Acadamy school status : For or against?

The majority of graduates come from state schools because the majority of children go to state schools... you'd appreciate the correlation being an analyst programmer and all. However, a higher % of privately educated children get to the good universities than state-educated. Our children, tragically, do not get a high standard of state education on a universal basis. The service is unacceptably patchy. Success in the state system today may not depend on 'who you know' but it does depend entirely on being either lucky enough or wealthy enough to live in the right catchment area.... not exactly egalitarian. We need more good schools and, if the current model isn't working, we need to think more creatively. Who provides good schools is not the central issue

ah, but you see, that was at a scottish school. The scottish education system is far less screwed up than the english (and doesn't do 'academies')

And successful children from council run schools are the delight of the proof that you are successful because of what you know and what you do rather than who you know

council run comprehensives were so successful record numbers of pupils from these schools were attending university and gaining degrees and the children gaining professional status and being highly successful in professional jobs.

I have two nephews who lived in the poorest area of Scotland, with the highest unemployment rate. They went to a council run school.

One is a senior economist (who manages many oxbridge educated people) and the other a highly successful prosecutor for the crown office.

(As a product of the same school I am an analyst programmer ...and I could go on and on.

The majority of graduates in this country come from council run schools - where we achieve a high standard of education - and morals and ethics

That's why I am happy to defend council run schools

" I look forward to the private sector being kicked out of our schools and then being returned to control of the councils and the people"

What is so great about council-run schools that you're so anxious to defend? Everyone has a failing school in their area. If the state system was so universally successful there wouldn't be a failing school in the country... they'd all be of an equally high standards and it wouldn't matter where you lived. As privately run independent schools seem to have a fairly good track-record, why not bring some of that investment and philosophy in where the state system has resoundingly failed? Why keep flogging a dead horse?

We group schools together via councils - where they are accountable to the people.

Academy status is allowing the private sector to group schools together under their control - where they are now no longer accountable to the people - but to the directors of the private companies

"The Harris Federation of South London Schools is a single charitable legal entity to which all of the Harris Academies belong.

The Harris Federation comprises 9 open Academies, with more planned in the future, eventually growing to 20 or more Academies

Additionally there are 7 Harris Specialist Schools, and 4 pilot specialist primary schools, a total of around 20,000 pupils in South London."

The Director is Lord Harris of Peckham and the the chairman of Carpetright

Britain's high street has suffered its latest blow after Carpetright said it planned to close stores after pre-tax profits slumped 70pc.

"Harris made donations to David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. He is considered to be one of his personal friends."

So Harris makes donations to Cameron and Cameron introduces legislation that allows Harris to take control of Education and billions of pounds of our education budget - who elected Harris?

I guess Academy schools are about the private sector losing money so private sector directors need something else to mismanage - and what better that giving these directors control of our education budget.

This all stinks - and I look forward to the private sector being kicked out of our schools and then being returned to control of the councils and the people

Academies have been around for a good few years now. Does anyone know of any thorough evaluations of how they are doing?

Interesting post, Rabbitstew - loads of problems that had never occurred to me.

In a way you have vindicated my response to the idea of academies, which was more instinctive than informed. I had never thought of the possibility of one religious group/business consortium taking over several schools, for example. Would the local councils allow that? I suppose if they didn't they organisation would simply buy schools in different LEAs.

I really hope the things you write about don't happen, though, as it would be awful for the kids especially.

Well, I find it interesting that the biggest apparent gripe people have is that state education is currently a big postcode lottery, yet I don't see how academy schools are going to change this one iota. They could, of course, make this a million times worse, as good and outstanding schools that are currently the focus for conversion to academy status, become academies and the less good schools in areas where the local population are less inspired by the thought of losing LA control (and protection) do not. And I worry that once the LA has lost a few schools from its "books," it's bulk purchasing power will be reduced and its standard of service for those schools left will be reduced as it takes advantage of its reduced responsiblities and finances to effect redundancies and cost cutting measures.

I also worry that when the heads of the outstanding and good schools that have converted to academy status move on/lose their oomph as they get older, the schools may find their popularity waning, lose pupil numbers and thus funding and suddenly realise that they are now responsible for paying redundancy costs, deciding staff pay and conditions,dealing with legal messes etc, and the head and governors no longer have any safety net to fall back on. Not an enticing prospect for unpaid school governors, any potential new head thinking of taking over a failing academy and any teachers considering whether or not to work at the school, and not something you can be confident will never happen, given the undersupply of head teachers of all calibres.

