Academies- anyone know much about them?

[EnglishRose1320]

Just have a load of questions about academies basically, how much do they change schools? I know they vary a fair amount but feel a bit in the dark about them and seeing as by 2020 in at least the county I am in we will no longer have an LEA and only have academies I feel I ought to wise up on them. What experiences have people had of them so far both as staff and as parents, I'm looking at it from both view points. Do people think they are a good idea or Not? Sorry bit rambly but basically any info and thoughts appreciated.

Name a LA that has not had to make large numbers of redundancies in recent years, please, prh. Our local secondary, btw, appears to be one of the schools leading the way on hugely improved standards and expectations and is a community school. It's the leadership that makes the difference, not whether it is an academy or LA school. Also, it is completely untrue that state schools are achieving results on a par with the best independent schools "for the first time ever," plus, of course, they are not always taking the same exams, with the IB, GCSEs and IGCSES still all in existence, amongst others, and yet again, they are moving the goalposts and changing what they are measuring. It is now impossible to tell how schools are doing and by what standards, as the standards aren't even fixed, yet. Who knows how schools will do this year, next year or the year after or how it will be remotely possible to compare it with the unrecognisably different past!

And that's before you've even asked yourself what makes a school successful. There is always a reason being spouted as to why state educated pupils are being "let down" - either it is that their exam results are not good enough; or that the exams are too easy and a state school A is not the same thing as a private school A because private schools teach "beyond the narrow exam syllabus;" or state schools don't teach the "soft skills" and are just exam factories that don't prepare you for real life; or they don't give children a work ethic; or don't have enough breadth in the curriculum; or don't focus enough on the basics; or let feral children run riot; or don't do anything to stamp out radicalism... And all this assessed on how many state educated people become doctors, judges, journalists or politicians. If journalists are to be believed! So, how are we supposed to believe anyone who claims academy schools are a shining beacon of wonderfulness? Are exam results enough, or should we wait to see how many academy school-educated children become judges, FTSE100 board member and prime ministers?

Bridge

I appreciate its not a personal budget however it is a very different system at the school than other schools locally who spend a proportion ensuring that the children can access the full curriculum without the need for additional payments from parents -this school had my dd sit out of a food tech lesson because I hadn't paid for ingredients and my application for funding hadn't been approved

Name a LA that has not had to make large numbers of redundancies in recent years

Cuts in funding mean most LAs have made people redundant. However some LAs are still offering the full range of services at a competitive cost to academies and as a result have not had to cut back significantly in education-related areas.

It's the leadership that makes the difference, not whether it is an academy or LA school

I would strongly agree with the first half of that sentence. However, there is a lot of evidence that academies improve faster than LA schools and that LA schools in areas where there are academies improve faster than in areas where there are no academies. But yes, I would expect a well led LA school to outperform a badly led academy.

it is completely untrue that state schools are achieving results on a par with the best independent schools "for the first time ever,"

No it isn't. I am talking specifically about the DfE figures for average points per pupil at A-level or equivalent. These statistics factor in the IB and pre-U exams sat by pupils at some independent schools so they are a completely fair comparison. Up to now the best independent schools have consistently outperformed the best state schools by quite a margin. Last year that gap was closed. In 2015 55 of the top 100 schools in the country were state schools. The 480 best state schools averaged 888 points per pupil compared with 855 points per pupil for the best 480 independent schools. Given that independent schools fees mean they receive far more funding per pupil than state schools this is an impressive outcome.

this school had my dd sit out of a food tech lesson because I hadn't paid for ingredients

That is unacceptable.

Our local school is not in an academy area (no secondary academies) and has improved its results (which were already quite respectable) extremely rapidly. And I see you are being very selective with your statistics, prh.

As for the "best" independent schools: in that top 100 schools, were the best 55 state schools at the top of the list of 100? Are we to be rubbing that in the smug faces of schools like St Pauls boys' and girls'? Or were you being slightly hyperbolic?

All three of my DC's are at academies, two at secondary C of E sponsored at one at an Oasis academy. Experience for all three fantastic, we've been lucky, I imagine there are good and bad academies just as there are good and bad LA controlled schools!

