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.

A relevant posting on the Local Schools Network here:-

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/12/ofsted-reveals-that-a-school-is-six-times-as-likely-to-remain-inadequate-if-it-becomes-a-sponsored-academy/

LSN, as opponents of academies, have their own agenda. It is important to note that an inadequate school that is capable of improving itself can avoid conversion to a sponsored academy. Those that do convert are therefore likely to be the ones with the most problems. It is also worth noting that two thirds of the sponsored academies had not been inspected since conversion. It may be that inspection of those academies would produce a different picture.

To say that 'only failing schools are being forced to become academies' is buying lock. stock and barrel into the current government's ideologically driven agenda, which has a distinctly flimsy relationship to empirical evidence.

It's very obvious that the Coalition government, now the current one, wants to draw finances and power away from LAs into the hands of private providers. The rights and wrongs of this can be debated elsewhere, but it's clear that the main reason than schools are being forced to become academies is because the government wants them to for ideological reasons, not because they're 'failing' (or indeed because academy status automatically improves a school).

Indeed, although extremely inaccurate ideas like 'an inadequate school that is capable of improving itself can avoid conversion to a sponsored academy' are being voiced above.

Even the government seem to have stopped pretending that there are educational reasons for their agenda.

Yes - it's all ideologically driven.

There is an intrinsic belief that private = better that drives all government policy in relation to... Well, everything really.

One feature of this move seems to be higher and higher salaries/perks for those at the top in any privatised service, and worse pay and terms and conditions for those at the bottom of the salary scale (especially TA's, LSA's, lunchtime supervisors, afterschool club staff).

I don't think they are pulling the wool over people's eyes but equally I don't think they are explaining what it will mean when all we have are academies. They will not keep Lea's as they are now when we only have academies. I think it leaves a lot of areas of risk from what I can see.

Someone asked about whether staff can be made to teach in another school within the academy chain. Yes this does happen. I have heard it has also happened for a few days when ofsted have come with one particular large south London academy chain.

Schools are ending up in some areas needing to consider becoming an academy as LAs have less and less money.

Iguana that is one of my fears, the school I work for is looking at optionly joining an academy and some of the schools are miles away, childcare wise I couldn't be sent elsewhere but I might not have a choice

A morally correct academy would of course ask and negotiate. One without morals could use it as a tool to force a member of staff to resign.

Want to add, that about 4 years ago Harris Academy Crystal Palace (the flagship of the Harris Academy chain, most oversubscribed and successful comprehensive in the UK - the only one to receive OFSTED 'outstanding' in every single category) managed to use its 'fair banding' admissions process to ensure that 72% of its intake were classed as 'high achieving' when they arrived in year 7. This is despite the fact that all the nearest primaries to HACP take much higher than average numbers of children on FSM, and all other non selective schools near by (including another Harris Academy 1.3 miles down the road) the number was less than half that. At that point fewer than 5% of the HACP intake were on school action plus. Other less popular non selective comprehensives in the borough had an intake of over 25% of children on school action plus.

The head at my dc's primary was of the strong opinion that HACP was strongly manipulating its admissions processes in order to exclude children who would stop it from reaching the top of the local GCSE league tables. He had intervened at appeal on behalf of SN children from his school who had applied there unsuccessfully. It's hard to look at their intake from that time and not conclude that something very rotten was going on - it was just so stark. Following lots of local mutterings but no public admission of underhand dealings, the intake of high achieving children started to change to reflect so that it was more reflective of the demographic. Now only around 50% of its intake is classed as 'high achieving' - that's despite it continuing to be the most oversubscribed comprehensive in the UK. To go from over 70% high achieving intake to 50% in 4 years with no acknowledgement of a change in its admissions processes to make them fairer...? It's things like this, plus the quiet 'losing' of low achieving children from the schools rolls in year 10 and 11... It's things like this which make me incredibly untrusting and cynical about the academy programme. There is just so much fiddling and spin involved.

Definitely mini

To say that 'only failing schools are being forced to become academies' is buying lock. stock and barrel into the current government's ideologically driven agenda

No it isn't buying into any agenda. It is simply stating the law. All schools are being encouraged to become academies but the government only has the legal power to force failing schools to convert.

although extremely inaccurate ideas like 'an inadequate school that is capable of improving itself can avoid conversion to a sponsored academy'

I probably phrased that poorly. I accept that a school may be forced to convert even if it can improve itself without converting. The point I was trying (perhaps badly) to make is that a failing school that cannot demonstrate the ability to improve itself is unlikely to escape conversion.

Even the government seem to have stopped pretending that there are educational reasons for their agenda

An interesting view which seems contrary to Nicky Morgan's recent speeches in which she continues to point to the success of the academy programme in driving up standards.

They will not keep Lea's as they are now when we only have academies

Yes they will. LEAs have important ongoing responsibilities even if all schools are academies. They:

• co-ordinate admissions
• provide an ed psych service
• assess children with SEN
• monitor SEN provision
• deal with arrangements for excluded pupils
• provide home to school transport for eligible pupils
• plan and manage the supply of school places
• various other statutory/regulatory duties

Those functions cannot sensibly be handled by central government nor can they be handled by schools. LEAs are not going anywhere.

managed to use its 'fair banding' admissions process to ensure that 72% of its intake were classed as 'high achieving'

I am aware of all the mutterings. However, the admissions process had the appropriate level of independent supervision laid down by the Admissions Code. The information I have seen from the LA strongly suggests that many parents of less able pupils were not applying to HACP in the belief that they would not get places. This led to the applicants being heavily skewed towards the high achieving end of the scale with the inevitable result that admissions would be similarly skewed. It is, of course, possible that the information from the LA is incorrect and that, despite the independent supervision, HACP was managing to skew admissions. I am not involved and I live hundreds of miles away so I can only go off the information available to me.

