academies - what's in it for the private sector?

[morningtoncrescent62]

I feel very ignorant having to ask this. But I really don't understand what's in it for the private sector companies and individuals who run academies and academy chains. They're not allowed to be run for profit, is that right? So apart from a few lucrative chief executive-type posts in the larger chains, what do individuals and groups get out of running them? Sorry if this is a very stupid question but I'd be very grateful if someone could explain it.

Sorry about the rogue apostrophe - Apple iPads make wholly unhelpful changes without warning!

the government did not have to throw out the Rose reforms and enforce a new curriculum on schools that went contrary to professional advice

The Rose reforms were controversial and had been opposed as unnecessarily complex. No, the government did not have to throw them out.

As for the "evidence" does this come from the narrow, badly designed tests I was talking about

No, the evidence comes from a variety of scientific studies covering a range of countries including, for example, studies commissioned by the OECD based on PISA results. The OECD-sponsored studies found a strong link between certain features of school systems and the country's performance in PISA.

in what way does deciding it's own PAN help a school

It allows successful schools to expand if they wish. In terms of how it helps pupils, it introduces competition. If a school knows it will always be full regardless of performance there is less incentive to improve. According to the studies I have referred to allowing schools to compete for pupils is important in improving standards overall.

But schools have always competed for pupils, as you get more money that way, so can afford to pay your teachers?! And the Rose reforms received far less opposition than the current curriculum, and were based on far more detailed research - the current curriculum has been rushed through, along with the changes in testing. So, have our academy schools in the UK been specifically tested under OECD tests and PISA, or just under SATS, GCSEs, A levels and Ofsted? Evidence from countries with different cultures, political systems and, frankly, schools which bear no resemblance to our community or academy schools, does not strike me as the sort of evidence that should inspire a missionary zeal to convert all UK schools to academies.

But schools have always competed for pupils, as you get more money that way, so can afford to pay your teachers

Only up to a point. Many LAs have prevented successful schools from expanding on the grounds that they already have sufficient school places for all the pupils in the area. LAs like to have a close match between the number of children needing places and the number of places available. This pretty much eliminates real competition.

So, have our academy schools in the UK been specifically tested under OECD tests and PISA, or just under SATS, GCSEs, A levels and Ofsted

PISA is a study of performance of 15-year olds performance on maths, science and reading. It happens every 3 years and is frequently referred to as an international league table. The OECD study looked at the features of education systems in the 65 countries involved and identified which features had a strong correlation with high PISA rankings. Those systems which give schools certain freedoms consistently outperform those systems that do not give schools those freedoms.

There have been studies looking specifically at the performance of UK academies. The LSE produced one looking at the schools which converted under the pre-2010 Labour government which found that, over time, academies improved results for pupils more than LA schools.

Evidence from countries with different cultures, political systems and, frankly, schools which bear no resemblance to our community or academy schools, does not strike me as the sort of evidence that should inspire a missionary zeal to convert all UK schools to academies

According to the OECD study the features driving success are common across many different cultures and political systems including ones that are very similar to our own. This strongly suggests that these features would also drive success in the UK. That is born out by the experience of the early academies in the UK as per the LSE study mentioned above. Whether it will be duplicated when all schools are academies remains to be seen.

I know you talk a lot about the supposed evidence, prh, but which countries are you referring to here, where academy style freedoms work? Is this places like China, Singapore and Korea, or Finland and Australia?? How does this fit in with the current governmental love of Shanghai Maths? Does China operate an academy school system? I got the impression it had pretty fixed expectations when it comes to curriculum?

And you do know, don't you, that competition in state education will only ever work up to a point, because our state is never going to be willing to fund the excess places necessary for parents to be able to exercise the choices necessary for competition to work? And because children need a continuous education, not one regularly interrupted by turf wars, space constraints, school closure, building works, expansion, etc? Having experienced several schools that were expanding, I can tell you it is disruptive and affects the overall culture that made the schools so successful.

Are the countries where academies are successful under the same amount of pressure on school places? And are their schools free at the point of use, or do people pay? And do they have the same physical space constraints and demographics? Because I hear so much from government about the virtues of this, that and the other, and it comes across as a pick and mix view of what works in education, with nowhere in the world having tried to mix so many things together against the will of those being expected to comply.

