Acadamies - what went wrong?

[Mechanoid]

After sending my last child off to school and her getting settled and doing really well, I decided to get back into the world of work and considered being a TA. I volunteered at my daughter's school and found that I loved it. After a while, I signed up with an agency and have been in paid work ever since. I love it.

I'm a graduate and had considered Teaching initially, but I actually prefer being a TA - I'm very good at it and love what I do. So imagine my disappointment then, when I started applying for jobs as a TA and being told (always by academies!) that "TA's are Teachers these days!".

Interestingly, they seem happy with unqualified people Teaching, but not with paying qualified rates...how odd!

In a state school, TA are just that: TA's! But academies aren't schools and I would NEVER send my child to one. Any views?

The evidence that greater freedom for schools leads to improved results comes from a wide range of countries, not just Sweden. Even in Sweden the evidence is that free schools outperform municipal schools and that municipal schools in areas where there are free schools perform better than those in areas where there are no free schools.

It may be that municipal schools in Sweden perform better in some middle class urban areas where there are free schools that are mainly run by religious charities - that would be similar to areas of London where there have always been church schools and they have a quasi grammar school selective status. And in London too, academies were established with favourable admissions policies and/or lots of resources, while maintained schools have benefited from improvement programmes. London schools of all types generally outperform the rest of the country but taking just the academies in London wouldn't prove that the model is equally successful nationally.

But as the Economist has pointed out, overall Sweden has a big problem after years of the free schools policy in terms of badly paid teachers and growing inequality.

Meanwhile all UK maintained schools have had autonomy since local management of schools was introduced in 1990.

Yet, as the Academies Commission and the latest Sutton Trust report both point out, academy chains often give less autonomy to individual schools than LA maintained schools and the more recent ST report also highlights a wider gap between more disadvantaged pupils and others in academies

So, what country's schools is our academy schools and free schools model based on, or is ours a mish mash of ideas not proven to work together? What aspects of school freedom have been shown to work overseas??? Surely, eg, being free/having to take the time to choose your own electricity provider hasn't resulted in demonstrable benefits to academic results??? And what about the point made by straggle about academy chain schools actually being far less free than maintained schools ever were?

being free/having to take the time to choose your own electricity provider hasn't resulted in demonstrable benefits to academic results

Our schools have had that freedom under Local Management of Schools for over 20 years.

What aspects of school freedom have been shown to work overseas

According to PISA, "school systems that grant more autonomy to schools to define and elaborate their curricula and assessments tend to perform better than systems that don’t grant such autonomy".

Another leading study looked at six different types of autonomy:

• deciding which courses are offered
• determining course content
• choosing which textbooks are used
• selecting teachers for hire
• establishing teachers' starting salaries
• deciding on budget allocations within the school

They found that, "in high-income countries, increased autonomy over academic content, personnel, and budgets exerts positive effects on student achievement. In general, the autonomy effects are most pronounced in decision-making on academic content, with some additional relevance for personnel autonomy and, less so, for budgetary autonomy."

Academies have greater freedom than community schools in deciding which courses are offered, determining course content and establishing teachers' starting salaries. They are not bound by the national curriculum and they can set their own salaries for teachers.

And what about the point made by straggle about academy chain schools actually being far less free than maintained schools ever were

Views are divided on this. Many heads in academy chains report that they have not lost their autonomy. Of course, a chain is likely to intervene if a school is doing badly.

So are you arguing against Gove's interference in GCSEs and league tables? Contributors to LSN make the point again and again that non-academies can do most things academies can do and 'it’s not lack of “freedom” which stops innovation but pressure from league tables'.

What do you think of the evidence in the Sutton Trust report that 'Most academy chains in our study have relied heavily on equivalent qualifications, and underperform on the EBacc measure, in comparison to the national average'? Do you think this is gaming the system or innovation?

So are you arguing against Gove's interference in GCSEs and league tables

No I am not. Being able to determine course content is not the same as being able to determine exam syllabuses.

Yes non-academies can do many of the things academies can do but their freedom to decide which courses are offered and determining course content is constrained by the national curriculum, and they do not have any freedom to determine teachers' salaries. So that is 3 of the 6 freedoms mentioned in the leading study that are missing, including two of those most likely to improve results.

it’s not lack of “freedom” which stops innovation but pressure from league tables

Contributors to LSN are, of course, anti-academies. And there is plenty of evidence that academies are being far more innovative than community schools.

The EBacc was introduced to show up schools that game the system by concentrating on subjects regarded as easy options. The Sutton Trust report suggests it has been successful in showing which academy chains were attempting to game the system in this way.

Mmmm. Not noticed much difference since my school went Cackademy (at least, they haven't sacked me yet) - except that our very effective team of TAs fell apart very quickly.

Now we have fewer of them & the level of churn is head-spinning; they seem to last a term at most.

I don't know if that's directly connected to our status.

Certainly no good has come of it. Extravagant promises of extra resources were made when the conversion was forced through, but we definitely haven't seen any extra money filtering through to the classroom.

The Head, sorry, Principal, has a jolly nice new car though.

there is plenty of evidence that academies are being far more innovative than community schools

Are you talking about specific academies (so name them), or academies on the whole?
What evidence are you referring to? I've referred to the Academies Commission, Sutton Trust and there's the NFER report which all say there is no evidence of improvement over other maintained schools.
Are those 'innovative' academies oversubscribed and popular among parents? Is there a high turnover of staff, e.g. Pimlico Primary?
Would/did you send your own children to a sponsored academy?
What if parents have no choice of an alternative?

By the way, you say 'the LSN Contributors to LSN are, of course, anti-academies'. There's no 'of course' about that. I can't find any statement here about them being anti-academies. They're for local schools, fair admissions and accountability. They are named individuals. I don't know who you are or who you work for - perhaps you have vested financial or political interests in academies?

But prh47bridge - Gove has seriously fiddled with the National Curriculum. Why? Why not just scrap it, if it's so unhelpful to academic progress in schools? Was it you who told me, recently, that whilst academy and free schools don't have to follow it, he did it because he knew most would use it as a guide, or was that someone else??? It seems offensive, to me, to dictate to maintained schools what they should do in that way when you personally believe this will hold them back. So, does he believe his own rhetoric, or doesn't he? And how does it all fit with schools in Birmingham which don't like the teaching of music, or dance? Presumably he didn't look at schools in Islamic countries when he looked for examples of good practice?

And yes, I know all schools have been able to choose their own electricity provider for ages... that's why even maintained primary schools more or less have to employ business managers, now - spending more money on non-teaching staff, so that you can ensure the cheapest electricity provider... I wonder if a relatively small primary school saves more money that way than it spends on the extra salary?

I've occasionally dipped into LSN and they're an eclectic bunch where the common ground is probably:

a) They're on firmly on the children's side.

b) They don't like patronising bullshit and lies.

It doesn't make them all right about everything, but that this makes them appear anti-academy (and free-schools etc.) is a direct consequence of how much intellectually offensive crap has been churned out to sell them.

@rabbitstew, my DD has just finished primary so that's been my focus but having read around the new primary assessment, then in practice the will have bugger-all freedom with that curriculum.

That's like most things where schools "now have the freedom to [whatever]".

Having worked in education for a number of years, it has been at least 10 years that ALL schools have been allowed to use unqualified staff. AND frequently have. I remember one memorable year when more than 1/4 of the staff of a 1500 pupil COMPREHENSIVE were either on a graduate training program or just unqualified "instructors", this school had already been in special measures for 2 years, so not an easy place to work even for experienced staff.
In my LA there are far more non-academies than academies and not many doing that well academically. This is an LA with very few good and only 1 "oustanding" secondary school and the LA has been at the bottom of league tables for years. This is despite all schools using the maximum number of BTEC and other qualifications to get pupils "passing" the magical 5 A-C. And many schools are still in the low 20- 30% on this measure. It was very telling when the measure changed to A-C with Maths and English. And some of these schools leadership teams are in open panic about best 8. Results will plummet once more, unless ways round the system can be found.
This LA has been proved useless for a number of years on all fronts from financial issues, buildings not fit for purpose, poor handling of managed moves, not having an adequate number of places and shipping pupils long distances by bus to name just a few bug bears. And slashed budgets are really not going to help.

