Is Education for Sale?

[Nicky4HelCal]

My heart sank when I read that David Cameron declared at the Conservative Conference that all schools will be academies in 5 years time, and no local authority will run any schools. There are problems with education, not least teacher shortage, but converting all schools into academies and removing local oversight and parent involvement is not a solution to any problem - then I read that Nicky Morgan has invited businesses to be involved in schools. Sounds as though my local community secondary school will be forced to convert into an academy, despite parent wishes, and who knows who will run it - Poundland? Carphone Warehouse?

*That sounds like bollocks to me

The research appears to be sound and the figures are in the public domain. It suggests that the quality of teaching is far more important than the premises, textbooks, etc*

Surely there is a line though. A fantastic teacher will be fantastic with resources, an LSA and a class of 28 backed up by a supportive smt. Would they be so effective with 35? No books? No pencils? A shite SMT? 40? There's only so much one person can do.

I think the role of a good/awful management team should be considered too. That's (a great deal of) money for old rope in my opinion and that is not value for money.

Can I suggest people have a look at the work of the Anti Academies group. I follow them on Twitter @antiacademies and think they are doing a wonderful job at getting the data (and misuse thereof) out into the open.
The other worry is that LAs have lost so many experienced staff through financial cuts snd will have limited capacity to pick up the pieces. The academies are not all bad, but the lack of accountability is shocking.

I think the way that companies make money out of academies is selling off school land and also giving any contracts to mates. There is very little accountability. I think this will turn into the expenses scandal when journalists fully investigate any back handers.

I think there is a very complex situation with regard to hiring imported teachers. If you counted all the teachers who have left permanent positions and are doing supply or not teaching at all I think you may find that there is not really a shortage of teachers at all. We have thousands of teachers in this country who have completed one of the most rigorous training courses you could ever do to become teachers. Sadly, despite all of their aspirations to perform to their best, they are then exposed to performance related pay, a clumsy tool used to drive down pay whilst increasing workload and demands. When they have had enough like so many of the thousands of trained teachers who have chosen to leave their jobs in despair, they are replaced by supply teachers on short or long term contracts. These 'teachers' may be unqualified, Cover Supervisors or imported teachers who will not fight for the profession and dare not, as otherwise their contracts will not be renewed. The children are the ones who suffer, as they must cope with a never ending stream of teachers who come and go. The resultant chaos in some schools where it is literally like the blind leading the blind is a national disgrace. Frequent staff changes create an unstable atmosphere where no strategic planning is possible and curriculum development is impossible. The academy trusts being run by failed ex bankers and senior management whose own schools have not performed too successfully, meanwhile receive bountiful salaries and increasingly the sort of perks that one would expect from an oil company such as company cars! Where is all this money coming from? Meanwhile thousands of disenchanted teachers watch as imported teachers are given their jobs without even being observed. They claim their housing costs whilst here (it's a tax break) as well as meal allowances so indirectly our taxes are funding a lucrative deal for them. In addition, this means that the children in their home countries are also robbed of their teachers. Privatization of the schools, which actually belong to us the people, has many unseen and unexpected effects on funding and in the end none of them are good for the children. This of course is all '

Yes-'who owns our playing fields?' Is a very interesting question!!

Just out of interest, I wonder how many conservative mp's have their children in academies?

Or state schools actually.

Particularly in states schools which don't select on the basis of faith or academic ability...

prh is a massive fan of academies and will hear no ill of them.
I am not.

Many Academies increased their results by excluding dozens of pupils when they took over : giving the LEA schools the double whammy.
Thankfully that has been stopped.

I singularly fail to understand how reducing the transparency and accountability of my local comp will do anything to improve results in the long run

In fact my catchment school has been a chain academy for years and is still shit
and the chain have been pulled up several times for over generous head office salaries

People do not want "choice" in schools
they want every school to be transparent, accountable and comparable

but politicians do not want that as its easy to enforce and does not make money for their chums

Surely there is a line though

I would imagine there is a level of funding below which it does affect results. But at current levels of funding do it does not appear that any school is below that level. Some of the best performing schools are amongst the worst funded and some of the lowest performing schools have the highest funding.

