Can a state primary become a free school?

[Fraidylady]

Just that really. Lease the building from the LEA and run ourselves.

My friend said that this was the first time this particular thing has been done.

Sounds very drastic, especially if it's all a bit of a gamble.

What happens it things deteriorate again?

An academy can be placed into special measures and ultimately closed if it fails to improve, just like a maintained school.

It is also possible to unwind the academy deal. Some opponents of academies claim that it takes 7 years to terminate an academy agreement if there are problems but that is just plain wrong. An academy agreement can be terminated on 7 years notice without needing any specific reason but there are a number of situations in which it can be terminated in a year or less. In some situations it can be terminated immediately. One of those is when the school has gone into special measures, fails to improve and fails to come up with a credible plan to resolve the problems. There are also circumstances in which the Secretary of State can replace some or all of the governors.

Your friend is right that this is the first time primary schools are being forced to convert to academies. She is in a difficult situation. Given what she has achieved I think there is justification for her to fight the conversion if she is unhappy about it, but she may want to think carefully about how she goes about doing so. Depending on how she goes about fighting it she could leave herself in an untenable position if the conversion goes through, in which case she would have little choice but to move on. From what you say she clearly cares about this school and is good at her job so I hope she stays there whatever happens.

I would strongly recommend that she doesn't believe what she hears from the unions and other opponents of academies. There are a lot of myths being spread. I would also strongly recommend that she treats claims from supporters of academies with equal caution. Some of the arguments made in favour are overblown and some of the facts advanced aren't all that they seem. I have seen my role on Mumsnet as trying to keep the debate honest by correcting misstatements whoever makes them.

As I've said before, if the conversion does go through I hope she stays as head and finds that the extra money, extra freedoms and support from the chosen sponsor help her to continue improving the school.

I think it can be quite liberating to ditch local authority control, which can be a dead hand. On the other hand I am uncomfortable with schools opting out of national admissions codes and teacher pay and conditions arrangements. This is because we need to avoid them turning into fiefdoms, which schools are sometimes prone to do.

They don't opt out of the Admissions Code. They can set their own admission criteria but they must still conform to the Code.

It also allows schools to pay more to get or keep better teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff.

Voluntary Aided schools are their own admissions authorities and Academies are as well, so they can opt in to the 2007 code but aren't obliged to comply in all respects.

Wrt pay and conditions, schools can pay auxiliary staff and paraprofessionals whatever they like, more or less. It only applies to teachers with QTS.

Schools can pay more already, via responsibility allowances, higher pay scale and so on.

I don't understand your advice to not believe what her union says, prh?

I guess there are a lot of myths and rumours around as it's all such a new thing, but if there are changes afoot in my workplace, I'd look to UNISON for their take. Ultimately, I make my own mind up, but the big unions do have a history of protecting their members' rights and interests.

The unions will probably be loosing out with the introduction of academies. so it's not in their interest to give a balanced view.

Do you think the tube drivers union is giving good advice to it's members? Because it certainly doesn't seem so from the outside.

If baffles me why more managers and governors fail to build effective working relationships with unions in the first place, getting towards this adversarial system.

The unions want the many of the same things that anyone else involved with the school wants - high standards, happy teachers, good working environment, sustainable working practices, etc. Unions are not the great agents provocateurs they are often made out to be.

And is it true that teachers who work in an academy don't have the same union protection as those in LA schools?

Why will the unions lose out?

My job involves me going into a lot of residential home and day centres for older people and, with very few exceptions, those who are run and managed by the council are a bit shambolic and disorganised, but have high rates of staff retention, low rates of sickness and the clients are well looked after. The ones that have gone over to the private sector tend to be entirely focused on cutting as many corners as possible to save money. Things that are considered essential by the council eg training are underfunded 'luxuries' in the private ones. There are very high levels of staff turnover, sickness, disciplinaries and the clients get a shit deal.

I think I've only just realised that this may be on the cards for education.

BoffinMum - You are correct that a VA school is its own admission authority. I'm afraid that is the only point where the first paragraph of your 10:58 post is correct.