Our local school is not in an academy area (no secondary academies) and has improved its results (which were already quite respectable) extremely rapidly

Of course many LA schools have improved their results. Some will have done so more rapidly than academies. And some academies have not improved or have even declined. Academisation is not a silver bullet that will fix everything.

in that top 100 schools, were the best 55 state schools at the top of the list of 100

You may be surprised by this but predominantly, yes. It isn't 55 state schools followed by 45 independent schools but the independent schools are mainly in the lower half of the top 100. 20 of the top 30 schools are state schools including the top school in the country. Only 21 independent schools make it into the top 50. Since you mention St Pauls, they don't even make the top 30 coming in at 33.

I imagine there are good and bad academies just as there are good and bad LA controlled schools

Agree completely.

But prh - your first point is entirely my point... As for schools in the top 100 (only in terms of A-level point scores per pupil, not relating to specific, academic subjects or GCSEs, I note...) I wonder how many of these also happen to be grammar schools or in well heeled areas and how many are schools that were not already at the top of the league tables before they converted? And are any free schools? And what about the bottom 100 schools? As we are talking about increased inequality, it would be interesting to know how many of those are academies? And what happens in the middle of the tables,mremoving the extremes? All assuming, of course, that the tables are devised to tell you anything other than what the DfE wants you to think?... There are, after all, lies, damned lies and statistics.

We've just taken out DD out of a multi academy trust sponsored school as they started to do ridiculous things like sacking the head teacher and teaching creationism. I kid you not.

Bullying became out of control. My six year old was tied up with a rope by an older child and no teacher even noticed.

We have moved her to a private prep. So far, a world apart. I won't risk putting DD back into the state system while it's like this.

As a complete contrast, DS is at a state maintained special school (not an academy) and it's absolutely superb.

What happens to a child that is expelled from an academy in an area where there is no longer an LEA but only a whole County of academies, whose respsiblity does that child become?

Just to highlight that many grammar schools including a superselective near me can be, and are, academies. I am sure many are aware of this but the way some things are phrased on this thread sometimes gives the impression that grammars are a breed apart when they are in reality not so far apart as it may seem and in effect subject to the same system of governance.

Pets I agree. I was grammar educated, I did OK but they were so selective they honed off the best kids so didn't have to try anywhere near as hard as a non-selective school to get results. Bullying was rude and I'd say my wider education, in the context of emotional and spiritual development was practically zero. We still live in the area and my eldest Dd who is 15 would easily have passed the 11plus but we chose not to go down that route, the academy we chose for her takes children of all abilities from a huge mix of backgrounds, both her and my 12 yr old love it, the school has been faultless in supporting my older dd with various issues she has had and she is on target for 11 A*. Much of the fuss surrounding getting kids into grammars is IMO middle class snobbery and I say that as the daughter of a VERY snobby middle class mum who was determined I would go to a grammar like it or not!!

Bullying was rude??? Rife I meant rife! Stupid autotext

Oh dear by your accusation I am guilty of middle class snobbery. I thought so was just picking the right school that suited DD out of those available. My point was meant to say that many grammars are academies, not open up a debate on grammar vs state. I don't happen to have a good fit comp in catchment for DD. Our closest school geographically just happens to be the superselective academy.

Grammar vs comp was what O meant!

However, there is a lot of evidence that academies improve faster than LA schools and that LA schools in areas where there are academies improve faster than in areas where there are no academies. But yes, I would expect a well led LA school to outperform a badly led academy.

I'd love to see this evidence, do you have a link?

From things I have read - example below from an article in The Guardian - the "evidence" doesn't stack up.

"The underlying claim here is that academy conversion is a simple process that leads not just to improvement, but to that school becoming outstanding. Morgan may believe this, but it is hard to find any evidence to support it. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,” was one of their conclusions. Indeed, Morgan has ignored their recommendation that “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”."

Sorry, first para of my last post was a quote but the bold got lost.

Not sure I understand the point you were trying to make about grammar schools, Pettswood? I am perfectly well aware that grammar schools are state schools which have often chosen to academise. Hence my query about the number of academy schools in the top 100 which also just so happened to be grammar schools and therefore already highly selective.

'highly selective'

Exactly Round

your first point is entirely my point

I know. I was pointing out an area where we agree.

not relating to specific, academic subjects or GCSEs

I don't think there are figures for specific subjects. There isn't such a simple measure to allow schools to be ranked for GCSEs. The best data is available for the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs or equivalent including English and Maths. Over 50 schools achieve 100% on this measure, so there is no way to put them in order. However, overall state schools perform better than independent schools on this measure. Around 57% of state pupils achieve this standard whereas only 53% of pupils at independent schools do so.

