Gove's plan to privatise academies and free schools

[muminlondon]

I saw this:

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/secret-memo-shows-michael-goves-plan-for-privatisation-of-academies-8488552.html

I knew this was the reason for forced academies.

"The Government believes that head teachers and school leaders should decide how to use the Pupil Premium. They are held accountable for the decisions they make through:
? the performance tables which show the performance of disadvantaged pupils compared with their peers
? the new Ofsted inspection framework, under which inspectors focus on the attainment of pupil groups, in particular those who attract the Pupil Premium
? the new reports for parents that schools now have to publish online"

Which bit of this, prh47bridge, says that governors do not have to show it makes a difference to children on free school meals????? Do you really know what you are talking about?

I'd love to see the Ofsted report of a school which claimed it didn't have to show it was making a difference to children on free school meals with the pupil premium. I'm sure it would be headed straight for forced academisation.

Although, of course, I suppose schools have a choice to risk getting a bad Ofsted report. Not a choice the average governor wouldn't have sleepless nights over, though. I think they'd probably rather go out of their way to demonstrate they are spending pupil premium money in a way that benefits the children who attract it.

TBH this occurred to me about 15 years ago as one of the best ways of forcing underperforming schools to get their act together. When all parents have the financial clout to be able to say where their child goes, they may very well decline their nearest crap school and force it to up its game. Conservatism is not my natural constituency but this strikes me as a very good idea. They don't even have to make a profit (most private schools don't), just see visible effects in their bank balance of their failure or otherwise to educate well. There are far too many coasting schools whose SMTs simply hold up their hands and say "what do you expect? It's the Kidzzz and their crap backgrounds". Not an excuse for crap education in my book. They should all be doing the best they can but many don't- as a teacher I have seen this in action.

And when will all parents have the financial clout to be able to say where their child goes to school???? Geography plays a major part in this - you can't choose to send your child to a school 50 miles away if you can't even afford a bus fare to your nearest town. Financial clout is what creates have and have-not schools, as those with the financial clout leave the crap schools to those who don't.

"Visible effects in their bank balance of their failure or otherwise to educate well." Are you suggesting that if a school is not doing a good job, it should have its funding cut?

Having a budget to spend in School B rather than School A within the same town will simply give all parents the ability to make proper decisions about their child's education, rather than being disenfranchised by having to submit to the decision of their LEA regarding where their child goes, when they know full well that school A they've been assigned isn't as good as school B, but they feel powerless to appeal/ challenge anything in the school itself.

Challenging is most often done by the educated middle-classes at the moment- precisely those who will vote with their feet and take their child off to School B anyway, leaving school A devoid of any challenging parental involvement.

The bus fare argument is a total red herring in my view. In most towns distances between schools are walkable and in London where most deprivation in this country lies, transport is free for schoolchildren.

And, no I am suggesting that if the school is not doing a good job, parents will simply take their child along with its funding to a better performing school. I can't see anything controversial about that- it's about giving more involvement and power back to the parents.

duchesse - Yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

The legal restrictions on spending the pupil premium are set out in the Conditions of Grant. This states, "The grant may be spent by maintained schools for the purposes of the school; that is to say for the educational benefit of pupils registered at that school, or for the benefit of pupils registered at other maintained schools; and on community facilities, for example services whose provision furthers any charitable purpose for the benefit of pupils at the school or their families, or people who live or work in the locality in which the school is situated." It goes on to say that the school does not have to spend all the pupil premium. The governors can choose to carry some of it forward to the following financial year. You will note that there is absolutely nothing in there requiring the school to spend the money specifically for the benefit of the pupils attracting the pupil premium. It has exactly the same (lack of) restrictions as the DSG. The governors can spend it however they see fit provided it is for the purposes of the school.

The "accountability" on the page you found is purely that the school is expected to produce reasonable results for pupils attracting the pupil premium. Ofsted, for example, look at the results. They do not investigate how the pupil premium has been spent. The league tables also tell you nothing about how the premium has been spent.

rabbitstew - Shifting ground again I see! You are suggesting that governors of academies have huge additional responsibilities that are not faced by governors of other schools. Whether or not governors of community schools face sleepless nights due to the level of responsibility they have taken on is irrelevant to that argument.

Apologies - all of the above is for rabbitstew. Misread and thought the post at 08:56:12 was from duchesse.

duchesse - sorry, I don't understand your point about School B and School A? Are you talking about new schools opening up in towns where there only ever used to be a school A? Parents don't have free choice of schools however the schools are set up - the school might have entrance criteria which exclude parents who wish their children to go there (or be full, already). There will never be total freedom of choice. Geography also limits the number of new school buildings and premises - land is not exactly cheap. I would not, personally, be happy with new schools appearing at great public expense, then failing to thrive and closing down. And I would not want to be one of the parents of children in a school which goes downhill and is allowed to do so until it closes down altogether and I have to scramble around for places in competing schools. It all sounds dreadfully messy and wasteful, tbh. And it still leaves the rump of people who just want their children to go to the closest school, if they have to go to school at all - they will still all congregate in the worst schools. So I don't see how you are planning on ensuring these children still get a great education? By allowing those who care about education to leave them to it in their useless schools?

prh47bridge - I am not shifting ground, I am pointing out that the way you describe governors' responsibilities would not leave governors free of sleepless nights. You were the one who mentioned the fact that governors would not have sleepless nights, after all!! And sorry, but Ofsted does inquire into how the money is being spent. Perhaps next time they do that, I should tell them off and refer them to you.

rabbit, that's what already happening! And no, I'm not talking about new schools. I'm talking about schools in towns sufficiently densely populated to have schools every mile or so. In fact I'm thinking specifically about the town in Surrey where I used to live. Children from X (poor) part of town were assigned to particular schools in their area. People from the other side of the main road were assigned completely different schools. The three secondary schools played horrendous games with boundary lines, drawing and redrawing them to suit themselves, even doing it in one instance to exclude a particular family. So the argument that this is not already happening is a false one.

