Could academies spell the end of state-provided education?

[Cloudminnow]

This is what the NUT says ... Would it matter if this was the case? Do pupils benefit or suffer if their school converts to an academy? If it makes no difference, who benefits from the change, if anyone?

Changing accounting policies isn't the same thing as uncovering lies, however.

Surely, on the basis of what you are saying, therefore, getting rid of Local Authorities and making all schools Academies is exceptionally unlikely to improve anything, because whatever the system you choose, you have good eggs and bad eggs, and it costs a lot of money converting schools into academies, and once you have spent taxpayers' money on these conversions, there is less money to go round to do other things that DO genuinely improve things and DO provide checks that our schools are still behaving in a good and above board manner.

Whether it a lie or a cover up is up to the LA to determine based on the guidelines. statutory accounts require that one declares declare everything one owns and owes, not all LA guidelines do.

The first wave of academies consisted primarily of sink schools which despite the best efforts of LAs could not be turned around so sponsors were found to engage with the process instead. My first 3 academies being a case in point - the LAs were co-sponsors and pushed the case for conversion on that basis. the latest one admitted that more than 50% of its most able went out of borough all teh time and they did not have the expertise or the will to open another school. they supported 5 new schools and academies on that basis despite knowing what the financial implications for them were. I'm not sure I agree that the cost of conversion is that much compared to what was being lost in lax LA controls and a light audit regime. chances are what you term as the cost of conversion is not just the £25k thats given to schools to convert.

if one in every three or three in every 5 schools in one LA are either in special measures or require improvement, the issue is much more than money. the cost of turning around a sink school including moving on weak management on final salary pensions and generous severance T&Cs is very high and a couple of LAs worked out that conversion was much much cheaper.

But finefatmama - it's a long time since academies only converted if they were failing, isn't it, and of those that did convert for that reason, aren't quite a few still in dire straits? Also, how can conversion genuinely be cheaper? Surely the same weak management still need moving on? They don't suddenly lose their rights to final salary pensions and severance T&Cs do they? Don't you just mean the accounting for it is different?

aren't quite a few still in dire straits

Some are. Most have improved dramatically. For academy supporters this is part of the evidence that academies work. Personally I don't think it proves anything. It should be easier to improve a failing school than a successful one.

Also, how can conversion genuinely be cheaper? Surely the same weak management still need moving on?

When a failing school converts to an academy it must have a sponsor. The sponsor is expected to provide resources to help turn the school round. It may not be cheaper overall but the cost to the taxpayer should be lower.

But I really don't believe the cost to the taxpayer will be lower in the long run any more than I believe PFI projects are any cheaper.

The cost to the taxpayer in the long run will be the same. The total amount of revenue funding received from the DfE by an LA and the schools within the LA remains broadly constant regardless of how many of the schools are academies. Unlike PFI there are no hidden long term costs.

So, it doesn't save money, it doesn't cure the problem of badly run schools (there are "good eggs" and "bad eggs" in every system), it's really not very easy to keep chopping and changing academy providers when you've decided you don't like the last lot, and during the process of conversion a lot of energy is diverted into the conversion process rather than focusing on the central aims of a school, so a lot of extra work for little in the way of obvious gains to the taxpayer.

The profit is the amount that the sponsor academy is paying "Executive Directors" that are family! Please do not think that some of these sponsor academies are not finding ways of making money.......... that would be very very naïve.(Hmm)

and when the academy buildings are built using a PFI .....

In a business money paid to the executive directors is a cost which reduces the profits. They do not determine their own pay. In the same way the senior employees referred to by titles such as "executive director" in academies do not determine their own pay. That does not necessarily prevent some of them being paid very high salaries, of course. The trustees can in theory be held to account if pay is clearly excessive but I'm not aware of any case where this has actually happened.

I am not a fan of PFI. Many PFI contracts seem to have been poorly managed.

In the same way the senior employees referred to by titles such as "executive director" in academies do not determine their own pay

do you have evidence of trustee boards turning down executive pay recommendations ?
just that I've never ever seen it
and I've been involved with charities and remuneration for over 20 years

Funny, there is a huge difference between being able unilaterally to decide your own pay and making sure you get paid a lot more than you deserve, as Fred Goodwin could tell you.

do you have evidence of trustee boards turning down executive pay recommendations

I have seen it but not very often. The recommendations, of course, don't come from the executives themselves. They are usually made by looking at external comparisons, which is part of why executive salaries everywhere tend to chase each other up.

