All schools being privatised under Tories

[Bold Seagull]

It's dogma that is driving this policy.

Under these proposals, all academies will end up in the hands of 'chain' by 2020, despite there being zero evidence that this will improve education standards. Additionally, there will be no accountability in the running of the schools, no obligation to set standards, employ qualified teachers, nor to tell people what standards have been achieved.

If the goals of improving education are not being sought, why are the doing this?

If that's not dogmatic, I don't know what it.

Common sense is to allow those who know what they're doing to continue with what is best, and not put it in the hands of those with a vested interest which doesn't include better education.

We're now starting to see some longer term data from this 'academy' project, and there is nothing to suggest it improves education or results in anyway. In fact in many cases it is the academies that are struggling.

 

[Hastings gull]

It's dogma that is driving this policy.

Under these proposals, all academies will end up in the hands of 'chain' by 2020, despite there being zero evidence that this will improve education standards.
If the goals of improving education are not being sought, why are the doing this? Additionally, there will be no accountability in the running of the schools, no obligation to set standards, employ qualified teachers, nor to tell people what standards have been achieved.

If that's not dogmatic, I don't know what it.

Common sense is to allow those who know what they're doing to continue with what is best, and not put it in the hands of those with a vested interest which doesn't include better education.

I think you have misunderstood what was mentioned. I was responding to a post who would be happy with whatever system works best. I did not give unequivocal support to this proposal, as I am sure there are good academies and good maintained schools. I don't think the same could be said for yourself. Your very sweeping statements about academies says it all - how on earth can you possibly be in a position to make such a statement, as highlighted? I work with governing bodies in both academies and maintained schools, and can quite honestly say that I have encountered little difference in the high level of professionalism shown. The picture you portray of academies in which I work is totally inaccurate.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It's dogma that is driving this policy.

Under these proposals, all academies will end up in the hands of 'chain' by 2020, despite there being zero evidence that this will improve education standards. Additionally, there will be no accountability in the running of the schools, no obligation to set standards, employ qualified teachers, nor to tell people what standards have been achieved.

If the goals of improving education are not being sought, why are the doing this?

If that's not dogmatic, I don't know what it.

Common sense is to allow those who know what they're doing to continue with what is best, and not put it in the hands of those with a vested interest which doesn't include better education.

In my wifes case when the school turned in to academies they got a brand new school built. That's a positive. Are we all not about saving the government money when another spends too much?

 

[The Albion Roar]

I think you have misunderstood what was mentioned. I was responding to a post who would be happy with whatever system works best. I did not give unequivocal support to this proposal, as I am sure there are good academies and good maintained schools. I don't think the same could be said for yourself. Your very sweeping statements about academies says it all - how on earth can you possibly be in a position to make such a statement, as highlighted? I work with governing bodies in both academies and maintained schools, and can quite honestly say that I have encountered little difference in the high level of professionalism shown. The picture you portray of academies in which I work is totally inaccurate.

Michael Gove, when Education Secretary, said he wanted fewer qualified professionals in place as head teachers.

Taking the example of Pimlico Academy, which was the government's flagship project, they employed an unqualified person with no previous teaching experiene as head. She resigned a few weeks later, unable to do the job.

It highlights the issue that - if you don't have to employ the most appropriate people for the job, how can you say you have 'better education' as your guiding priniciple?

Similarly, it is part of the policy that there is will be no accountability in the new schools, there is currently no obligation to hire qualified teachers, nor do free schools have to publish their exam results. I don't know why you accuse me of 'making sweeping statements' - these are government policy on this issue.

 

[The Albion Roar]

In my wifes case when the school turned in to academies they got a brand new school built. That's a positive. Are we all not about saving the government money when another spends too much?

It's a positive, but it didn't need to be an academy to do so.

If the public money was there, why not allow it to be built, and then run by the local authority - where there is more accountability? It appears that new buildings will only go up provided they are run by vested interests.

 

[Bold Seagull]

In my wifes case when the school turned in to academies they got a brand new school built. That's a positive. Are we all not about saving the government money when another spends too much?

It is a positive for that individual school. The government can make the academy model look great because it can chuck money at shiny new examples. It obviously can't do that for every school though. The obvious question is why does it take academy status for the government to provide capital spending for new building programmes? Doesn't this seem like they are favouring the distribution of the educational budget to their preferred models rather than educational needs as a whole?

The real risk of academies is that schools stop working together. For example at Primary level you have the Hove Cluster and Portslade Cluster of schools where heads meet regularly to discuss their needs, their data, and what they are planning. They can discuss joint training events, specialist support services and sharing knowledge and experience for the benefit of all their schools.