I wonder how many of these also happen to be grammar schools or in well heeled areas and how many are schools that were not already at the top of the league tables before they converted

Yes, there are a lot of grammar schools at the top and some in well heeled areas. There are also non-delective schools in areas that are definitely not well heeled. Some were not at the top of the league tables before they converted but some of the real success stories there are a little lower down at the moment. Hackney Downs, for example, used to be the worst school in the country. Now, as Mossbourne Academy, it is in the top 10% although not yet in the top 100.

And are any free schools

Not yet. A free school is a new academy. There are very few free school sixth forms in operation at the moment.

And what about the bottom 100 schools? As we are talking about increased inequality, it would be interesting to know how many of those are academies

Six of the worst 10 schools by this measure are independent schools. The other four are an academy, two community schools and a further education college. In total the bottom 100 contains 47 academies. A number of these are schools rated inadequate that have only operated as academies for one or two years. Regarding inequality the worst school today gets twice as many points per pupil as the worst school 5 years ago. The best school today has an almost identical points per pupil score as the best school 5 years ago. So inequality is reducing. To be precise, the points score gap from the top school to the bottom school has fallen by 15%.

what happens in the middle of the tables,mremoving the extremes

Depends how you want to analyse it. In broad terms performance is improving and the gap between best and worst is narrowing.

All assuming, of course, that the tables are devised to tell you anything other than what the DfE wants you to think

The points score is the same as used for university admissions. It is difficult to see how it can be manipulated. And this is my analysis of the raw data. I am not relying on the DfE for anything other than the raw figures.

What happens to a child that is expelled from an academy in an area where there is no longer an LEA but only a whole County of academies, whose respsiblity does that child become?

There is no such thing as an area where there is no longer an LEA. Even if all schools become academies the LEA continues to operate. The LA (which is also the LEA) must arrange full time education from the sixth day following exclusion. The child will normally be placed at another school or in a PRU. If a child has been excluded twice the LA can use its Fair Access Protocol to admit the child to an academy and, if necessary, ask the Secretary of State to direct an academy to admit the child. This is exactly the same as happens in an area where there are no academies apart from the fact that the LA itself can direct non-academies to admit pupils without reference to the Secretary of State.

Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school

Very true. However, the Guardian's reporting was, to say the least, selective. The comment that the select committee "found no such evidence" is simply untrue. I would recommend reading the report yourself. It is pretty balanced with an overall positive view of academies but highlighting areas where more evidence is needed before conclusions can be drawn and some areas where the programme could be improved.

My comment about academies improving faster than LA schools comes from evidence relating to pre-2010 academies some of which is quoted in the select committee report. The report correctly cautions against assuming that the pre-2010 academy improvements will be duplicated in the post-2010 conversions as there were significant differences, not least that all pre-2010 convertors were failing schools whereas since then outstanding schools have also been able to convert. However, the evidence in the report certainly suggests that similar improvements are being achieved.

That is interesting, prh, although it does not to my mind indicate that the difference is mainly the result of academisation rather than extreme pressure put upon schools by the DfE and Ofsted to change their focus.

In the long term, what measure of success should be used for education? Exam results are only one aspect of a good education. There has been a lot more criticism than that levelled at state schools in the last 20 years. Will success mean more state school applicants being accepted onto academic courses with Russell Group universities? Or more of these going on to high level academic positions or positions in industry? Or more state educated entrepreneurs? Or more state educated MPs, judges and CEOs? Or lower unemployment? Or more high-level employment opportunities being taken up by state educated UK citizens? Or more home-trained, high quality plumbers, electricians, carpenter, builders? Or more commercially aware, ambitious people of working age? Or more tolerant citizens? Or employers saying their employees have better written communication, now? Or that employees are better problem solvers/time keepers/communicators/drones who work diligently and can pass exams but not be inventive?

What do exam tables really tell us about the future of our nation? What do our exams tell us about our expectations? How will schools fare with the changes being pushed through? Which schools will be the winners and losers in the next round of altered exams? What difference is it making to individuals' future prospects?

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the long term.

In relation to schools being forced to join academies when they are rated good, that is happening round here.

Not forced as in having an academy order but through pressure from the LA. Of course there are other options (conversion/ free) but for a small primary sponsorship may be by far the best option.