I think the way that companies make money out of academies is selling off school land and also giving any contracts to mates

No they cannot sell off school land. Just for clarity, most academies are independent and do not have any sponsors. All academies are charities. This does not, of course, preclude bad governance, fraud, poor performance, etc.

prh is a massive fan of academies and will hear no ill of them

Rubbish.

I started out neutral, with a lot of concerns but willing to see what actually happened in practice. I am not uncritical of academies. Some academies have failed and more will do so, just as some community schools fail. There has been mismanagement and fraud at some academies, problems that also affect some community schools. Some of the forced conversions have been handled very poorly and a few appear to have been unnecessary. I do not view academies as a silver bullet that will fix all problems. I am aware of your local school and agree that the academy chain of which it is a part is not delivering the goods.

I do, however, recognise that the evidence strongly suggests that academies are working in terms of driving up standards, particularly for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Note that this year, for the first time ever, the top performing schools at A Level are state schools, the top 500 state schools outperform the top 500 independent schools and there is no attainment gap overall between state schools and independent schools. Sadly it is still the case that the best predictor of a child's academic success is their parents' income. If you believe, as I do, that education is important in alleviating poverty this is a disgrace. It is good to see that this performance gap has closed a little and that some academies are achieving outstanding results with deprived pupils, refusing to accept the "you can't expect them to do any better" approach of some community schools. But that performance gap needs to close completely. There should be no link between parental income and pupil performance.

You, on the other hand, are ideologically opposed to academies and will hear no good of them. When faced with evidence showing the academies programme working you choose to attack the source of the evidence rather than engage with the facts.

Some of the best performing schools are amongst the worst funded and some of the lowest performing schools have the highest funding.

But when the lowest performing school could have a very different intake to the best performing school, trying to deduce anything about funding levels from that is nonsense.

With everything else being equal, funding does matter. Could my school get better results with more funding? Yes. Absolutely.

There should be no link between parental income and pupil performance.
How will academies achieve that ?

Abolishing selection in state schools
Enforcing transparency on school finances
Accurate and apolitical inspection regimes

might have an effect, but how does "becoming an academy" achieve your goal?

the top 500 state schools outperform the top 500 independent schools
An utterly meaningless statistic as according to the ISC
www.isc.co.uk/research/
there are only 2600 independent schools, many of which do not educate to A level.

The top 500 state 6th forms will always out perform private schools which do not academically select or push at all.

As there are only 231 Secondary schools in the ISC,
www.isc.co.uk/media/2661/isc_census_2015_final.pdf
you are being very misleading in your regular use of that statistic

DD's school she has just left;

A long serving valuable member of staff did not have her contract renewed this year as she wanted to go part time but had become too expensive because of her long service. This particular teacher was highly respected by both teachers and parents. The headteacher was devastated that she had to let her go. She organised numerous extra curricular projects with students and also helped all the sixth formers with ucas applications and personal statements.

The career advisor also was let go at the end of the last school year for financial reasons, this lady had an oracle like knowledge of apprenticeships and university courses and had reliable contacts in many areas. If a girl came to her unsure of what to do when leaving school she would dedicate an unlimited amount of time helping them to find what was right for them.

Historically A level Language students were given one on one tuition, once per week with a native speaker of their chosen language of study. That has now been stopped.

All departments have had their budgets slashed, some by 80%.

This has all happened within 18 months of becoming an academy. I really hope that this is a coincidence but many parents thought otherwise.

London schools generally get more cash than schools in the rest of the country so why haven't they all improved as quickly as the academies?

Can you share the stats that make this a fact? Thanks

Nick Gibbs MP has stated in a letter to a parent that protesting parents are an obstruction to be removed (hence the Education & Adoption Bill).

If academies are the silver bullet, why on earth are parents dissenting voices to be suppressed, and why can't academies be subject to the same Ofsted inspection framework as LA controlled schools to make them more transparent and accountable?

What happens with academies and Ofsted?

