New details have emerged of how UCL reached a backroom deal with Camden council to set up a local school that has caused a storm of protest.

A High Court judge has reserved judgement in advance of ruling whether to block UCL’s city academy proposals following a court case in which UCL and Camden council’s conduct has come under intense scrutiny.

A case was lodged at the High Court by Leigh Day and Co on behalf of parents Juliet Prew and Deseline Djiayep.

The parent group argued that information about UCL’s bid was not made public and that UCL management bullied Camden councillors into supporting its bid to run the academy.

The parents also claimed that Camden council broke both UK and EU law by not allowing the contract for the city academy to be opened to tender.

If the judge upholds the complaints, UCL’s plans could be scuppered, embarrassing its management which boasted about the academy at this summer’s graduation ceremonies.

Camden council allegedly ignored proposals from other parties interested in running the new school, approving UCL’s sponsorship “behind closed doors”.

Rosa Curling of Leigh Day and Co told London Student that if the High Court rules against the academy, “all previous decisions taken by the council will be quashed. They’d have to re-open it to competition.”

Camden council and UCL are finalising plans for the city academy, which will force Frank Barnes, a successful school for deaf children to close.

According to the council, the UCL academy should open in three years, with all parties working on the assumption that the legal challenge will be overcome.

Shocked

The court case has been a blow-by-blow account of potentially illegal private negotiations between UCL and the council.

UCL initiated backroom talks with education chiefs as far back as 2005. The then Labour-run council batted away UCL’s advances and asked the college to “support all schools in Camden”.

Barrister David Wolfe, leading this potentially landmark challenge, said that a year passed without any more announcements.

But the situation changed when a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition seized power from Labour in the May 2006 local elections.

Mr Wolfe told the High Court: “The council was no doubt excited by the attractiveness of the proposal. There was a huge shift in tone in enthusiasm for developing an academy in Camden.”

In 2006 former schools minister Lord Adonis, architect of the national Labour government’s academy program, met with new council leader Keith Moffitt to discuss the UCL proposal.

Mr Wolfe told the court: “Discussions were taking place at the highest level. The council was made aware that the government expectation was that Camden should have an academy.”

He added that all parties were ready to sign on the dotted line until Council lawyers pointed out the process might be illegal.

He said the Education Act 2006 required the council to invite bids from other sponsors in a formal process.

Yet interest from both the Church of England, which runs 147 schools in London, and the educational charity Absolute Return for Kids (Ark), which runs six, were ignored in favour of UCL – which runs none.

Freedom of Information requests made by local paper Camden New Journal revealed that Ark had informed the council of “their strong interest in working with Camden to establish an academy in the borough” adding that: “We would be ready to make a commitment very quickly.”

The High Court heard that discussions were shut down “because at the time there had been extensive discussions with UCL.”

The Church of England was also rebuffed. In January last year the Diocese of London, backed up by a petition with 1,900 signatures, presented its formal registration of interest in running the academy.

Yet Mr Wolfe told the court that the council feared that opening the contract to competition would threaten UCL’s participation:  “A dichotomy was set up: it was either a UCL academy or the competition route. And the council did not want the competition.”

The Diocese of London claimed it hadn’t been sent the consultation document and was “puzzled” as to why it had been ignored.

But Cllr John Bryant revealed the reason in an address to local Lib Dem supporters. According to evidence heard in the High Court, blundering Bryant said: “There are big risks in proceeding with a competition for our new school. We would delay the possibility of having any evidence of any building work on Adelaide Road at the time of the next election.”

Just weeks later UCL was named preferred sponsor at the council’s cabinet meeting.

UCL’s press office and UCL Vice-Provost Michael Worton both declined to comment on the case.

 Upsetting the neighbours

 
In a letter to the Guardian UCL Provost Malcolm Grant stated: “A major institution such as UCL cannot exist in a vacuum. It has a role to play in its local community.”

Yet as far as the city academy is concerned this role seems to be playing fast and loose with the law and upsetting everyone in Camden.

The list of people upset with UCL:

• The National Union of Teachers has raised concerns that the new £35 million building and links with a leading university will “cream off” the best pupils and teachers from nearby schools.
• UCL students submitted a motion to UCL Union because of the negative effect they believe the city academy will have on relations between UCL and the local community. The motion won indicative support at UCL Union’s general meeting.
• The Camden branch of the Campaign for State Education argues that as academies are governed by a funding agreement between the sponsor and the Government, they are not accountable to local communities.
• The Church of England and educational charity Ark believe they were ignored in the decision making process.
• Holborn and St Pancras Secondary School Campaign. Residents who need a secondary school for their children living south of the Euston Road in King’s Cross, Bloomsbury, Holborn and Covent Garden believe the academy will mean there is no money for their much needed school.
• Frank Barnes School for the Deaf – this successful school is set to be closed and demolished to make way for UCL’s city academy.

“We can look after ourselves thank-you very much.”

London Student takes a look at Haverstock School, which UCL Vice-Provost Michael Worton labelled a “recipe for mediocrity”

• Situated 1.4 miles from site of proposed academy. Likely to lose gifted staff and students to new academy.
• Students come from a wide range of backgrounds and the socioeconomic context of the school shows pockets of significant deprivation
• The proportion of students entitled to free school meals (an indicator of poverty) is well above average.
• Over half of the students are members of minority groups, with many having a first language other than English.
• The proportion of students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities is approximately twice the national average, as is the proportion with a statement of special educational needs.

Yet a recent Ofsted inspection found:

• “Haverstock School offers its students a good education.”
• “Given the level of improvements made in recent years and the strong planning that exists, the capacity for further improvement is outstanding.”
• “The headteacher has an inspirational and determined approach to school improvement.”
• “The desire to attain excellence permeates the work of the school..”
• “Students are well prepared for life in a modern and ethnically diverse society. They are taught to respect differing backgrounds and religious viewpoints.”
• “Through an outstanding curriculum with a rich range of opportunities to match students’ aspirations and capabilities, the school promotes a great sense of community.”