Comp becoming an Academy -pros and cons?

[reevonomia]

Our DCs school is becoming an academy. Well they’re ‘in consultation’ which I took to mean that they’re probably going to do it.

what does it mean for the pupils and parents in a nutshell? I worry that as parents we’ll be ever more distant from school. It’s already very impersonal…!

Probably the dullest question ever for your bank hol reading! 😂

I've done a lot of research on this for the school where I work, wondering if it's best we go before we're pushed.

We've come to the conclusion there's nothing to be gained and plenty to be lost.

Financially, funding is no different now, although academies can set their own pay scales, but in reality that often means they pay more, not less for qualified teachers. They can appoint unqualified teachers more easily though and you'd be surprised how any staff in academies you think are teachers aren't.

There's a loss of autonomy if you join a MAT, which can be good when a struggling school is supported by a more successful one, but it does make everything less personal.

IMO the main benefit is for those leaders who get big payrises and a bigger empire. In secondary especially, MATs are often run by HTs with enormous egos IMHO My job in an academy of a similar size pays almost double what I'm on in an LA school, which obviously deprives other areas of the school budget.

We've decided that whilst there might be personal benefits for some of the senior staff, there's no benefit for the children.

I'll be interested to hear other views.

In my experience, academisation means throwing out many things that were good, employing highly paid executives, who may or may not have any knowledge or understanding of education and schools and removing anyone who doesn’t ‘fit’ with the ethos. That generally means established staff.

I see no benefit to the people at the centre of education- the children.

All schools have to become an academy by 2030 so jump before you're pushed.

Our LA is saying no pressure from them and they expect that to change with a change of government.

I suspect that may be over optimistic, but we do feel going would be detrimental for our students so are going to keep our fingers crossed!

It means the Academy Trust run the school rather than the Head and the Local Authority. In theory it means that they sort the finances/HR/buildings/operations etc and the Head and teachers can get on with teaching. In my experience it won’t make much difference to the kids but it’s just different job titles and job roles at the top.

Good academy trusts put their investment in good teaching, improved outcomes across the board, good pastoral care and improved premises. Bad ones have an overpaid CEO who drives an expensive car but nothing much improves for the children.

I can't answer the question but I'd like to add my own for those who might know. Where does the extra money come from to pay the Executive Headteacher and the Executive Assistant Headteacher of a MAT?

It’s about pooled resources and bigger economies of scale.

@christmas2022 only if the new schools bill goes through, and as it’s looking likely to be scrapped the hopefully won’t happen

It means massive staff turnover in the first two years. Possibly a new “smarter” uniform which costs a fortune and fewer teaching assistants. I don’t work in a MAT however, but from talking to friends who do, this seems to be the norm.

It will mean they can push a new school uniform. Add one word to the schools name and a rebrand required on blazers, jumpers etc etc

It depends on how hands on or hands off the academy chain is.

On one end of the spectrum, no difference at all and the school continues to get on with running itself and making it's own decisions.

On the other, decisions about what your child learns and how they learn it are made by people who have no idea as to the real context of the school and are dictated by trust-wide policies. That could even be down to the tiny details such as lessons timings. I know trusts who dictate exactly what lessons must look like, in ten minute blocks, and then do monthly checks to ensure all staff are following "the rules". Trusts can also move staff around across the trust so if it was decided that a particular teacher/leader was "needed" elsewhere, they could be moved from your child's school easily.

Our school converted without changing the name or the uniform, so it can be done. No rise in staff turnover either. I was nervous beforehand, but the conversion has been a positive experience. The head clearly has a lot more support now than the local authority were providing, but still keeps autonomy.

Disclaimer: I work for a MAT. I was a bit dubious before taking the job as I’d only heard negative (like a lot of the opinions above. The chain I work for is really good: it shares good practice and expertise but isn’t really restrictive—we don’t all have to do the same lessons or units of study. I’ve learnt so much in the last few years and honestly think I have become a much better teacher. There was a big turnover of staff when the academy chain took over and lots of discontent: change is hard. But the school was failing terribly and now it isn’t. I think it’s hard to generalise as have heard about some quite toxic schools in the same MAT but equally have worked at some awful LA schools where the SLT had no idea and didn’t seem to care. My first school was LA run and had a really caring and hands on SLT. I think it’s hard to generalise I guess but my own personal experience of a MAT has been transformative for the school in a positive way

Thank you all for the informative replies…
I don’t really get the point of it though? What’s in it for the students / govt?

I’m not feeling very optimistic from what has been said here. Apart from our kids just feeling like a number - my children are actually doing quite well.

Dislike several elements including

• ability to move teachers from your school… to a different school
• UNQUALIFIED teachers (how is this possible or useful?)
• CEO on crazy money
• Positives seem a bit ‘woolly’

I also found some research online which suggested NIL benefit for students… 😔

What’s in it for the students / govt?

Students: no idea. The current data that we have shows that the academisation drive has made no positive difference to educational standards and, in fact, LEA schools have, on average, improved faster (when it was needed) and perform better than academies.

Government: it's the first step to soft privatisation. Technically teachers in academy trusts are employees of the trust rather than the state (with the trust having a contract with the DfE). If all schools were like this then teachers are no longer technically public sector workers and the Government could, for example, scrap teacher pensions with the new expectation that each trust offer their own private scheme.

I think alot depends on the specific academy group.

There are many academy groups who are only interested in making money but also others who seem to have a very good reputation.

My daughter goes to a Step academy and they have turned the school around from being in special measures. We are very impressed and she is very happy there.

@Iamnotthe1 - disappointing! Stealthy privatisation… what do Labour plan to do re academies I wonder?

@DDivaStar - sounds like the Academy route could be good if your school is failing. Ours isn’t though. Really hope they’re doing their due diligence…