My personal feeling is that greater parental power will encourage greater parental involvement and investment in their child's education, meaning that schools have to start offering an education that suits the children and parents rather than their own position in the league tables. That can only be a good thing imo.

I agree with you it is already happening. That's my point, really - the changes won't stop it happening and I fear they will make the situation more extreme. As you have seen from the past, schools will move hell and high water to avoid having to accept certain families. This will not be improved by giving schools more control over whom they accept, surely? It is since the Tories introduced greater parental power many years ago that the situation has worsened and now they are making it worse still.

The power to send your children elsewhere is a very blunt tool.

duchesse, I think choice always was and certainly will be an illusion because choice can only exist as long as there is spare capacity in schools - which is not economic to the taxpayer. A half empty school will never be able to compete with a full school in being able to offer a wide range of subjects and also be able to set pupils in different ability groups, and certainly not if there are other complex special needs to be met. It would have to shut, or be handed over e.g. to the Harris chain and parents have even less of a say in how the school is run.

Secondly, LEAs do not decide where pupils go - over a third of schools are now converter academies and where they inherited a favourable catchment or admissions policy they will retain it - this does not give parents any more choice either.

The divide between converter academies - including schools with middle class catchment areas, as well as grammars (80% of which have converted) and sponsored academies is already wide and sponsored academies have three times as many on free school meals. This government is not about to allow chains to fail and weaken the case for profit-making by giving poorer children the option to avoid academy schools. Neither does it seem to want to even out choice - 20% of secondary pupils continue to select faith schools (which not all can access) and 6% continue to go to selective grammars, now converter academies.

Neither the profit motive nor over-capacity would be good value to the taxpayer - they would not improve choice or save money overall, just redistribute it.

If tiredaftertwo is still following this, statistics with regard to pupils on school meals: for converter academies (average FSM 10%) and sponsored academies (average FSM 30%).

In case there is any doubt which sort of academy Michael Gove and David Cameron will be considering sending their children. I believe the Oratory is a converter academy and Nick Clegg has considered this, but not Ark Putney, which is part of a chain. But there's another thread on that.

Ofsted do evaluate how effectively the governors ensure financial stability. They also conduct surveys to monitor how the pupil premium is being spent. A school may be asked to complete the survey during an inspection. Ofsted also survey some schools by telephone. However, this survey simply contributes to an annual report produced by Ofsted summarising their findings. It does not affect the outcome of any inspection nor does it lead to any action against the school based on how it spends the money.

Yes, the governors of any school have huge responsibilities - VA schools even more so than community schools. That may cause them sleepless nights although most of the ones I've met don't seem to have any problems. However, the additional responsibilities taken on by the governors of an academy are relatively minor.

So the question asked was: 'Who will these governors now turn to if Serco turns out to be useless?'

And my question s: who put the trust in touch with Serco in the first place? The DfE? The New Schools Network?

In fact I've found the answer to my particular question: the New Schools Network.

www.ethosjournal.com/topics/education/item/262-school-for-all

'This campaigning and protesting was taking place over the course of 2009 ... In the same year, at a conference in Westminster, we met Elaine Simpson, Serco?s Global Director for Children?s Services, and Rachel Wolf of the New Schools Network (NSN). With advice from both Serco and the NSN we began to develop a curriculum for our proposed new school.'

So this wasn't a governors decision anyway, it was the 'founders' with advice from the NSN which was set up by advisers of Michael Gove.

So the question asked was: 'Who will these governors [and founders] now turn to if Serco turns out to be useless?'

Well, they don't need to turn to anyone, do they, they can just blame themselves and implode - they are the governors, after all, so it's all their fault according to prh47bridge if anything goes wrong. Not the problem or fault of the LA or government...

Other outraged taxpayers could go and sit outside the governors' front doors and protest against them for doing a bad job unpaid. We could name and shame them in the national press for being worse than the LA. Nothing to have sleepless nights over, though.

Who will these governors [and founders] now turn to if Serco turns out to be useless?

I have no inside information so I don't know if they have any plans in place for this contingency. There are other companies offering similar services or they could run the school without the use of a third party's services in the normal way.

The founders of a free school are the initial governors, so this is the governors' decision.

New Schools Network is a charity which was set up in 2009, before the current government came to power. The founder, Rachel Wolf, did indeed work as an adviser to Gove before setting up NSN.

The New Schools Network is funded directly by the government:

www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00199422/new-schools-network-awarded-grant-to-support-free-schools
www.education.gov.uk/a00199451/nsn

I found an older Guardian article which refers to special advisers involved including, interestingly, one of the @ToryEducation advisers implicated in the recent bullying stories.