Ofsted are only allowed to inspect the schools, not the head offices of the chains
unlike with LEA schools

as most decisions are made at the head office its like inspecting a school but not being allowed into the admin area

Head of Ofsted complained he did not have sufficient powers to properly inspect academies - Nicky Morgan MP told him he had all the power needed ie get back in your box. Why is the government refusing to allow academy chains and head offices to be subject to Ofsted inspection?

as most decisions are made at the head office its like inspecting a school but not being allowed into the admin area

The administration of an academy includes the controlling decisions by head office on strategy, governance, syllabus, admissions, suppliers, resources - Ofsted have no access to this intelligence and process, so its inspection is limited to blindly reviewing academies in isolation - see link

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/22/nicky-morgan-ofsted-powers-academy-chains

sassymuffin I feel for your school experience; from what I have heard from others in schools that converted, a similar process takes place - a promise of a pot of gold at the end of rainbow that doesn't arrive after initial conversion.
Does anybody else have similar experiences?

But when the lowest performing school could have a very different intake to the best performing school, trying to deduce anything about funding levels from that is nonsense

If you compare schools with similar intakes you will still find that some of the worst funded schools have the best results and some of the best funded schools have the worst results. All the figures are in the public domain so it is easy to check. There is no direct link between funding and academic outcomes. Improving funding does not necessarily lead to better outcomes in education just as more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better in many other areas of life.

how does "becoming an academy" achieve your goal

According to extensive research across many countries, schools perform best when they have freedom to set their own curriculum and the ability to compete with other schools in their area for pupils. In my view all schools could have the freedom to set their own curriculum (within certain limits, e.g. banning teaching of creationism as science). One of the areas where I disagree with the government is that this freedom is currently limited to academies. That should be extended to all schools. But LA-controlled schools generally have very little freedom to compete for pupils.

An utterly meaningless statistic

Really? So, for the first time ever, the top 500 state schools outperform the top 500 independent schools and you think that is meaningless?

It is true that not all independent schools teach to A Level but more than 500 do. The 231 figure you quote is for schools that are ISC members (not all independent schools belong to the ISC) and teach only Y7 onwards, excluding any independent schools that cover a wider age range up to Y13. In total 528 ISC members teach up to A level (see p7 of the census to which you link). So yes, the statistic is comparing the best state schools with most independent schools but that doesn't make it a meaningless statistic. Never before has it been possible to say that the 500 best state schools outperform the 500 best independent schools. But if you prefer to compare all state schools with all independent schools you will still find that the attainment gap at A level has closed dramatically.

Can you share the stats that make this a fact

You can find the 2012/13 figures here. The numbers have changed but the broad picture hasn't - London schools still generally get more per pupil than schools elsewhere in England.

If you compare schools with similar intakes you will still find that some of the worst funded schools have the best results and some of the best funded schools have the worst results.

Have you got any in mind? What is the actual difference in funding?Have they actually tested this hypothesis properly? By which I mean something along the lines of increasing funding to some schools with similar intakes and similar results, and having a control set where funding is not increased?

Like I said, I know my department has lost a teacher due to budget cuts and we know this will have a detrimental effect on results. But other factors will increase results (like improved targeting of PP kids) so the negative effect of losing a teacher may be hidden. But it's stupid to claim that the change in funding won't affect results.

According to extensive research across many countries, schools perform best when they have freedom to set their own curriculum and the ability to compete with other schools in their area for pupils.

Well, I'm glad we're having the discussion. I'm a parent, not a teacher, I don't see an open and public debate with all stakeholders about the English education system. I simply see this government forcing through an Education & Adoption Bill. Is the government engaging with teachers? If it is, why doesn't it have the courage to debate with parents - does it think parents are not worthy?

cdtaylornats how did your company measure the ROI?

Few corporate entities will invest, time, money or resources without being able to demonstrate ROI in some form.

The Evening Standard published my letter - people power. Would anyone else like to offer their views to [email protected]?

Academies plan is a flawed solution

My heart sank when I read that David Cameron wants all state schools to become academies within five years [October 8]. There are many problems with education but removing local oversight and parental involvement is not a solution.

I then read that Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has invited businesses to be involved in schools. It sounds as though my local secondary will be forced to convert into an academy against the wishes of parents. After all, who knows who will run it — maybe Poundland?

Nicky, Campaign for State Education

New research suggests that not all academies boost results, with some marked differences between schools converting into academies 2010 onwards. I'm not anti-academy per se, but I wish politicians would stop peddling the myth that academies are the only solution!

schoolsimprovement.net/not-all-academies-are-the-same-dont-assume-they-will-all-boost-results/