The academy model creates businesses competing against each other. That will unfortunately lead to a natural tendency to look inward rather than outward, to guard your practices and methods rather than share them.

 

[beorhthelm]

The academy model creates businesses competing against each other. That will unfortunately lead to a natural tendency to look inward rather than outward, to guard your practices and methods rather than share them.

in commerce and industry this categorically doesn't happen, with an entire sub-industry built around conferences and events to share knowledge, practice and network. why do you think this suddenly cease in education? wouldnt it be in the interest of academies to share support services for better deals, and in the case of partnered/chains of academies, assumed to be a taking place? there seems to be a lot of problems with the academies (good work from Stato in presenting a lot of info), but lets not start making objections based on preconceptions especially misguided ones.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

If we want a government that is going to build new schools, hospitals and other facilities, provide enough staff so everyone gets 1st class treatment, 1st class education, whilst dealing with a rising population, then may be we all need to start paying a bit more to use it. I don't support what the government is doing, but I can't see it working any other way. This country is in debt. All governments past and present have overspent.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

It's a positive, but it didn't need to be an academy to do so.

If the public money was there, why not allow it to be built, and then run by the local authority - where there is more accountability? It appears that new buildings will only go up provided they are run by vested interests.

Why is there more accountability if it was run by the local authority. I personally would prefer my kids school to be run by people who work in education and have the best interests of the children at heart as opposed to some local council civil servant who just sees a school as a budget line.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Why is there more accountability if it was run by the local authority. I personally would prefer my kids school to be run by people who work in education and have the best interests of the children at heart as opposed to some local council civil servant who just sees a school as a budget line.

You're only seeing schools in terms of money.

Schools and council officers - including (qualified) education officers, (qualified) child protection officers, (qualified) special needs officers, and so on - need to work hand-in-hand to ensure best practice. All of these people are accountable to the local authority - a public body.

With no obligation for free schools to work with local authorities, and no comeback if there are issues, there is no accountability.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

As a Parent Governor of a local primary school, recently rated as Good by Ofsted, we are now faced with either converting now with other like minded schools into a multi school trust, or wait for the Tories to force us unwillingly into a ******* marriage with any crappy old school who will suck our resources and give nothing in return. In addition, to those who don't voluntarily go, they will be open to takeover by an established academy trust, some of which promote Creationism. Thanks, Tories. We are at least trying to be proactive and doing our best to dodge this bullet.

You flag up the dangers of a school like yours being taken over by an organisation that promotes creationism and thank the tories for putting children at risk. I'm no tory but I'd suggest that governors with political agendas can also be a risk to children. The following is from the British Humanist Association.

The Government has changed the rules to preclude all Academies and Free Schools, both those that already exist and those that will open in the future, from teaching pseudoscientific ideas such as creationism as scientifically valid. The changes have been made through extending an explicit ban to all future Academies and Free Schools, but also by clarifying that it believes the requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum means no existing Academies and Free Schools can teach pseudoscience either. The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed the news as representing a significant step towards achieving one of its longstanding policy goals.

 

[The Albion Roar]

If we want a government that is going to build new schools, hospitals and other facilities, provide enough staff so everyone gets 1st class treatment, 1st class education, whilst dealing with a rising population, then may be we all need to start paying a bit more to use it. I don't support what the government is doing, but I can't see it working any other way. This country is in debt. All governments past and present have overspent.

It's not about how much is spent per se. It's about how that money is spent.

If the money was there to build a new school (almost always from central government), and there's a proven need for one in a given area, then fine - get it built. It's the fact that these schools are not being built for public use; it's private companies who will ultimately get them. For a capitial-free cost.

Additionally - as has been said - it's further down the line, and the lack of accountability into how that money has been spent that's the issue.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Why is there more accountability if it was run by the local authority. I personally would prefer my kids school to be run by people who work in education and have the best interests of the children at heart as opposed to some local council civil servant who just sees a school as a budget line.

Blimey, now that is a cynical view. Local Authorities usually have a wealth of experienced educational professionals on their teams, be it ex-head teachers, teaching consultants, specialist educational needs providers etc. etc. Surely the budget line is exactly all that each academy will be seen by the central government budget office - here's your money, now off you go. One poor head teacher appointment, one governing body failing in its duty and you have a school with no support, no where to turn to. This is happening to failing academies right now. I think the very reverse of your statement can be true.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If we want a government that is going to build new schools, hospitals and other facilities, provide enough staff so everyone gets 1st class treatment, 1st class education, whilst dealing with a rising population, then may be we all need to start paying a bit more to use it. I don't support what the government is doing, but I can't see it working any other way. This country is in debt. All governments past and present have overspent.

