prh47bridge seems to have disappeared from this thread.
No I haven't! Busy day.
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.
I struggle to see how they managed it given the level of independent scrutiny involved. But, as I said, it is possible they managed to do so somehow and that the increase in low achievers being admitted is because they have stopped doing so, although I'm not clear why they would. I am somewhat surprised that you find my comments sinister.
what is the evidence from the uk that academisation drives up standards
There is evidence cited in the select committee report linked to earlier in this thread. This covers figures provided by Ofsted and also external research by academics.
Pot? Kettle?
I presume you are accusing me of having a pro-academy agenda. I don't. I don't have an anti-academy agenda either. I'm interested in what works. If you check my historic posts you will find that I was initially somewhat sceptical about academies. At the moment my view is that the evidence suggests that the academy model works better than the LA-controlled model. If the evidence changes or someone comes up with another approach that works better I will happily change my view. What matters is that our education system gives children the best education possible with the resources available.
For what it is worth, if the DfE was on here posting some of the rubbish that appears on their website about how academies are the solution to all the problems in our schools I would be pointing out the flaws in their arguments too. They massively overstate the evidence and some of the conclusions they draw simply do not follow.
What bodies, of any scale, who interpret any sort of data "don't" have an agenda? Certainly not the DoF.
I treat research from the DfE with as much caution as I do research from the opponents of academies. There is some research that I believe doesn't have much of an agenda if any. But I agree finding it is difficult.
I don't know off hand how many LAS have outsourced their admissions dept
As far as I am aware none have done so. But even if they do it will not change the function of the LA. They will still be responsible for co-ordinating admissions in their area even if they pay someone else to do the work.
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
No Newspeak involved at all. It is quite straightforward. The law makes the LA responsible for certain matters. Outsourcing the function does not shift the legal responsibility. Any parent wishing to take legal action over a breach of the LA's responsibilities would sue the LA.
The schools adjudicator got involved and they got into trouble for trying to circumnavigate their own admission code
A number of schools and LAs get into trouble for that every year. It is not confined to academies. I wish they would all stop it. Complying with the Admissions Code is not difficult. Some of the appeal cases I get involved with make me despair. I wish someone would offer me the job of Schools Adjudicator so I can make them all comply!
Your reply to me didn't acknowledge the substance of my point
I thought I had. I acknowledged that there are a number of ways the data can be sorted. State schools have closed the gap to independent schools on the specific measure I quoted. Other measures are available. State schools are closing the gap on all measures but have further to go on some than others.
I note you say 'evidence that academy-style freedoms' drive improvement but you don't explain which ones and why only the academy model can deliver them
The evidence is that there is a strong positive correlation between giving schools:
- autonomy over resource allocation
- autonomy over curriculum and assessments
- freedom to compete for pupils
and outcomes for pupils.
In the UK all schools have a high degree of autonomy over resource allocation. Only academies have autonomy over curriculum and assessments. I do not understand why the government doesn't extend this to all schools and, at the same time, limit the ability of LAs to meddle in this area for LA-controlled schools. In theory all schools have the freedom to compete for pupils but in practice LAs tend to limit competition. As the LA is the admission authority for LA-controlled schools it can stop a successful school expanding regardless of how much demand there is for places.
the list of things you attribute to LAs ("even if all schools are academies") is not correct
Yes it is. I can, if you like, refer you to the relevant legislation that gives the LAs these responsibilities. If your LA was not providing these things they were in breach of their legal duties and your school could have taken legal action against them. Academies deliberately do not get any funding for Ed Psych services, SEN assessments, etc. because they are an LA responsibility.
But apparently not enough applicants from middle and low ability children to properly apply its 'fair banding' admissions procedures
That's not quite what I was saying. The approach to fair banding used by HACP gives them a cross section of the pupils who apply. They don't normalise to the profile of the area (which some schools do). If they did and they got a preponderance of high achievers applying the result would be that low achievers would have a higher chance of gaining entry and one would expect the pupils gaining admission to have a similar profile to pupils in the area as a whole. I could write an essay on fair banding but I won't bore everyone. Suffice to say that I think it is better if schools using this system normalise to the profile of the area.
It's incredibly difficult to ascertain whether the admissions criteria have been applied fairly when schools (usually academies and free schools) have all sorts of complicated criteria
HACP's are as straightforward as they can be for a school using fair banding. I've seen far more complex admission criteria than that (yes, I'm looking at you, London Oratory, and your serial breaches of the Admissions Code).
If someone really wanted to check they should put in an FoI request for anonymised test results for a year with the pupils admitted highlighted. It would then be straightforward to check if they were complying with their admission criteria (unless, of course, they were adjusting the results so that some high achieving pupils were awarded much lower marks in the test than they actually earned).
a lot of things have already been outsourced, training we would have previously got through the Lea we now have to go to private companies for, an kind of assessment for a child, ed psych etc again comes from a. Private company
I am not disputing that LAs outsource things. Some, for example, have outsourced rubbish collections. But they are still the council's responsibility and you can complain to the council if there are problems. The same is true with the things you mention. The LA is responsible for ensuring that SEN assessments are provided, for example. It doesn't have to provide them itself. It can outsource to a private company or to another LA. But it has to ensure that they happen.