Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Up to 125k for boss of Academy company - where does that money come from??

11 replies

Bramshott · 01/05/2012 13:49

Advert here

If there's no new money for academies, where does the money come from to pay someone 125k to run the company setting them up Confused??

OP posts:
TalkinPeace2 · 01/05/2012 15:22

That job is in a private company that extracts management fees from 24 schools.
Think of it as a private LEA
And LEA managers routinely earn that money and more - especially in London where the LEAs are tiny.

TalkinPeace2 · 01/05/2012 15:26

jobs.guardian.co.uk/jobs/education/direct-employer/?sort=Salary
its just one of many in that range

IndigoBell · 01/05/2012 19:18

Academies get extra money to buy all the services that they used to get from the LEA.

So they do get extra money - and they have to spend it on buying whatever they used to get from the LEA.

IndigoBell · 01/05/2012 19:21

When the chain reaches 60 schools, it's the equivalent of £2k per school.

May well be very good value for the schools.

EvilTwins · 01/05/2012 19:25

I teach in one of their academies. £125k? Shock

IndigoBell · 01/05/2012 19:37

Thing is, it sounds a lot, and is a lot.

But they have to pay the going rate for the job.

This isn't a teacher who's been promoted, it's a totally different career path.

If they paid £60k the calibre of applicants would be very different. You wouldn't be getting the right applicants.

If a teacher wants to earn this kind of money, they need to get out of teaching (or become a HT if a large secondary)

EvilTwins · 01/05/2012 20:09

You're right indigo, and this isn't a teaching job- it's not even an education job- it's project and change management. I have to say, of the AET employees (ie head office) I've seen so far, they are all bloody good and work very very hard- traveling long distances for a start. We had several in for INSET when we first became an academy and it was a revelation- the standard of training was excellent, and (this is going to sound ridiculous) the trainers' interpersonal skills were all far higher than we have become used to with LA trainers.

Bramshott · 02/05/2012 09:20

Hmm, yes, I see your point, but if the academies are paying the management company to do the work that the LEA used to do (with money taken from the LEA I presume), and the LEA doesn't have to do any less work managing, say 100 schools rather than 200, there must be a black hole in the sums somewhere? Are Academies allowed to make a profit?

OP posts:
IndigoBell · 02/05/2012 09:28

The LEAs get less money to manage less schools.

morethanpotatoprints · 09/05/2012 10:12

We have a family friend who has been in management of academies from the offset. He is a past HT, worked in education all his working life and before academies he was in charge of placing superheads into failing schools. He is well into his fifties and although I have no time for the education system per se, I know that whatever the amount of money he will earn will be worth it.

warwick1 · 10/05/2012 17:00

Typically CEO's of academy chain companies are paid £240,000 +. More than CEO of local authorities and certainly more than the prime minister. Directors of these academy chain companies are also able to be directors of other 'for profit' companies that supply their academies.

The money comes from the tax payer. Most academy chain companies charge management fees of 4-5% of total school budget. In a typical secondary school with a budget of 6million that is a considerable amount. These chain academy groups do not cover all the services that the LA or LEA covered so new academies have to purchase these services separately. Also chain academy groups expect their academies to purchase centralised services separately (admin including computer systems, software, online services for finance, IT, HR, performance management, behaviour management etc), these are all additional costs. Many of these services are private companies setup by the chain group.

Often as a result of these extra costs academies have to shed staff, usually experienced staff - to be replaced eventually by newly qualified. Many new academies have to shed staff on a yearly basis as the chain group company expands its empire.

I would suggest than parents should carefully check the facts before voting to accept an academy chain company to run their school. These companies often come with an arsenal of hot tips to achieve short term gains. Policy documentation to impress ofsted, advice on 'equivalent' GCSE's which give 2, 3 or 4 GCSE's to boost results in league tables, until parents realise that post 16+ institution won't accept them for decent courses.

Once absorbed by a chain group, there is no escape unless the chain academy group agrees - which is unlikely. Governance is totally controlled by the group, local governors are quickly shed and replaced by chain academy group appointees. Staff and governors are controlled by loyalty and confidentiality polices and agreements. Parents are not supported by governors, their job is to impart the corporate line and rubber stamp academy group policies and budgets.

Parents should check the facts themselves; ofsted reports, performance reports on member academies (www.education.gov.uk). Academy chain groups employ PR and press staff to spin information released to the press. They are corporate companies which are now getting larger than the local education authorities they replaced. The CEO's of the six largest groups appear to dictate policy to Michael Gove, The DFE appears to have lost control.

These chain groups now appear to have a general aim of 'all through education', which appears to mean that they hope to take over both the feeder primary schools and the post 16+ colleges. Presumably to get around the problem of their courses not being acceptable to current post 16 colleges. In some areas this will mean that children's education (4-18) will be totally in the hands of a private company.

These chain groups are businesses, they pay their staff well but so far they haven't delivered the performance they promised. For to long they have relied on tricks to boost league table results, unfortunately as can be seen with many of the first generation academies these results are faltering as academies are forced to provide higher standard courses. Remove the bling and the spin and they are found wanting. Most of the latest generation of 'converter' academies haven't fallen for the bling and spin of the chain group companies and are working as small groups, supporting each other without the costs of belonging to a chain company, with local governing boards they exist in the local community and appear more accountable.

Unfortunately these goliath groups appear to be more self serving than community serving, a good idea hijacked it seems.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread