That was until a new head arrived in September. Within weeks, all staff had been told they weren’t good enough (they were ‘Good’ at a recent inspection!) and everything is being changed (even an internal wall is being knocked down, courtesy of one of the Head’s builder mates). She apologies to friends that she had barely had time to write Christmas cards in the last few weeks, so busy had she been re-writing schemes, plans etc. Needless to say, she’s retiring at the next available opportunity! Meanwhile, her son, at the start of his career, and into his second year, simply handed in his notice and left at Christmas with nothing else to go to. He cited the mountain of paperwork and a culture of bullying in his highly successful academy as being to blame. There it is, in microcosm: good people being chased away or burned out for the sake of ideological dogma.

UPDATE to ‘NUAST Factfile’

Checking the NUAST website, we note that their staffing DOES now list a teacher of History (the new Head of Post-16) and a teacher of Modern Foreign Languages (the latter being the existing Vice-Principal who previously had no subject specialism against her name).

We note also the Principal’s claim that NUAST has doubled in size this September, which sounds impressive but, since this is their second year and students are following two-year courses, it means they have only recruited the same numbers as last year. If, therefore, for example, about seventy joined Year 10 this year and the existing 70 (round figures) rolled through into Year 11, and, similarly in Year 12/13, the total number on roll would be around 190. Since the Year 11s and the Year 13s will be leaving at the end of this academic year (2015-16), this would suggest NUAST cannot expect to go much beyond around 200 unless they manage to vastly increase their recruitment next year. No doubt they will be leaning on Year 11s to progress into the Sixth Form. NOTE These figures are ’round’ and estimates,  based on known figures in 2014-15 and the Principal’s remark.

So, round figures, estimates, but,  if we’re in the right ‘ball park’,  NUAST is, surely, non-viable and currently a very inefficient user of public funds.

Incidentally, we looked in vain on the website for results of external examinations which will have been received over the Summer and which would have been the first evidence of the quality of teaching and learning at NUAST. They’re not there.

The NUAST Fact File

As a result of our Freedom of Information requests to the Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology and our further research, we are able to publish the following ‘fact file’. Information given in this document is taken from the FoI responses and from our research into publicly-available documents and on-line sources. There is a degree of interpretation and comment as well but we think it is clear where we are stating ‘facts’ and where we are conjecturing or commenting. If anyone wishes to challenge anything included here they are welcome to comment via the ‘Contribute’ button on the home page of this website. We will publish unedited any such comment.

“The NUAST Fact File

The following is based on: responses to Freedom of Information requests and research using publicly-available on-line documents and websites.

Setting up NUAST

The Nottingham Academy of Science and Technology was set up during 2013 and 2014, and opened in borrowed premises in September 2015, moving into the brand new facilities in Dunkirk in December 2015. According to its own figures, the academy opened with barely 100 students (102 to be precise). During the setting up period, the original principal, Ailsa Gough ‘left’ to be replaced by Harikreet Sohel.


It is generally accepted that the new building cost around £10 million. It has cost a further, unknown, amount of money to equip the building. In addition, NUAST will have had to pay for teaching and non-teaching staff and the usual running costs of any significant building and institution. A further unknown but substantial amount has been spent on publicity which has included glossy leaflets delivered door-to-door in parts of the ‘catchment’ area, hoardings on buses in the area and, recently, at least one tram on the new Line 2 which passes close to the academy, painted in NUAST ‘livery’. As far as we are aware, all of these costs have been borne by the public purse. Obviously, with its ’Funding Agreement’ with the DfE, NUAST will have received more than the ‘per capita’ allowance a local community school would be granted. It can therefore be argued with certainty that NUAST is not currently ‘good value for money’ and it is unclear when in the future it could be considered so.

Student Numbers

According to NUAST’s responses to our FOI requests, the numbers on roll and who subsequently left are as follows (NB In response to our FoI requests two separate disclosures have been made and the numbers given do differ slightly.)

Year 10 – there were 67 students registered at the start of the year (41 male, 26 female) and 14 of those left during the year (9 male, 5 female)

According to NUAST 10 students overall (not broken down by Key Stage or gender) joined the academy during the year.

NUAST told us that the final number on roll in Year 10 was 65 (however, taking into account the two separate responses, we believe the number could not have been higher than 63).

Year 12 – there were 35 students registered at the start of the year (28 male, 7 female) and 10 left during the year (6 male, 4 female)

NUAST told us that the final number on roll in Year 12 was 23 (although, of course, this does not quite tally with what NUAST also told us in the ‘break down’ of student numbers, above).

We do not believe that NUAST has deliberately misled us over these numbers but there is a clear discrepancy. However, the following can be stated:

There was considerable flux during the year, with more than a fifth of the Year 10 student body leaving during the year and up to one third of the Sixth Form leaving. Whilst movement of students in and out is likely to occur in any school, these sorts of proportions are very high. The figures on student numbers, where the school started with 102 students in two year groups and ended with fewer than 90; linked with the flux in staff and the sudden disappearance of the principal two weeks before the end of the school year, paint a picture of a volatile learning environment which cannot be in the best interests of students.

It is also noted that, broadly speaking, males outnumbered females 2 : 1, with, it would appear, only three girls left in the Sixth Form by the end of the year!

The appointment of a number of new teachers for September, indicates what the Chair of the Board of Directors, calls a “sharp rise” in the number of students.


According to NUAST’s FOI response, it lost 6 staff during the year. We are not sure whether or not this includes the principal, Mr Sohel. Currently, 21 teaching staff are listed on the NUAST website but we believe approximately 12 or 13 were being shown on the website during the 2014-15 academic year. If that is correct, very nearly half the teaching staff will have left during the year. We assume the addition of 8 or so staff for the start of the new academic year anticipates a greater influx of students. We are concerned that six staff having been replaced during the year and an additional 8 or so having been added to start in September, indicates an instability in teaching staff which cannot be to the benefit of students.

There are currently no teachers of languages and no teachers of humanities subjects listed on the NUAST website. (Mr Sohel was the sole teacher of History and he appears not to have been replaced – what, therefore, of those students in Year 10 who started a GCSE History course last year, when they move into Year 11 this year?) This means that no NUAST students can achieve the government benchmark ‘EBacc’ qualification which requires, in addition to good passes in English, Maths and Science, good passes in a language and a humanities subject.


Despite its short life, NUAST is now on its third principal. The first principal, Ailsa Gough, left without explanation, in May/June 2014 to be replaced by Harikreet Sohel. This was around the time that the Torch Academy Gateway Trust was engaged to ‘provide’ the teaching. We can only conclude that those managing NUAST in its setting-up phase were worried about Mrs Gough’s lack of experience in mainstream secondary education.

Bizarre though it is for a principal of a new institution to leave even before it has opened, Mr Sohel’s departure was, if anything, even more so. The sequence of events was:

  • 10 July – in a regular letter to parents, signed by Mr Sohel, he ‘looked forward’ to seeing parents at the Parents Evening on 13 July;
  • 13 July – Mr Sohel did not appear at the Parents Evening;
  • 14 July – students were told that Mr Sohel had left (source: anonymous message to HOOS from a Year 10 parent);
  • 15 July – letter to parents announcing Mr Sohel’s departure and the appointment of a new principal – it gave a fairly lame explanation for Mr Sohel’s sudden departure and introduced the new principal, Robert White.

NUAST’s attempts to ‘explain’ the sudden departure of Mr Sohel do not adequately explain the sequence of events; on the appointment of Mr White, there are some further questions for governors to answer concerning the speed and thoroughness of the process.

If Mr Sohel’s departure had been planned, he would probably have had to give notice at the end of May. Adverts for the post would have been drawn up and placed and candidates given time to visit the school and then complete their applications. It is unlikely that interviews of candidates currently ‘in post’ could have taken place in sufficient time to allow them to give the required notice to their existing employer. Members of HOOS who have experience of this know that, in all probability, an interim principal would have had to be appointed – but maybe that’s what Mr White is. Research into his publicly-available professional profile indicates that he is well-qualified in the Product Design and Engineering field, as an examiner, writer of text books and study materials, and as a consultant particularly to University Technical Colleges. However, it appears Mr White has never worked at a high level within a school or college; nor does his on-line profile indicate that he has taught at secondary level or even that he is actually a qualified teacher. However, in a letter dated 23 July, on the NUAST website, the Chair of the Board of Directors, John Saunders, says Mr White has “taught engineering at three local schools”. We would be interested to know what his experience of teaching in a secondary school consists of.


