The Swedish company given the go-ahead last week to run a Suffolk school is expecting to make £5m profits this year.

[mrz]

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/28/state-schools-private-sector-revolution?CMP=twt_gu

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister "Let me reassure you: yes to greater diversity; yes to more choice for parents. But no to running schools for profit, not in our state-funded education sector."

Given that schools will be 'failing' left, right and centre under the new Ofsted framework, how many times do you think it's reasonable for primary school children in particular to change schools?

What if there aren't any school places (there's a 70,000 predicted shortfall in reception places in London over the next 4 years)?

What if the parents are happy with the school - round my way, Ofsted are putting schools in special measures when well over 90% of the parents are happy with the school. Why shouldn't those parents have a 'choice' to keep their children in the school.

Most schools that go into special measures come out again. It is only rarely that a school fails to improve and ends up being closed as a result.

In general a local authority will only close a school because there is a surplus of school places in the area. Having surplus school places creates costs and inefficiencies for an LEA and there is significant government pressure to reduce surplus place provision. Of course this is inconsistent with promoting parent choice as the more surplus places are the more parents are likely to have a choice. ( know some of you will find the notion that there could be inconsistency in government policy deeply shocking.)

Rather than closing a school outright they will usually reduce its admission numbers, from, say two form, to one form entry. It is usually less troublesome for an LEA if it has to find a school to close, to close one that is not doing so well. Even so there is often a lot of opposition from parents. As prh47bridge says a forced closure due to failure to improve is rare. However in an area with surplus places should a school be put into special measures closure will be one of the options looked at by an LEA, but only as one option.

Precisely prh, the very, very great majority of schools improve within a local authority framework. Greater focus, support and strong leadership seem to be the key factors in improvement, not a change to academy status.

Just playing devil's advocate, the academies that have been into special measures have all come out again.

But I agree that strong leadership is the key factor.

Well, that isn't evidenced yet, as many are going into special measures now.

Anyone see this over the weekend?

www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/teachers_call_for_islington_school_to_drop_academy_status_1_1198112

many are going into special measure now

Evidence?

Birkdale High, Merseyside

Sir Robert Woodward Academy, Lancing

Looks like Furness Academy is at least on a notice to improve.

These in the last couple of months. I'm not trying to attribute these schools difficulties to academy status (at least one has only been an academy for a few months, so that clearly isn't the reason) but just pointing out that there isn't yet evidence to show that academies can reliably and robustly get themselves out of a category.

In my town, two of the worst performing schools are academies. One of them has been listed as the least value added school in the country. Results have plummeted. The staff turn-over has been horrendous.

One of them is our catchment school. Not a single parent I know with children at this school wants them to be there. They would desperately like to send them elsewhere, but all the other schools are over-subscribed- and have been since those two academies started up. The lack of popularity of the academies has not magically created more spaces in the other schools; they are physically full to the brim and cannot take more pupils, regardless of how many queue up. Popular schools cannot expand if there isn't the physical space to do so.

In my Swedish hometown, children recently had their final year disrupted when a free school went bust. Yes, it will no doubt sort itself out eventually- when the other schools have had time to expand- but it is too late for those children; they can't go back and do their exams again.

Given the number of academies I wouldn't regard that as "lots". And as far as I can tell that is the full list.

A few have gone into special measures and come out again but I admit my "devil's advocate" bit wasn't accurate. What I should have said is that as far as I am aware none of those that have gone into special measures has closed as a result and most have come out again.

How many of these were set up as new schools and how many were poorly performing before becoming academies. Some schools 'play' the system and became academies to get more money, not because they believed it was a better way to run a school. This system needs time to prove itself, particularly schools set up from scratch by people who were not previously involved in education, then we will see if it makes a difference.
Agree that it is bad when a school fails, and the children suffer, but the present system fails children anyway, so we need to do something.

I think it's quite a lot considering that there were only 200 academies when the coalition came in and most that have converted since then have been 'outstanding' schools without a sponsor.

As you say, very few community schools are closed as a result of special measures and the very, very great majority have come out.

This is evidence-based - LA's most usefully provide helpful support to struggling schools. Whether the academy model, either through the S of S or the sponsor is able to do is consistently, is as yet unknown.

Didn't Turin Grove in Edmonton recently change hands from Edison Learning to AET, I think, though I think this may have been financial failings rather than academic?

"schools set up from scratch by people who were not previously involved in education"

Call me old-fashioned, youngermother, but I'd rather my children's school was run by someone who knew something about education.

Salisbury School, whilst still an LA-controlled school, entered into a 3 year contract with Edison Learning in 2007 under which they took over leadership and management of the school, similar to the deal that started this thread. During the course of that contract the school was renamed Turin Grove but it remained under LA control throughout. That contract came to an end last year following which the school became an academy sponsored by EAT and the LDA, changing its name again to Nightingale Academy in the process. The deal with Edison Learning appears to have been a success both financially and academically.

