Did Supply in a new Academy yesterday and feel sad

TalkinPeace2 my impression is that HCC are looking to offer their services across county borders to fill the gaps where LAs decide to reduce their services to their maintained schools as well as offering Academies (in Hampshire and elsewhere) the opportunity to buy in services. From my school's point of view I am all in favour if it means HCC continues to operate as currently.

prh
Hampshire County Council (for it is they) have a fantastic emergency property services response team that literally DOES bring in experts and generators at the drop of a hat to schools and other council managed buildings
the school is back online now but DSs tech lesson in an electricity free room was "interesting"

The scary thing about LAs is that even the tiniest ones seem to have the same number of directors and managers on humungous salaries - and as they are responsible for less and less schools the inefficiency will just increase.

which does make me wonder how much money will be saved as against expertise lost in the long run

and politicians forget that year 9 are only year 9 once - if the system goes pear shaped in that year, they are affected for life.

prh I think talkinpeace2 and I have experience of the same LA and here most schools would be able to call the LA (having subscribed to property services support) and they would sort matters - indeed academies can also buy in this service, but at an increased price to maintained schools.

I would say that we are fortunate in the LA we have and not all schools may have the same support.

noblegiraffe - No. The LAs have to continue to supply certain services and will continue to receive funding for doing so. The schools have to provide other services for themselves and receive additional funding to allow them to do so. If every single school in an LA converted to academy status the government would not save a single penny.

TalkinPeace2 - What a strange idea. If a school has a power cut it will, in general, close until power can be restored. If a generator is needed due to an extended power cut it is generally up to the school to source a generator and pay for it, not the LA. Schools are responsible for their own purchasing and have been for many years.

noble
at the moment in the LEA there is ONE person responsible for (say) getting generators to schools that have power cuts covering all 680 schools.
But once they are all academies there have to be 680 people, 680 supplier accounts, no bulk discount
resulting in a secondary school with no proper power for two days and 1600 pupils' learning disrupted, rather than the LEA dragging in one of its regular sources of generators
(not that it's brought it all into v v sharp focus mind ....)
does not sound like much of a money saving to me.

When they close the LAs and make all those people redundant, that'll save money won't it?

gabid - It is definitely not about saving money for the government. Academies cost the government just as much as any other type of school.

That is absolutely true. It is not a guarantee of improvement. Each school converting will have it's own ideas of how the changes, for them, can help them toward a goal of improvement but it is no guarantee of success in itself.

So many factors need to come together to create a successful school.

In response to the OP, there's no evidence that things improve when schools convert to academies. Some do, though many don't.

Some academies are good. Some are not. Some maintained schools are good. Some are not.

Which is why it's crazy to suggest that academy conversion is a guarantee of school improvement, as this current government does.

I would be reprimanded as a 'lazy teacher' if I used a text book. I think it's ridiculous but there you go. I'm not surprised that the poster with a child at an independent school's DC had lots of text books, indie's tend to (generalisation) teach in a much more traditional way and would likely get 'unsatisfactory' from Ofsted. Which is why I'd love teach in one!

Jwim - And I wish your small Primary well too. I am sure you have made the best decision too. I can fully understand how the plan could come together and show that staying with a LEA is the far better option.

Kez 100 I wish your academy well. I hope it does deliver the promise of better outcomes for all pupils, for current pupils and those still to come.

May the competition in pricing for services to educational establishments actually come about, and soon - otherwise many may rue the day that they opted for Academy status.

JWIM - There are example costs on the Anti-academy website. I was questionning the £800,000 cost per annum for £8m cover. Indeed, when looking at a schools situation to convert, this needs to be taken into account - absolutely it must. It's a very involved decision.

Why return to it?

Insurance costs are somewhat higher to the public purse.

However, this increase in cost to the public purse is offset to a unknown degree - maybe completely offset, maybe not - by the cost the LEA had of self insuring (i.e the repairs they paid for because they couldn't claim on insurance which those quoting the extra cost conveniently forget) and as time goes on more competiton will affect these payments too.

There is no more to say.

Kez100 You were quick to challenge an insurance cost so I offered an actual example. If academies have to buy in buildings insurance where will they fund it from? If from the slice of funds that previously went to the LA then that reduces the extra they might chose to spend to improve pupil outcomes, assuming that extra funding over what LA schools get continues - and that is not guaranteed.

Every school has to look at its own situation. My only experience is with 'new type' academies. The choice to convert or not is nothing to do with bribes at all. It's to do with the amount of LACSEG you will get given directly now and the freedoms you will get and whether these things are of benefit, or not, for your particular school. Every school will have a different case and some will convert, others will not.

It's an important point and one worth returning to.

JWIM. That has been covered already in this thread.

Precisely, JWIM, that's exactly why, even with the bribes available, most primaries don't want to become academies.

Which is why they'll be so vulnerable to the clutches of large, usually poorly performing academy chains.

These were offered as 'sponsors' to schools in Birmingham very recently, btw.

Just on the insurance for academy schools buildings - there is a cost implication that is being overlooked when academies will have to buy their own cover.

I am associated with small volutary aided primary school (100 pupils) that has to contribute 10% to all capital projects. Our LA 'self insures' school buildings but we would have to contribute 10% should any disaster befall our building. We do insure for the 10% risk via a group policy organised by the Diocese and our annual premium is @£2000. Scale that up to the full cover an academy would need to buy in for a school accomodating 1000 to 1500 pupils and it will be a significant overhead.

"help schools"

I don't view LA bureaucrats as accountable. You can't vote them out of office and the alleged democratic control exercised over them by the LA is generally minimal.

Those companies have NOT been approved to "run UK schools" despite what the Anti-Academies Alliance say. They are amongst 12 suppliers who have been approved to provide support and advice to groups setting up free schools and schools converting to academy status. So a school looking to convert (or being forced to convert) may be given this list and told that these people can help you, meaning that they can provide project management services and advice on legal and financial issues, school policy, staff recruitment and the like. Not the same thing at all.

Accountability, in response to your second pint.

Gove has approved K12, Edison Learning and Mosaica to run UK schools. All for profit companies, all with a poor track record in the States.