The current Admissions Code for England is dated 2010. VA schools and academies do not "opt in" to the code. They have no choice. All VA schools and all academies MUST comply with the Admissions Code in every respect regardless of whether or not they want to. They are not exempt from any part of the code. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires VA schools to conform to the Admissions Code. Academies are required to conform by their Funding Agreement.

Rosebud05 - I wasn't intending to say that she should disbelieve her union completely but she should be aware that the teaching unions are against academies and are not a reliable source of information. I have seen a number of untrue statements from teaching unions. Either they have not bothered to find out the facts or they are deliberately misleading their members.

I have to say that in my line of work I have found the exact opposite to what you report. Coucils are shambolic and disorganised, have reasonable staff retention but high rates of sickness, little or nothing in the way of training for staff and give a very poor service. In the private sector things are more organised, staff retention is also generally good, sickness rates are much lower, training for staff is more readily available and the service to clients is much better.

On average sickness rates in the public sector are over 50% higher than in the private sector.

In the private sector it is important to win and retain customers. You can get away with giving customers a poor deal in the short term but in the long term you will lose out to businesses offering better value for money. Unfortunately residential homes and day centres are an area where the client's views frequently carry little sway with the person choosing the supplier, who is often only really interested in minimising cost. With schools, if the government achieves its stated vision, the "supplier" (the school) will be chosen by parents and schools which fail to respond to parents wishes will find it difficult to attract pupils.

Admissions Code is currently being revised, 2007 one was the basis for later regulations, Academies are technically non fee paying independent schools and not subject to the Act.

LSE wrote a good paper on the machinations of VA schools and admissions.

Greenwich judgement also significant in determining admissions.

I repeat - all academies are required by their funding agreements to conform to the Admissions Code. The fact they are not covered by the School Standards and Framework Act is irrelevant. If they fail to conform the Secretary of State can force them to do so.

It is true that some VA schools are not very good at following the Admissions Code as shown by the LSE research but that does not alter the fact that it applies to them. Since the LSE research a significant number of VA schools have been forced to come into line by the Schools Adjudicator but there is still more work to be done. Ultimately they can lose their funding if they fail to comply. The LSE research also demonstrated that some LAs are not very good at following the Code.

I would not regard the Greenwich judgement as particularly significant. It is covered in paragraph 3.7(b) of the Admissions Code. The judgement established that an LA cannot disadvantage families from outside their own area who apply for schools within their area. However, the subsequent Rotherham judgement confirmed that LAs can use catchment areas, automatically meaning that any out of LA applicants will also be out of catchment.

prh - "if the government achieves its stated vision, the "supplier" (the school) will be chosen by parents"

Sorry - I'm completely confused now. I thought one of the arguments against forced academies is that parents aren't consulted with - the ones at my friend's sister's school certainly haven't been and there is definitely no sense from her that what parents want will make a difference. Maybe they'd like to stay with their current 'supplier' - no idea, but they've definitely not been involved in the decision.

The government is talking about the longer term situation. You are right that parents are not being consulted with over forced conversion to academies and they don't have much say in other conversions either. The government's vision relates to the longer term situation. The idea is that parents will have a range of schools to choose from which may have significant differences and will be able to choose the school that best meets their wishes. Right now parents only really have one provider (the LA). You could count faith schools as an additional provider but some parents refuse to consider them and they only have limited freedoms so are less distinctive than academies/free schools are likely to be.

The government's perspective (and I'm not saying they are right) is that parents are too easily swayed by special interest groups and will tend to vote against change even when it is in their own interests. It is certainly the case that it is often easier in a democracy to get people to vote for the status quo unless the need for change is overwhelmingly obvious (although there are certainly exceptions to this rule).

In regard to faith schools, yes, some parents refuse to consider them but the general picture is the faith schools refusing to consider non-faith families.

In theory, I could apply to 5 faith schools (out of 7 of our nearest schools) but didn't bother because I know that as an atheist family, my children would have no chance.

How patronising your portrayal (and I accept that it's not your opinion) of the government's perspective that parents are "too easily swayed by special interest groups and will tend to vote against change even when it is in their own interests".