I am sure some executives in companies, charities and, indeed, local and national government get paid a lot more than they deserve.

No, most academies are totally state funded converters, who manage themselves not sponsored.

LEAs staff haven't gone they have just become self employed educational consultants

It's an ill thought out mess, not a Tory conspiracy.

Ofsted, on the other hand, I don't trust an inch. They are upgrading and down grading schools of all types, LEA, sponsored, convertor and free to ensure they look valuable to what ever colour government we get next.

Sadly as long as politicians and parents fall for their shit they will keep their cushy jobs at the expense of the teachers moral and our children's education.

LEAs' staff becoming self-employed educational consultants is the same thing as scattering them to the four winds - there isn't the same level of shared knowledge and expertise any more, it's in bits all over the place. And the DfE think it can co-ordinate centrally what was hard work to co-ordinate on a county-by-county level. And it is a Tory conspiracy, because I think they decided this was a good way of reducing the power of the unions and confusing the issue so that it took people longer to notice that "improvements" were actually ways of covering up dramatic cuts in funding to local government and schools. And Ofsted swanning in and taking a snapshot of what is going on in a school and telling everyone what has to be changed without constructively helping that change (that's someone else's job) is always going to be an attraction to those who like to wield power without having to deal with the effect on the ground.

'it is a Tory conspiracy, because I think they decided this was a good way of reducing the power of the unions and confusing the issue'

They certainly confuse the issue and mislead. They cite academies' improvement rate in GCSE results when they are starting from a lower base and/or including equivalents that won't count for much longer, and confusing sponsored and converter academies when the second group includes selective schools. Yet they use the combined and inflated results - not proven at primary level - to justify forced imposition of a sponsor. And in the free school programme they are covering up the high numbers of schools sponsored by chains yet these are proposed and approved with even less transparency than for other academies. And we don't even know the extent of land or 125-year lease transfers to trusts or the implication of this for chains that fail, go bust, etc.

Too true, I'd love to make our Ofsted inspectors and the person from the DFE stay and see the stress and chaos they have caused, for bugger all gain in results and many losses (in extracurricular and fun)

As for LEA staff, it is a total mess, something's are in utter chaos, but at least you can hang on to good people if you can pay.

Outlying rural schools were right at the bottom of the LEAs list.

You want the ed Phy. OK, you can have him in once a year, in July! (Oh and he didn't turn up )

No idea where the ' came from

By weakening LAs and forcing primaries to convert they are also disrupting all the coordination that used to happen for PE and music provision, school trips, reading and spelling competitions, etc. All this is much more fragmented and there is less money available. Even with the tradition of faith schools, choice has never really been as much of an issue at this level for parents as consistency and quality and being part of the local community.

Do not see that profit in itself is an issue as raised by some. Many public services are profit-making; GP's, NHS dentistry, pharmacies, large swathes of council services, care homes etc.

Profit motivation will deliver efficiency and productivity which given the state of the UK finances is something that needs considering in all public sector reforms.

Oddsins
Many public services are profit-making; GP's, NHS dentistry, pharmacies, large swathes of council services, care homes etc.
I'm an auditor of public sector services.
I'd like to see the evidence for that assertion.

Remember that there is a MASSIVE difference between 'surplus held over for later expenditure' and 'profit extracted to personal bank accounts'
The fees, salaries and dividends being paid out of sight of the National Audit Office within Academies definitely cross that line.

When a head teacher awards themselves a £20k payrise (ok the governors approved it but over a barrel) for adding a word to their job title, but no change in responsibilities
you know that without oversight, bad things will happen

There is a lady in prison this Christmas because I investigated and found the evidence to convict her. She was "trusted" - she abused the trust.

Not for profit organisations have had to rescue services from the devastation left by Serco in the NHS, G4S in prisons, etc.

www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/11/serco-gp-service-cornwall

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cheats-serco-and-g4s-forced-to-face-a-grilling-from-powerful-group-of-mps-8944626.html

OddSins - efficiency is not the only thing encouraged by profit-making. In fact, there is nothing about being profit-making which makes efficiency an inevitable consequence - not where profit can be made easily via other means...