"I'd rather my children's school was run by someone who knew something about education"

So not the governors then! They are not required to know anything about education, although one hopes the staff governors have some understanding.

The day to day management of any school, regardless of its type, is in the hands of the head teacher and the staff. If they don't know something about education I don't want to send my children there.

I meant local authority education depts who, in a joint apt with governing bodies, appoint the head.

However fraught with problems LAs are, their education depts are at least run by people who know more about education than someone who flogs carpet for a living, for example.

Ditto, I'd rather the governing body of my children's school was composed of variety of local people with an investment in the local community, rather than people appointed by a sponsor who may know nothing about the community. so education in its broadest sense, I guess.

Turin/Nightingale - yes, you're right Turin Grove improved to be 'satisfactory' whilst under LA control (though in a contract with Edison learning) and the governors chose not to renew Edison's after the 3 years, which is where LEAT come in.

montrose42.wordpress.com/tag/edison-learning-and-uk-schools/

Not an unmitigated 'success' then. LEAT academy chain have some experience of helping struggling academies, so I guess that's why they've now been called in.

I meant local authority education depts who, in a joint apt with governing bodies, appoint the head

No they don't. The governors appoint the head. The LA's role is restricted to providing advice which the governors must consider. However, the governors are free to appoint any candidate they want, notwithstanding any advice from the LA. The LA must appoint the candidate chosen by the governors unless the candidate concerned does not meet the qualification requirements.

The new academies are being encouraged to keep broadly the same structure for their governing body as they have prior to conversion. As they do not have sponsors it is likely that the governors will be mainly local people.

From my reading of the Turin Grove situation, the Edison and LEAT things are separate. The school chose to become an academy and LEAT/LDA were the chosen sponsors. They could have also renewed the contract with Edison so that Edison continued to provide services to the academy but chose not to do so. I don't know enough about the school to comment on the success or otherwise of the Edison contract.

Quite - LAs have a regulatory capacity.

This thread is about a for-profit making company being given the go ahead to run a free school, so the issue of sponsorship.

Turin Grove governors chose not to renew the contract with Edison or incorporate them into their academy conversion. No other school in Enfield has leapt at the opportunity to have Edison involved. This isn't a glowing reference - it looks like the results have gone up since LEAT became involved.

Edison Learning results were below 'floor target' and just scraped a 'satisfactory' (old framework, so 'unsatisfactory' now). They are on Gove's list of academy sponsors, though calling this a 'proven track record' seems to be quite dishonest.

LAs have a regulatory capacity

I don't agree. If they did the governors would have to act on the LAs advice and could not appoint someone the LA considers unsuitable. The governors are entitled to appoint anyone, even if the LA says they are unsuitable, provided they hold the necessary qualifications.

The school referred to in the original article is not being sponsored by a profit making company. The Swedish company involved does sponsor the school nor does it have any role to play in appointing governors. I therefore stand by my answer that the governors are likely to be mainly local people.

Edison Learning is one of the DfE approved consultant groups who can help sponsors and proposers establish their academy or free school. I don't know anywhere near enough about them to discuss their track record. I note that there is no list of approved academy sponsors according to the DfE's responses to FoI requests. Academy proposals, including the sponsors, are approved on a case by case basis.

That's interesting, prh, because I was talking to someone who works in a school in Birmingham today (where 27 schools are under intense pressure to convert to sponsored academy status, even though the majority of them were in the 500 list of '3 years to improve'). The DfE gave their school a list of 15 possible sponsors, including for-profit companies like Edison and others based in the States with no schools presently in the UK.

The DfE also refused to release information about the schools it is targeting to be sponsored academies, but that certainly doesn't mean that there isn't a list, or several.

I think there is a difference between giving a school a list of organisations you know may be interested in sponsoring and saying these are approved, but I agree that someone being given such a list may jump to the conclusion that they are approved.

The DfE didn't refuse to answer the FoI question in this case. They have given a very specific answer on at least two occasions stating that there is no list of approved sponsors (which was different from the answer given under the last government when it seems there was a list of approved sponsors).

The school in question was told that they were approved, so it wasn't much of a conclusion to leap to.

Why do you think the DfE claim that they don't have a list of approved sponsors? My guess would be that they don't want to let the electorate know that they've got for-profit companies lined up (yes, i know they can't make a direct profit out of the school).

A very new academy chain with no experience of running schools in diverse communities, whose schools have never yet been inspected was called up by the DfE and told it 'could have' 2 primaries in Haringey, with a plan to have 1 head between 2 schools. This as the answer it gave the governors, by the way, when they asked what their interest in sponsoring the school was. I wonder what your thoughts are on why this chain (the Kemnal Trust by the way) was approved on a 'case by case' basis.

Again, I struggle to see how this is about improving standards.