I also worry that academy schools will effectively be replicating a lot of the work currently done by the LA that is not a school's main business - eg sorting out payroll and pensions, legal services, electricity and other service suppliers, buildings maintenance, insurances etc. It will take up an awful lot of time to look into all of this and find the best, most cost-effective providers, etc, and bulk purchasing power will be lost, unless all the schools in the area work together on it and act like a mini-LA (I can already see the arguments over who's not pulling their weight or contributing enough), or unless the school just buys these services from the LA, assuming they will be widely offered by the LA any more (somehow I doubt it), once half the schools in the area have become academies.

I also worry that the academy concept and the apparent joy of competition in the schools sector is failing to recognise that schools are not any old business. You can't really have schools constantly failing and being swallowed up by other schools that become ever more big and powerful when you are to a large extent constrained by physical space and location, school populations that require some kind of consistency and certainty in provision, and can't really sack half the staff and replace them with a call centre in India.

I think those freedoms sound great, in theory, but worry about them being abused by business/religious groups and about teachers' rights, conditions and pay being protected.

I have never liked the one-size fits all idea, but there has always been a huge variety of provision, even within the comprehensive system. In fact that has been both a strength and a weakness.

I sympathise with DrN's boiling blood. I feel the same way every time the government tries to bring in measures that could harm the most vulnerable in society. We've got to protect them. Academies are unlikely to do that, imo.

Agree with you, Jackstarb, about Finland!

I'm really happy with the school, thanks. Not sure about the class-sizes but he's used to being in a class of 30 at the moment so anything there or thereabouts should be fine.

Back to the academy status and what it means. According to one article I read recently

"The list of freedoms gained through academy status includes: freedom to adapt the national curriculum, to vary teachers' pay and conditions, and to vary the length of the school day/week/year. And?.well, that's about it."

So I think the initial reaction by the OP of boiling blood and being dead set against the idea is probably misplaced. It's more 'evolution' than 'revolution'.

Your academy sounds lovely, CES, and you seem to be lucky enough to live in an area where there are lots of good schools. I hope your son is happy there.

I'm not sure I can see what makes your school an academy though, as it sounds like most of the comprehensives I know of. Imo, the one thing that makes the most significant difference in a child's experience of school is having good teachers, so I hope he gets plenty of those. And small classes.

I can only speak from my recent experience with an Academy-status school. It is a large (8 form intake) co-ed, comprehensive style school taking children from our local catchment area of which my DS's junior school is one feeder. Of the 90-ish children in his Year almost all are going on to the Academy - the exceptions being those going to a local single-sex school or various religious schools. Can say with certainty, therefore, that there has been no selection on the basis of behaviour, educational standard or special needs. The Academy has an excellent reputation for discipline and results and has specialist status in certain subjects. It is oversubscribed but there are at least three other large, successful schools nearby... also very popular... so accusations of dumping children on other schools and consigning them to a second-rate education does not apply.

The staff that I have met appear young-ish (younger than the ones I had at my old grammar, at least) motivated and very focused. The headteacher, as I said before, has an extremely good track-record, is active in raising standards in other schools, and I can only conclude that, if he thinks it was a good idea to apply for Academy status and be in charge of his own budget etc., then there must be very real advantages.

"Wouldn't you have small, local schools with small classes run by a dedicated team of well-educated and trained teachers and dynamic, imaginative heads? All these schools would receive exactly the same amount of money per child; they would all have the same social mix, the same proportion of special needs children who would all be catered for in the best possible way by qualified, committed staff. "

Mellow - That sounds like Finland (apart from the sharing out of special needs children bit).

Academies aren't a new education system. They are a significant tweak to the education system which has developed here over 100's of years. Unless you've got a time machine handy, we have to work with the schools we've got (and for that matter the society). And we are very different from Finland - which is less racially and social diverse, has a much smaller population, has highly qualified and trained teachers, starts formal education at 7......

Plus most UK 'comprehensive school supporters' claim you need very large schools (to provide adequate peers and resources for each ability level).

OK, so which country is this? Which world? Don't recognise it at all.