There is no evidence that academies drive up standards. It is entirely ideologically driven and hugely expensive, not to mention poorly managed (OFSTED still can't inspect academy chains, as they can LAs, and there's some bad financial management and overexpansion going on. One of the arguments used in favour of academy chains was that they would not be as big as cumbersome LAs, but now some have 70 or so schools).

The league table rhetoric is particularly disingenuous. League tables are for a start a very crude measure of school success (what after all is education about? Much more than exam results), but as soon as anything is put in a table schools start to game the system to move up that table. So if you have a table that ranks by average points per pupil, you make your pupils sit more exams - 4 A2s for instance rather than 3, 12 GCSEs rather than 10. This isn't useful to the pupils or necessary for university entrance, but it pushes the school up the tables. A more interesting ranking, for many parents, would be average points per exam entry - how well did the pupils do on average in each A2 they took? If you rank the 2014 table in this way, the results change dramatically. In 1st, 2nd and 3rd place you have St Paul's Girls' School, Wycombe Abbey School and St Paul's School, followed in 4th place by Westminster. The pupils at these schools take fewer exams each but get better results in them. More useful for them but not the way the table is ordered.

Statistics, eh?

If you're going to dismiss evidence-based research published an the LSN as part of the 'agenda'of opponents of academies' *Prh", it seems a bit rich to then suggest Nicky Morgan's latest vague waffling has any substance or objectivity.

And all the 'important ongoing' functions of LAs are being outsourced to private providers in areas that have been hammered by the cuts.

There is no evidence that academies drive up standards

Yes there is. You may not agree with the interpretation of the evidence but, given that research in many countries has shown that the freedoms given to academies are associated with improving school standards, saying that there is no evidence is simply wrong.

So if you have a table that ranks by average points per pupil, you make your pupils sit more exams

It is a good job we don't, then. The A-level data allows you to order schools by average points per A-level entry, average points per pupil and a whole pile of other measures.

If you're going to dismiss evidence-based research published an the LSN as part of the 'agenda'of opponents of academies'

If the LSN published some evidence-based research I would not dismiss it, although I would treat it with more caution than evidence-based research from bodies that don't have an agenda. What I commented on was an opinion piece based on an interpretation of some statistics provided by Ofsted. That does not in any way class as evidence-based research. And I didn't dismiss it, just pointed out that its interpretation of the statistics was potentially flawed. Proper evidence-based research would need far more evidence than a single parliamentary answer by Ofsted to support its conclusions.

And all the 'important ongoing' functions of LAs are being outsourced to private providers in areas that have been hammered by the cuts

Putting aside the fact that this is nonsense - how many LEAs have outsourced co-ordination of admissions to a private provider - if an LEA chooses to subcontract the work involved in complying with its legal responsibilities to a third party that does not in any way mean that it is no longer the LEA's responsibility. Even in the unlikely event that every LEA outsourced all of the work involved in complying with the responsibilities I listed the LEA's function will still be the same. All that will have changed is the way they fulfil that function.

pr

I absolutely don't accept that local parents of low achieving parents stopped applying to Harris CP and this is what accounts for its hugely skewed intake.

And even if it did - how have they tackled this in such a short period of time and managed to make the intake more representative without having any communication with local parents to encourage them to apply for places for their low achieving kids?

There clearly HAS been a change in the way the admissions procedure is being used, and it's this which has caused a change in intake, not the demographic of those who apply. Given that, why hasn't anyone been open at Harris CP about it?

Harris CP's area of intake covers Thornton Heath, Penge and South Norwood - all areas with very high levels of immigrant families, some fairly newly arrived in the country . None of these families that I know 'play the admissions game' in that way. They apply for the schools at the top of the league tables on the basis that they are comprehensive and take children of all abilities. Almost every child in my dc's primary puts Harris CP on their list, usually at the top.

I actually think your defence of CP's admissions policy in the way you have is really bloody sinister. :-(

PR - what is the evidence from the uk that academisation drives up standards?

" although I would treat it with more caution than evidence-based research from bodies that don't have an agenda"

Pot? Kettle? Etc

I'm now quite tempted to make a freedom of information request about CP's admissions for 2011/2012.

What bodies, of any scale, who interpret any sort of data "don't" have an agenda? Certainly not the DoF.

I'm sure that you're familiar with Henry Stewart's work on the LSN, which is entirely data-based?

Of course, the DofE could look at the same data and find ways of interpreting it to come to different conclusions (although I haven't see much hard data at all from the DOfE through out the academies debates). That"s why it's important to have balance, and people challenging the claims and actions of those in power.

I don't know off hand how many LAS have outsourced their admissions dept. Essential public services like Children and Family services are being outsourced, so it"s only a matter of time.

I'm struggling to understand how a body with no staff in a particular dept is realistically to be held legally responsible for something, but I'm sure that you're going to Newspeak me the explanation.

I find minifingerz a credible witness to the Harris CP admissions shenanigans, as she lives locally and has actually experienced it.

Mossbourne Academy (another flagship) near me wrote to every family who had named them on the applicntion form from year groups where they had gaps, asking if any children had a particular talent for rowing, as this was now an admission priority.

The schools adjudicator got involved and they got into trouble for trying to circumnavigate their own admission code and cherry pick children to admit, rather than go to the waiting list.

Above post addressed to prh".