NUAST is governed by a board of 12 directors; the response to our recent Freedom of Information request (June, 2015) reveals that there are no staff representatives on the board. Our research has revealed that the Board is made up largely of business representatives, the Chief Executive of Torch Academy Gateway Learning Trust, two members of the Nottingham University Council (including an academic, Professor Hall). Five members of the Board are closely associated with the Djanogly Learning Trust and there are two parents. (For a more detailed analysis of the members of the Board, visit the post at our website at http://nottsantiacademies.org/2015/07/23/who-is-running-nuast/)

Five directors resigned between June 2014 and September 2014, including the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University, Prof. O’Hara, another representative of the University, Dr. O’Neill, the former Principal, Mrs Gough, Mr Anderson, a former City Banker employed by RBS and Mr Butler Chief Executive of Djanogly Learning Trust.

We note that the Djanogly Learning Trust is currently barred ny the Deparment for Education from opening any further secondary academies following the poor OFSTED rating of the Djanogly Academy (a ‘rule’ that doesn’t appear to apply to NUAST!). One ‘director’ was a former employee of Toshiba. So, whilst the University and Djanogly Trust are well-represented as, to a certain extent, is local business, the broader business partnerships so trumpeted by NUAST are barely represented, it is unclear how the wider ‘community’ is represented and the staff, not at all. It is also unclear to what extent these directors are appointed to represent their institutions or ‘constituencies’ or are simply ‘volunteers’.


We understand that NUAST was set up to offer specialist courses but we are concerned that, if students wish to leave part-way through a two-year course, they will have difficulty finding another school or college offering the same course. Our other concern is that NUAST’s original ‘offer’ suggested that students would be able to take a language and a humanity in order to achieve the EBacc. Currently, there are no language or humanities teachers on the staff, so students will be unable to pursue this. We believe all students should, to 16, have a broad and balanced curriculum. Even more worrying is that during 2014-15, Year 10 students started a GCSE History course which, with the sudden departure of the only History teacher, Mr Sohel, it appears they will be unable to complete.

More generally, there must be a question about the quality of teaching and learning hanging over NUAST. We do not wish to disparage the qualifications or competence of anyone. After all, like prospective students and their parents, we have no way of judging this. The academy will have received its first set of results in recent weeks (AS and Cambridge Nationals) and when these are available on the website they will be the first indication of the academy’s standards. Other than that, NUAST intriguingly says on its website that “the educational provision will be delivered by the Torch Academy Gateway Trust”. We have to confess we don’t entirely understand what that means: does Torch write the curriculum, oversee appointments, provide the teachers, monitor the quality of the provision? Further, the website claims that “As education partners, the [Torch] Trust will deliver exceptional educational support…” Interesting word ‘exceptional’ and, we note, it’s ‘educational support’ that Torch provides. Overall, we think the wording is intended to imply that the education at NUAST is ‘excellent’ without actually saying so, since, clearly, that cannot be backed up by any evidence.


We have provided as much information as we can, with a certain degree of interpretation, and, to our minds, what emerges is a volatile teaching and learning environment in which students leave, staff leave, directors leave, principals leave and the directors try to paper over the cracks.

Large sums of money have been spent on this institution (including sums on advertising which would not have been available to local community schools) – public money which the public has no way of monitoring.

Neither does the public generally – nor the local community in particular – have any way of holding the principal and directors to account for the quality of provision.

Signs from the school indicate that, despite the apparent shortcomings, NUAST is set to increase its numbers in September. We confess ourselves to be baffled by this and will continue to campaign and spread information about NUAST as our modest attempt to hold its managers and governors to account.”