to think all these school becoming acadamies is actually shit for the children and staff

[redandwhitetoadstool]

just allows the school to get away with paying lower wages and treat the school like a business, rather then children's educators

Possibly I'm being a bit thick, but I'm not sure I really understand what an academy is. Can anyone answer these questions:

1.Does being an academy simply mean not being under LA control?

1. Does the funding transfer from LA to whoever is running the school? Why would companies want to run schools; what's in it for them?
2. Do the companies running these schools get more money that the LA would have done? If yes, why?
3. How will the company's make money on the deal? After all, they won't be doing out of the kindness of their hearts.
4. Is there any easy-to-read-and-understand evidence that compares performance for schools pre and post academisation?
5. How do LAs feel about academisation?
6. Do schools ever go back under LA control once they've been academies?
7. Academies presumably have the same kids from the same areas with the same problems. So what do they actually do to turn around performance, and is there evidence to show this can be sustained in the longer term?
8. Round our way, most of the academies seem to be run by Oasis? Do people have positive experiences of sending their kids to Oasis academies!

Sorry for all the questions, just really interested in this.

noble Not just Science and Maths but English, music etc too. I do worry about the fact they are unlikely to be here for long.

Campaspe One of the reasons academies seem to be in it in the South East is that we have schools with plenty of land. Land that can be sold off to developers. They use that money to buy property in the area which they then rent out to Canadian teachers. Nice earner if you can get it. Not so great for the children who end up with the playground space of an inner city school.

We've had an academy trust collapse locally too. Another academy stepped right in but it is a worry what will happen when the money runs out. I can't say that I've seen great investment in either of my children's schools - in fact they have recently announced a huge staff 'restructure', lots of teachers and support staff being made redundant.

A normal school is subject to the STPC document (statutory teachers' pay and conditions), which is there to protect teachers from unfair treatment / keep working conditions favourable.

An academy is not. An academy can treat teachers how they like and there is very little come-back.

Get a great head and it can be freeing. Get an awful head...

Ohmrgove - no, not Wandsworth. More southeastern. Outer london.

Might as well spill - Bromley.

A young colleague moved to us from an academy; as she moved within two years of taking up her post she was 'fined' two thousand pounds. It was mentioned in her contract but she didn't get the full contract until she had been there for a month and the print was very small...The academy took the money in one fell swoop, by not paying her anything for August and stopping the remainder of the 2 thousand out of July's salary. she was struggling by the time she was paid in September.

Doesn't sound as if there are many supporters of academisation. My questions are actually genuine, not designed to be making a point: can anyone throw any light/answer a few of them?

Here you go - Campaspe, I'm not an expert though.

1. Academies get their funding straight from the Dfes. They are free from following national curriculum, teachers pay and conditions, can set their own admission criteria within certain parameters, set their own governing bodies. There are two types sponsored and converters. Sponsored is where the school are taken over by a chain, or another school trust and converter where the school converted and stands alone. There used to be extra money in converting, that no longer exists. The money that used to be given to LEAs for things like HR are the responsibility of the school and/or chain instead.

2. no the funding is calculated from the Dfes bypassing the LEA completely. Sponsors used to have to pay to open an academy - like a charitable donation - this is no longer the case, some of the original sponsors like Harris have expanded their chains, but the original founder doesn't pay anything. As the academies programme exploded, these academy chains have become non for profit trusts. Some chains are multi-schools trusts where successful schools have taken over failing ones. Michael Wilshaw was or still might be a director of Ark academies who are a national chain, (whole story there.) These chains are run by at best successful headteachers, at worst people who have dabbled in education and have no real idea.

3. They used to get more money, so could employ advisors,(the more cynical may say friends) they now don't get any more than given to a LEA school plus the extra given to the LEA for HR and IT etc.

4. The academy chains are non for profit companies. However the deeds of the schools are no longer with the LEA despite numerous requests under the freedom of information act, no one knows where they are. This means that large companies could potentially control large amounts of land and buildings although they can't sell them etc. without permission of the secretary of state. Converter academies and multi-school trusts generally have expanded because a successful head is ambitious or a genuine desire to help failing schools. Some chains were started with this in mind too.

5. yes the latest report to the education select committee, I can't paste a link though. Shows academies make no difference. Some academies that converted years ago, did make a difference, probably due to a large cash injection that would have helped pay for smaller classes, catch up classes, more teachers and extra money to attract the best teachers. That money hasn't been there for a number of years.

6. some actively support it, some try and keep their schools.

7. No, the deeds/leases are long. Some change sponsors, but I don't know of any that have convertered back to LEA.

8. the million dollar question. Some chains will help and support, get rid of poor mangement, give strategies and help turn the school around. A school really strands or fails by its head and SLT. Others will bully staff, change admission criteria and nothing really changes. The latest report to the education select committee said there was no difference between the performance of academies or LEA schools, and that they don't make the difference that the government is saying they do.

9. no experience of Oasis - sorry.

I know of two local primaries here that a year after gaining a 'good' Ofsted inspection had new Heads due to retirement and were placed in special measures within 2/3 months, governing body disbanded and then, just before the academies were due to take over, were declared 'good' again - all within a year. I'm very cynical about the whole thing.

A couple of points,

1. academies don't pay rates, so effectively still get a fair amount of money from the council, although that is not what it is called.

2. academies can accept whichever pupils they want, and expel much more easily, this means they can look good in the statistics, but that has happened by moving all the problem students on to LEA schools, rather than dealing with them

3. teachers may not be officially sacked very often, but 9 times out of 10, that isn't necessary. They are on temporary contracts, and their contract is not renewed, or they are made redundant, or they are told to go, or their lives are made hell, that is very easy to do, I have seen it more times than I can count. Often not because they are bad teachers. Quite often it is because they are "old fashioned" teachers who "teach" which is an unforgivable sin these days, you can lose your job for that, we are not there to teach, we are there to manage the learning,!

What I'm trying to say is that the ever changing ofsted criteria means fads in teaching come and go like the weather, and to be sacked, you don't need to be a bad teacher, just to not fit in with the current ofsted rubbish