Forgot to add......most schools in the LA use TA's to teach small groups/ intervention groups and non qualified cover supervisors to cover even long term absences.........despite trying to get unions to intervene very unsuccesfully.

kscience - if the schools are that bad, why have they not been forced to become academies? Are the academy schools doing much better than the maintained schools? Could part of the problem with the schools in your LA be that nobody with good qualifications actually wants to live and teach in the area (or, indeed, work for the LA in the area)?... What are the employment prospects like for people living there?

kscience - not many doing that well academically. This is an LA with very few good and only 1 "oustanding" secondary school - Are you saying that the results to their OFSTED inspections have not trigged any actions to bring these schools up to national standards?

As rabbitstew has asked why have they not been forced to become academies?

I don't know where kscience works but it is certainly the case that there are a few LAs that have significant numbers of schools that have underperformed for years. Often these schools managed to avoid special measures despite consistently falling below the floor standard. Research carried out by the last government heavily criticised the LAs involved for failing to take effective action to address the situation. Most (possibly all) of the LAs concerned are opposed to their schools becoming academies and put a lot of effort into fighting any such proposals, including in some cases mounting legal challenges.

So, money and time has been spent unnecessarily on converting already outstanding and good schools in areas with perfectly good LAs into academies, and not enough money and time has been spent on dealing with schools not in special measures but not performing as well as could be expected??? Why? Isn't that getting priorities wrong?

prh47bridge why would an LA object to a failing school becoming an academy and what basis would they be able to fight it in the case of a consistently failing school?

I thought the legal challenges were mounted in relation to schools which had already shown marked improvements and had credible improvement plans in place? Are schools which have been forced to convert required to improve as quickly as schools under threat of academisation? In other words, does a new forced-academy have a matter of months to improve, or it gets told another academy chain will be taking it over???

money and time has been spent unnecessarily on converting already outstanding and good schools in areas with perfectly good LAs into academies

The DfE pays up to £25,000 to each school that converts. Any additional conversion costs must be met by the school itself. The argument for doing this is that by freeing the school from LA control it will be able to perform better than would be the case if it remained in LA control.

not enough money and time has been spent on dealing with schools not in special measures but not performing as well as could be expected??? Why?

If a school is not in special measures the DfE can only intervene if the LA issues a warning notice. Whilst the Secretary of State has the power to force the LA to consider giving a warning notice and, if the LA refuses, to direct them to do so. This takes time, can be resisted by the LA (who can, of course, go to judicial review, thereby delaying the process by several months) and can be politically difficult. The LA and local campaigners will almost always claim the direction is politically motivated and that there is nothing wrong with the school.

why would an LA object to a failing school becoming an academy and what basis would they be able to fight it in the case of a consistently failing school

They object because they are ideologically opposed to academies. There are usually claims that the forced conversion is politically motivated, that the school can't be expected to do any better (the argument being that children from deprived backgrounds can't possibly be expected to achieve good results at school), that it has already improved and so on.

I thought the legal challenges were mounted in relation to schools which had already shown marked improvements and had credible improvement plans in place

That was usually claimed. That does not necessarily mean those claims were true. When a school has been below floor standard for years claims that it has suddenly improved when faced with forced conversion to academy status are difficult to believe.

Are schools which have been forced to convert required to improve as quickly as schools under threat of academisation

A school that converts to academy status will be given a bit of breathing space to sort out the new arrangements but it will normally get a Section 8 (monitoring) inspection within 2 terms. If there are serious concerns this will be deemed to be a Section 5 (full) inspection and the school will be treated like any other failing school. If progress is inadequate but not poor enough to raise serious concerns the school will be given priorities for improvement and will be assessed again with a Section 5 inspection early in the second year of operation (typically the fourth term after opening).

Thanks prh47bridge :-)

Nothing to do with being academies, Schools being scintilla and using TAs and technicians as cover staff is nothing new.

I failed a lab tec interview because I don't have the skills to control a room full of teens. That was years before we had any academies round here.

Skint

prh47bridge - that it has already improved and so on. But if the school has had successive OFSTED reports demonstrating that it is way below national standards, as suggested in the example given above, along side an academic performance that demonstrates that fact, how can they make that claim stand up? Given that there are good and one outstanding school in the area how can their claim that the school can't be expected to do any better when other schools in the area are doing just that? .