The comprehensive system has produced the vast majority of people under the age of 50 in this country. In what way has it failed?

I have tried to see things as you do, LFN, but come up against huge difficulties, such as the evidence of my eyes, my life and everyone around me.

So I think we'll just have to agree to differ. I shall toddle off with my view of the world intact and you can carry on as you were.

The comprehensive system has failed. Competition self-evidently improves quality - see the world around you for the miracle of capitalism. As for not everyone being equal, surely that is obvious. Some children are extremely academic, some are sporty, some are musical, some are technical, etc.

Having the same opportunities as everyone else isn't much use if that opportunity is crap (as in the Labour vision of education, full of bolshy mediocre teachers wielding PCGEs as evidence of their "ability", with exams dumbed down so everyone gets an A*, and teachers telling kids who don't know any better than idiotic subjects like ICT have the same value as Further Maths). Get schools to compete vigorously with each other, and you get genuine opportunity, innovation and aspiration.

'One size fits all has been tried, and it has failed, dismally'. When was that, LFN?
'Competition improves quality' - evidence?
'Not everyone is equal' - what do you mean?
'not every child wants to have the same subject mix or focus' - no, did anyone say they did?
'not every school should have the same ethos' - agreed.
'Trying to impose equality is futile' - what does this mean?
etc.

I'm just nit-picking. I know what you mean, but your thinking is so muddled imo. No-one said everyone was the same or had the same needs or interests. Just that everyone deserves the same opportunities.

One size fits all has been tried, and it has failed, dismally.

Competition improves quality. Not everyone is equal, not every child wants to have the same subject mix or focus, not every school should have the same ethos. Trying to impose equality is futile.

Give parents choice. It is pretty obvious which schools are decent and which are crap - even without the wealth of data which now exists.

The Gove reforms will do more to tackle inter-generational poverty than the billions wasted in out-of-work benefits could ever do, by putting aspiration at the heart of education. If they truly cared about the poor, Labour would be supporting these reforms - and indeed, the smarter elements in Labour such as Tony Blair and Lord Adonis recognise that. However, it is in the Labour party's electoral interest to keep the poor hooked on welfare dependency, so it is no surprise that they are opposing these marvellous changes.

Of course, the systematic evisceration of the teaching unions is just icing on the cake :o

If you wanted to give every child the same opportunities from their schooling, would you start by creating academies?

Wouldn't you have small, local schools with small classes run by a dedicated team of well-educated and trained teachers and dynamic, imaginative heads? All these schools would receive exactly the same amount of money per child; they would all have the same social mix, the same proportion of special needs children who would all be catered for in the best possible way by qualified, committed staff.

Would you then decide that one particular school should receive more money, more facilities, have a higher proportion of middle class parents and highly motivated children? There wouldn't be any point, would there, as every school would be excellent!

As CES says, we really should try not to judge on prejudice - but how else do you choose not to send your child to one school and to send him/her to another, if you've never had any contact with either?

Mellowfruitfulness Here are some advantages:

• Putting aspiration for children above the insouciant protection of mediocre teachers
• Rewarding teachers on merit instead of seniority
• Destroying teaching unions
• Destroying local education authorities
• Raising standards through the miracle of competition
• Putting choice in parents' hands
• Lower administrative costs
• Generally eradicating one of the institutional bastions of left-wingery in society
• Locking in a new generation of anti-Labour voters, who know that a Labour government will do everything in their power to emasculate the academies and free schools they have chosen to send their children to (if not closing them down altogether) - thereby helping ensure that Labour stays out of power.

Agree with you, Dr Northerner. I haven't heard anything about academies that has ever made me think, 'Oh, what a good idea!'

I'm for them - wish I could get a big enough group of people together to set one up myself. I love the fact that the schools can avoid having to follow the national curriculum.

I suppose I'm biased in that I went to an independant school and relished the academic opportunities it provided. So, for me, a school that can teach Latin, Greek, sciences etc, without being hampered by the National Curriculum is a good thing.

I'm also keen on the influence of those groups setting up the schools, who don't have an intrinsic, left-wing, socialist bias that many state schools seem to have. I want people from different backgrounds teaching and running the school - be they ex-forces, ex-business people etc.

I think free schools are a great opportunity to undo the damage that has wreaked havoc in the educational system in this country.

For.