to ask what you all think of academies? and forced acadamisation (is that even a word?)

[isitginoclock]

So... Every single teacher I know seems to think that academies are a terrible idea. From what I've read (and it's not a lot) they actually sound quite sensible.

Please can someone clear it up for me. What's changing? Why is it good? Why is it bad?

The truth is the unions have not fought for anything for a very long time, and take a lot of money for doing very little indeed a bit like LAs.

Teaching has been a dying profession for over a decade now.

Unfortunately unions have not fought for anything for a long time.

Much like LAs, they take money and give very very little in return.

Teaching as a profession has been dying for over a decade now.

Sorry!

Here is s slightly edited list of 10 points on academies from former children's laureate Michael Rosen. (Full article here )

1. When schools become academies, that means that they stop being directly in public control. They go onto 125 year leases. We have already seen that this means that the management of the school can use the school for all kinds of shady financial goings-on, the salaries of management can go through the roof. Here's one example:

1. The government say that becoming an academy gives a school autonomy and improves schools. This can't be said for schools in academy chains - in 'MATs'. These are run and controlled by a management outside of the school. This is a new bureaucracy that has no direct accountability to parents or the public.

Improvement: there is no evidence for this. In other words, this is not about bringing in something that the government and educationists know will make schools and education for all better. It's being done because the government wants to end public control of education.

1. The academy system as a whole is not responsible for the education of every single child. Children excluded or not admitted to academies are the responsibility of the local authority. But local authorities are being starved of cash and have hardly any educationists left in them. Local authorities are becoming unfit for educating excluded children. This is putting thousands of children into danger.

1. It is becoming clear that children ARE being excluded from academies ... [and] academies exclude at a far greater rate than local authority schools.

1. The test system that has come in is doing several jobs. Its first main job in primary schools is to measure teachers and schools. Our children are being used as the 'test material' for this job. They take the stress and the upset.... a good deal of what the children have to learn for this test is not agreed on by expert linguists, there are useless categories that neither children or adults need...

Its other job is to replace the national curriculum. The curriculum will become the testing. But ...

1. ... the test system is narrowing education. Children are spending far too much time just doing tests and rehearsals for the tests. ... Whole areas of experience and learning are not included in what an 'education for the test' covers. Think of investigation, invention (creativity), interpretation (coming up with various conclusions for things), discussion, co-operation, compassion.

And remember - at the end of the day, the tests are not there to help our children. They are there to test whether the teachers have taught the stuff that's in the test - some of which is useless anyway.

1. Full academisation means the end of the National Curriculum. This will, in effect, be replaced by the test-regime. The tests will determine what is taught and how it is taught, as teachers are forced to teach to the test in order to get good marks in the tests.

1. Academies do not have to employ qualified teachers. No matter how good an individual might be, this increases the possibility of academies hiring cheap and incompetent teachers. It's probably going to be a way of forcing down teachers' salaries. This is not good for teachers or children.

1. If academisation goes through, we lose our schools to charities and sponsors. We put schools even more under the control of the test-regime.

10. The government is in big trouble with all this: they've had to cancel baseline testing for 4 year olds, they've had to cancel this year's Key Stage 1 SATs because of incompetence and unreliability. Many of their own supporters including MPs, and local councils are opposed to the White Paper on academies for all. We need to unite and fight against the tests and the White Paper. Some people are already organising boycotts of the tests for May 3. People are resisting forced academisations.

Parents might or will....

have to buy a new uniform (very expensive especially at secondary)

Have children with unqualified teachers

Have children whose options choices at year 9 may be much smaller than at present/persuaded into subjects they don't enjoy but may be easier so better for results.

Teachers all young and moving on all the time, if they dont quit, no steady ethos or atmosphere at school

Teachers paid a lot less so much less of giving up of their own time out of goodwill, so less trips, school plays, after school activities.

And on and on.....

