Academies first appeared under Margaret Thatcher as City Technology Colleges. The programme was stopped when Blair came to power then, after a few years, restarted in the face of strong evidence from other countries that giving schools greater autonomy led to improved results. The policy proceeded slowly partly due to internal opposition within the Labour party. Gove put rockets on the policy believing that the results seen in other countries would be duplicated here.
In how many cases is it just that the failing school was forced into Academy status and therefore technically became a 'new' school with 12-18 months grace before being Ofsteded again
None. This is nothing to do with Ofsted. The measure used here is secondary schools failing to achieve the floor target (at least 40% of pupils achieving 5 GCSEs at grades A*-C including English and maths and also meeting targets for the level of progress made by children from 11 to 16). The floor target has been raised so that it is tougher to achieve but the number of schools failing to achieve the floor target has fallen. If the current floor target had been in place in 2010 407 secondary schools would have failed to meet the target. Only 154 secondary schools failed last year.
Why are the LAs that bad??
A small number of LAs are seriously bad with a significant number of schools consistently falling below the floor standard. Research carried out by the last government blamed these LAs for failing to take effective action to improve these schools. Also, as I've already noted, there is now extensive evidence from a number of countries that removing schools from LA control and giving them greater autonomy leads to improved results. That does not necessarily mean the same outcome will be achieved here, of course.
Weren't there only about 20 in the first wave. 1 in 4 not being up to it is not so great is it?
There were 24 free schools in the first wave. When inspected 4 were rated outstanding, 14 were good, 5 required improvement and 1 was inadequate. This is a little better than other types of school being inspected at the same time but broadly in line with long term averages.
But it's shit.
Matter of opinion. For those subjects with which I am familiar I certainly think the curriculum has become more rigorous. I know that some teachers think this is a bad thing.
He has no recognition of the fact that children learn in different ways and 'rigorous' terminally tested exams just aren't the way to bring the best out of every student. That is not a lack of ambition on their behalf, in fact the opposite. Find every child a path they can succeed on you twat.
The problem with coursework is that it is too open to manipulation. Judging from his speeches he would agree with you that we should find every child a path they can succeed on. He would not, however, agree with the "all must win prizes" approach that says we have to find a way to give every child a decent maths GCSE even if they can't do maths at all.
On what planet is excluding children from education good? Where is all the money being poured into alternative provision if schools can exclude? Oh, but hang on, all the qualifications they could do in an alternative setting have been 'stripped out'.
Children are excluded from particular schools, not from education completely. The LA is required to find another setting for children excluded from school. The problem with the previous approach was that discipline in some schools was being undermined by seriously disruptive children being reinstated after the school had excluded them. There are problems with the current approach too, in particular the fact that it can lead to a stand off between the appeal panel and the governors. Schools have been able to exclude for a long time. The total number of permanent exclusions has edged up slightly but is well below the levels seen 10-15 years ago. The number of fixed period exclusions continues to fall. So schools aren't making use of this to exclude large numbers of pupils. Nonetheless, many head teachers now feel they are more in control of discipline.
No, any old school can have trainee teachers. Mine had 4 this year and is RI. By 'left-wing' does he mean institutions where young teachers are encouraged to think for themselves?
No, he means institutions that push the "all must have prizes" approach, who think schools should not teach spelling and who promote the approaches to teaching that have seen the UK sliding down international league tables.
But there is no choice in many areas due to place pressure- what is he doing about that? Don't pull out the Free School card because they are NOT necessarily where the shortages are.
It is true that free schools are not necessarily where the shortages are but many have opened in areas where there is a shortage of places. Others have opened where there is a shortage of places at good schools. But yes, we are some way off having genuine choice in many areas.
Actually I think the highest performing schools are just as guilty of gaming. They wouldn't have to if it wasn't for the culture of Gove fear.
Gaming the league tables started long before Gove. He has made it harder for schools to do this by making it easier for parents to spot schools boosting results by choosing soft options.