Maybe the government should start raising taxes from their mates, instead of giving money away to them? Just a thought.

 

[Igzilla]

You flag up the dangers of a school like yours being taken over by an organisation that promotes creationism and thank the tories for putting children at risk. I'm no tory but I'd suggest that governors with political agendas can also be a risk to children. The following is from the British Humanist Association.

The Government has changed the rules to preclude all Academies and Free Schools, both those that already exist and those that will open in the future, from teaching pseudoscientific ideas such as creationism as scientifically valid. The changes have been made through extending an explicit ban to all future Academies and Free Schools, but also by clarifying that it believes the requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum means no existing Academies and Free Schools can teach pseudoscience either. The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed the news as representing a significant step towards achieving one of its longstanding policy goals.

One of the main points now is that in order to become an Academy, you either have to have a sponsor (usually in the form of an existing Academy Trust, and some are enormous, 200+ schools) or be an Outstanding school and you can sponsor other schools to join you. No school can be a standalone Academy any more, unless you maintain your outstanding rating. Hopefully this should counter some of the dangers of Trojanism. In the model we are looking at, there are independent trustees who oversee the direction of the Trust, a Board consisting of Sponsor Headteacher as "CEO", and a Board consisting of Heads and Chair of Governors from all the other schools in the Trust. If we get it right, we can centralise resources, spread good practice across the schools and give the teachers more time to teach. Once that's bedded in (and we may be able to afford a minibus for the Trust, something which an individual school couldn't manage), we can then look to expand the Trust and take on schools that require improvement.

As we understand it, no Church Aided schools would be allowed by the Diocese to join in a Trust with a non Church school, so they would all band together in some form. It reduces the amount of choice available for suitable partners, hence why we are being careful.

As for Governors with political agendas, I think there's more risk from teachers with them. As a Parent Governor, you don't get that involved with the day to day management of the school. That's what the Head and their management staff are for.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

One of the main points now is that in order to become an Academy, you either have to have a sponsor (usually in the form of an existing Academy Trust, and some are enormous, 200+ schools) or be an Outstanding school and you can sponsor other schools to join you. No school can be a standalone Academy any more, unless you maintain your outstanding rating. Hopefully this should counter some of the dangers of Trojanism. In the model we are looking at, there are independent trustees who oversee the direction of the Trust, a Board consisting of Sponsor Headteacher as "CEO", and a Board consisting of Heads and Chair of Governors from all the other schools in the Trust. If we get it right, we can centralise resources, spread good practice across the schools and give the teachers more time to teach. Once that's bedded in (and we may be able to afford a minibus for the Trust, something which an individual school couldn't manage), we can then look to expand the Trust and take on schools that require improvement.

As we understand it, no Church Aided schools would be allowed by the Diocese to join in a Trust with a non Church school, so they would all band together in some form. It reduces the amount of choice available for suitable partners, hence why we are being careful.

As for Governors with political agendas, I think there's more risk from teachers with them. As a Parent Governor, you don't get that involved with the day to day management of the school. That's what the Head and their management staff are for.

Thanks for a clear reply.

 

[ROSM]

ah ok, let just label things we dont like or dont understand with emotive, politically charged terms, so that we can get all angry about them on principle. depressing indeed.

As a school governor I can tell you that a pot of services and support for schools are provided by the lea

Be it Hr, finance, health and safety, legal etc etc

Now, when lea's no longer exist, where does the public money that buys this advice currently end up going to? That would be private companies then? In effect privatising large chunks of the education system. Where will the land and buildings be passed to? Limited companies largely... Once again privatising parts of the education network.

At least Maggie got money into the treasury for her sell offs!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Which other western developed countries are still grappling with how to educate it's nation like the UK?

 

[ROSM]

The US for a start

 

[vegster]

As a school governor I can tell you that a pot of services and support for schools are provided by the lea

Be it Hr, finance, health and safety, legal etc etc

Now, when lea's no longer exist, where does the public money that buys this advice currently end up going to? That would be private companies then? In effect privatising large chunks of the education system. Where will the land and buildings be passed to? Limited companies largely... Once again privatising parts of the education network.

At least Maggie got money into the treasury for her sell offs!

I have heard that interventions such as Reading Recovery and Every Child Counts will not be funded.. Thus saving money by putting a few more teachers on the dole.