Going on about qualified teachers my husbands cousin is a qualified teachers he's awful so much so he hasn't managed to keep a job sine for any length of time he's is awful we don't even let him babysit and in fact when told us he was planning to teach because he been made redundant not because he has any love for children or the subject he teaches my husband actually looked a bit pale

The best "teacher" my son ever had was the cookery teacher unqualified he was brilliant just because you have a qualification it certainly doesn't mean you
A- no how to teach
B- can manage a class
C- are competant in your subject

teachers have one of the lowest dissmial rates amount any comparison profession is that because there all fab or is it its neigh impossible to get rid of a shit teacher heads should be in charge of what happens in a school
Why are teachers so frighnted of this

Well, it's actually quite easy to get rid of a teacher, to be honest.

its neigh impossible to get rid of a shit teacher heads should be in charge of what happens in a school

It is very easy to get rid of teachers. Shite or otherwise. Usually just the expensive ones though- regardless of their ability in the classroom.

The issue is that heads won't be in charge. A group of people who have money, not education, as a motivating factor will.
Some teachers are crap. They are weeded out. Some non-qualified teachers are ace. Some non-qualified teachers are crap.
Aiming for non-qualified staff is not the way to improve the profession further.

My child's outstanding secondary is an academy. It's not run by a MAT, there has been no change in uniform, there is a full governing body, the teachers are generally superb and results are amongst the best in the country. Depends on the academy. Their primary is an academy, it's run by a MAT, it's appalling and we pulled the children out.

With regards to pay and conditions, and those saying with full academisation pay will fall etc because staff won't have the choice to leave for a better paid school, surely they'll just leave the profession? I don't think it will be affected in the way people are guessing because of this?

Unqualified doesn't necessarily mean bad, but it almost always means cheap. It drives pay down.

And for all the great ones there are plenty who aren't. You can get lucky...or not. It's much less regulated.

Do we need more teachers quitting?

sistersweet it's the same with the secondary academy here. The primary school is run by a MAT and is appalling, lots of teachers have left and several friends with children there have pulled them out.

Another problem with MATs is-they are often not geographically close so the executive head is rarely seen. One such academy trust near me has three schools forty miles apart. All but one (where the executive head is based) were in special measures and remain in special measures now, three years later. They are haemorrhaging staff-miserable from diktats from the executive head who they never see and has no idea about the different types of school there are!

The smallest of the schools is a collage school with just 4 classes. Three of the teachers resigned and left at Christmas. Two of them are being taught by agency staff and the third is being taught by the head two days, the inclusion manager one day a week and an LSA on the other two-it is a total mess and...surprise suprise-their data dashboard doesn't look brilliant.

I suppose they could parachute in a teacher from one of the others in the trust but the nearest is 40 miles away. I wouldn't appreciate being told to leave my class and school to do a long commute to work to go and sort out that mess!

Village school not collage!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36046503

An entire borough has stopped teaching A-levels with the last school, an academy, stating that they are not 'financially viable'. My worry is that when every school is an academy subject choices will be diminished and only those 'cheap' options will remain as those will make money for the parent companies of these chains.

Education is a right of every child, it's defined in law, so how can limiting educational opportunity be legal?

Times and Financial Times running stories today that they're preparing to u-turn on academisation.

TBH, I wouldn't believe anything Michael Rosen says. His distortions, misrepresentations and propaganda about phonics are absolutely appalling. He has his own political axe to grind here.

That said, I have no idea whether the academisation policy is a good idea or not, but I suspect we shouldn't be spending money on it right now.

I'm not a fan. Isn't there a borough somewhere where all the 6th form provision is via academies and a key subject isn't available for A level anywhere locally? I can't remember the exact details. There needs to be some level of local control.

Times and Financial Times running stories today that they're preparing to u-turn on academisation.

Just for primary schools or for all schools?
DS's high school has jumped before they were pushed; didn't want to academise but thought they had to (everything announced last year for secondaries) so better to go at a time of their choosing. Maybe it turns out that they never had to? Arggh....