To think becoming an Academy school , benefits grammar schools and highly academic and prosperous comprehensive schools, but causes problemsfor schools in more difficult circumstances.

[smokepole]

I have just read the letter signed by 80 Heads or people involved with Academy schools., The obvious thing that jumps out is that the majority of the signatures are from grammar schools heads or from highly 'middle' class comprehensive schools.

The reason these schools are able to benefit from 'Academisation' is because these are all highly sought after schools due to results or location.

These schools also are unlikely to employ 'unqualified' or non specialist teachers ,due to being able to have the pick of teachers because of their reputations.

This of course may not be what happens in a inner city or deprived school , that is taken over by a company or 'religous organisation' and turned in to an Academy. These who either intrested in cutting corners or using it as a instrument for religous dogma. For the record DD2 s grammar as stayed a community school, DS grammar is an academy , I have noticed little difference between the two (maybe DS is a bit more'business' like asking for money) but in reality they are both equally good as schools.

Academisation can work well for schools in challenging areas IF they have a truely amazing head teacher. For example a school can adapt the national curriculum to the needs of its children rather than having to use a one size fits all approach to education.

Academies fall flat when they have a medicore head. This is just as true for grammar schools as it is for an inner city school.

As a nation we need more gifted and inspirational head teachers. Or maybe we need research to know who to turn an average headteacher into an outstanding head teacher. We need research to know what works and what doesn't. However instead we have decisions about education being made by someone who went to highly selective private girls school. Educational decisions are made by people who have no idea how the other half lives or what works and what doesn't.

Academies leave pupils and parents at a huge disadvantage, for the simple reason they are out of local authority control.

This means that basically they can behave in any way they wish. They don't have to stick to the national curriculum, they don't need to adhere to LEA 'rules' around admissions, exclusions, pupils who need extra-support etc. If you are a parent of a pupil in an academy and have a complaint to make you have no form of redress. In my opinion they should be banned.

Lavenderice has said it all for me. The academy programme stinks.

Oh and they don't have to recognise teachers ' pay and conditions or unions either.

Exactly ilovesooty, when I worked in a secondary that closed to be replaced by an academy (I was part of a traded service and wasn't employed by the school) all of the staff were expected to take on new terms and conditions. Those that chose not to left and were replaced by either non-qualified or newly qualified teachers.

Miele72 It depends on how you judge a school to be 'excellent'. If you are basing this on results it may be the case that they are selective or are simply getting rid of the less achieving pupils.

My daughters school is turning into an academy this September. I can't see it doing well to be honest given the current staffing.

It's set in a fairly deprived area yet the school uniform is extortionate and can only be bought through one supplier through the school itself so no cheaper alternatives ie from Sainsbury.

From what I know of this, becoming an academy has little effect on many schools, good remain good, bad remain bad etc.

Those that have changed for the better have put in place policies that allow them to be selective, expensive uniforms etc.

I think that having freedom with the curriculum is one of the massive advantages of academisation. I guess the grammars like being able to have more of a challenge for their gifted pupils than the bog standard national curriuclum. I know that at the other end of the IQ scale many special schools have become academies so that they can have a sensible curriculum for their children. There is little point in attempting to teach algebra to a fifteen child who cannot count ten objects.

An academy is at the mercy of its head teacher. Unlike an LEA school, OFSTED is the only way of getting rid of an inadequate teacher. All the trojan horse schools were academies and look at the mess they got into. I feel that OFSTED should have the ablity to inspect academy chains.

I must say, I did wonder what those headteachers aimed to achieve. The fact that headteachers are prepared to sign something that their employers will approve is hardly earthshaking, and I can't see why it would change anyone's vote.

But yes, I don't think becoming an academy has anything to do with the success or otherwise of schools. Even famous examples like Mossbourne don't really do it: that was turned around because of a good headteacher and, in particular, squillions of money was thrown at it. It is demonstrated time and again that the academies that get good results do so to a great extent by operating, shall we say, iffy admissions policies that select out the less able or more difficult children, and ruthless exclusion policies that operate in the same way. And what is terrifying is the steady stream of cases coming out of the woodwork of failed academies and ones that have blatantly been encouraged to open without the DfE doing even the most basic checks.

Interesting insight into the reality of academies - www.teachersolidarity.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-at-uk-ark-academy-a-teaching-assistant-writes

Teachers often hate change, but that does necessarily mean that change is not needed. I would not believe everything written on the web as it may well be written with someone who had an axe to grind.

I worked at a special school which became an academy. The freedoms that it had enabled them to provide a better standard of education for the children. They chose to adapt the national curriculum to the needs of their students.

The thing is, though, that things like the King's Science disaster aren't matters of rumour, they're cold hard fact.

Disasters always get into the papers. There are sucessful academies up and down the country who are doing an excellent job.

I agree that the lack of accountablity is an issue. A bad head is a disaster for an academy as there is only OFSTED able to get rid of a bad head.

the problem when a LA has majority of academies is that the remaining LA controlled schools are obliged to take students who have been excluded/managed moves; which eventually means a lot of difficult students in the one school

Don't even gets started on managed moves. Completely against the rules, yet academies do them time and time again, holding parents and children to ransom.

reallytired

Teachers hate change that is for the changes sake, or political goal scoring.

I know very few teachers that "hate change" when it is needed.

Not all the Trojan horse schools were academies at all

Having LEA support is only beneficial if the LEA is any good (and lots aren't)

Makes me wonder why the GS were so keen to be academies. They converted very early too

I might be wrong, but I think I remember that when the academy thing first came along, only schools that were already rated outstanding were allowed to convert.

Our secondary schools were both academies by the time my children attended them so I can't really tell the difference it has made, but we are happy with the schools, they are doing their job well.

The problem is that the reasons for going to academy status is varied,
Some schools wanted to get away from LEAs.
Some where forced in to it.
Some have become academies to protect themselves from academy groups that are trying to force them in to it.

Some wanted the extra money that the schools desperately needed.
And some wanted to become an academy so that they could select their pupils.

I would suggest it works well for grammar schools and schools in desirable areas etc, because they are able to be more 'selective'in who they admit.

Academies in more desirable areas are also more likely to be able to fill 'academic' or musical places (Comprehensive). This can also be applied to a grammar school becoming a 'super selective' with a large catchment , wheras a 'Commuinty' grammar might still only be able to select up to 3 miles or so .

Deprived schools unfortunately tend to fall foul of ofsted and then become 'availabe' for acquisation by either 'egotists' or companies. They both think they know who to make 'economies of scale' and forget its a school and its primarly focus is education not 'efficiency'.

Smoke,
The criticism could be said of my dad community lea controlled primary.

Believe it or not some schools have become academies because they believe that the freedom allows them to catered better for their pupils.