So, if you're Toby Young with a 'special interest group' of an all white, middle class governing body, you get to turf a load of charities and children with SEN out of a building in the name of parental choice.

Whereas, if you're an ordinary parent who happens to life in a high FSM/poverty area and are at a school which USED to have an inadequate head(my friend's sisters' school), you're considered incapable of an independent thought, let alone any right to voice your opinion.

Smacks of ideology being used to justify an pre-determined political agenda to me.

Rosebud - I really think you don't know the full facts about your friends sisters school. How could you? You're not a member of the governing body.

Toby youngs school offers a choice. This is a good thing. If you want your child to learn Latin you can apply. If you think Latin has no relevance you don't apply.

The building it's in is irrelevant.

Rosebud in your area maybe it is true that your child having atheist parents would have no chance of getting into a faith school. But that is not true everywhere, around here lots of children at all the faith schools are of different or no faith background. In other areas (as is frequently complained about on MN) there is no choice but faith schools.
Actually in my experience, faith is no the over riding factor in admission to a faith school (and sometimes the schools themselves would like to admit more widely but the diocese doesn't allow them to).

It is comparatively rare for faith schools to have no community places - or at lease CofE faith schools (which the vast majority are). Most have a minimum of 10%, most about 30%, and all their VC schools and newer academies 100% community places.

To find a group of 5 together with no community places is so unusual I find it unbelievable. Rosebud: You say you didn't "bother" - was that after checking the criteria, or instead of doing so? I would urge all parents to find out what the criteria really are, and not work on assumptions.

No, you're right indigo, I don't know the full facts but the lack of choice is the main cause of the Head's and the teachers' anger. I don't know about the parents, but if I was a parent at the school, the lack of input into such a major change within a broader educational strategy of 'increasing parental choice' would me me very angry.

Maybe the governors, Head, teachers and parents would like to convert to an academy? I've no idea, but it seems very unfair that they're not allowed the luxury of 'choice' or input. Particularly the parents actually, if you take the view that the governing body didn't take stronger action with the previous head and the current new head hasn't improved things fast enough.

In regard the faith schools, the ones near us (2 C of E, 3 Catholic) do have 'community places' at the bottom of the admission priority criteria. I looked into this in detail a few years ago when I was applying thanks meditrina (I too found it unbelievable that in an area of London quite dense with schools, so many were out of our reach, really!). None of them have admitted a non-faith pupil for many years as they fill their places from higher priority criteria so I knew there was no point.

I don't think it's unusual - there have been lots and lots of threads on this in the year or so I've been on MN.

Sorry, that's 4 Catholic and 1 CofE - just checked.

The Catholic ones are so over subscribed (at least 1 single form entry) that some active parishioners don't get places - 19 siblings for 30 places for one of them, for example.

Parents never get a choice of whether or not you convert to an academy. If its not forced, then it's solely the governing bodies decision.

If you are forced you have a choice of sponsor. If however you don't find one then the govt will assign one.

It's not news the govt wants these schools to convert. They've had a year to find a sponsor and do it on their terms.

A good leader (HT) should be able to manage this all and keep her staff motivated. That is her job.

What I meant was not a "non faith at the bottom of the criteria", but an actual proportion of the places always given on community (non-faith) criteria (think of it as two parallel admissions tracks to the same school) As I posted before, the vast majority of CofE schools have a set proportion which have to be filled from non-faith applicants ("excess" faith place applicants cannot take those places) and for their newer schools and all VC schools is 100% community criteria.

There are a few CofE schools (usually secondary) which only have non-faith as a bottom criteria rather than a specified proportion. To have a cluster of 4 together almost defies the odds. It is certainly atypical.

A year? I don't think that's true.

The first mention I could find of it was 16th June 2011, which was about the 200 schools, although given the shortage of head teachers, I don't know how realistic the idea of finding 200 'super heads' is.

I live in an area of London with traditionally a very high Irish population, which I guess explains the Catholic schools. My point is that even if the 1 C of E school did have a 3 community places (10% of single form entry), it would hardly make faith schools count as an 'additional supplier' of education as prh47 describes them.