And what is the success being measured by PISA and the OECD? And how do they measure it? And what makes them so credible as an authority on this? Do they not have a political agenda, rather than a purely academic one? Are the countries with the supposedly best schools in the world also those expected to be the most economically productive, unpolluted, creative, incorrupt, cultivated and happy? Or are they already that? Or are some of those considerations considered irrelevant? What do their excellent schools link into? Exploitable young people? Or young people able to exploit others? Good exports? I'm confused as to what is supposed to be taken for granted as a good outcome.

Is this places like China, Singapore and Korea, or Finland and Australia?? How does this fit in with the current governmental love of Shanghai Maths?

Top of the PISA tables are Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others. Shanghai came top in all areas in the last 2 rounds of tests and was a considerable distance ahead of everyone else in maths.

Does China operate an academy school system? I got the impression it had pretty fixed expectations when it comes to curriculum?

China does not operate academies as such but its schools have considerable autonomy over matters such as curriculum. Some standards are set centrally but there is a lot of local autonomy.

And you do know, don't you, that competition in state education will only ever work up to a point, because our state is never going to be willing to fund the excess places necessary for parents to be able to exercise the choices necessary for competition to work

That is a point of view. Other countries have managed to create competition without increasing funding. Places that aren't taken up don't cost very much.

And because children need a continuous education, not one regularly interrupted by turf wars, space constraints, school closure, building works, expansion, etc?

And yet somehow the countries that allow competition see the best results. Strange that. I prefer to rely on solid data about what does happen rather than speculation as to what might happen.

Are the countries where academies are successful under the same amount of pressure on school places?

If you mean the countries that offer schools the freedoms which, in the UK, are associated with academy status the answer is yes.

And are their schools free at the point of use, or do people pay?

In most of the countries concerned schools are free at the point of use.

And do they have the same physical space constraints and demographics?

Some of them do, yes.

And what is the success being measured by PISA and the OECD? And how do they measure it?

I believe I have already answered that question. But I have answered it again in the last paragraph of this post.

And what makes them so credible as an authority on this?

PISA is the largest international study of the performance of various education systems. There are plenty of other academic studies I could point to which arrive at the same conclusion.

Do they not have a political agenda, rather than a purely academic one?

No, OECD does not have a political agenda beyond stimulating economic progress and world trade. OECD members have a wide range of political outlooks. The top few places on the PISA tables are not occupied by OECD members. The OECD members near the bottom of the PISA tables do not offer their schools the freedoms I have mentioned - Mexico and Chile for example. Note that the OECD did not itself conduct the analysis as to what factors are associated with success. They commissioned academic research that came up with these findings.

I'm confused as to what is supposed to be taken for granted as a good outcome

PISA tests performance of 15 year old students in maths, science and reading. In general good outcomes for education are expressed in terms of how much students learn. If you want to measure schools another way you are free to do so, but this is known to be by far the most reliable measure of how well schools improve the life chances of their pupils.

Have I read correctly that academies fix their own pay scales for Teachers and are generally paying below the existing national levels for teachers.
If that is correct are they adding to the growing sense that teaching is not a good proffesion to choose?

Sorry, prh but I really don't see any countries in your list that have similar multi-cultures combined with similar issues with uncontrolled population increases and lack of space for school building in the areas where people are living. You have also only specified that China, in the top two spaces of the league tables, does not have an academy system, without making clear which countries therefore do. Also, I think the Chinese largely do pay money direct to their schools.

So the tests are only in maths, science and reading? How much curriculum time is devoted to other subjects, on average, in the countries which do best in these areas? And what does improving the life chances of pupils mean? Does it mean the systems with the least difference in achievement and economic success between the wealthiest and poorest in those societies? Achievement in which areas of those societies? All areas, including creative industries, music, sport and the arts? How much extra curricular/after school tuition/private education takes place in those countries?

And how much of a class or caste system do these countries successful in education have?

Ps what does local autonomy actually mean in a country like China, where, eg, the Internet is still heavily censored and differences of opinion with the leadership are strongly discouraged from being expressed? Does it mean every school in Shanghai is very different? Or that schools in poor, country areas are allowed to have lower standards? Or what?

Hmm. Australia, which is apparently a very successful education system, appears to be implementing a national curriculum. Are they looking at different evidence?

NZ also has a national curriculum.

Apparently, Korean schoolchildren are the most unhappy.

The Finnish core curriculum is more prescriptive than I thought it would be and it looks like their local education authorities work with their schools to develop their own curricula - not the schools on their own.

I still haven't found a successful education system that bears any resemblance to our government's proposed national curriculum free academy system.

Can I have a clue on which countries allow "competition"? So that I can find out what that means?

Maybe the now discredited swedish free school system?

Maybe all the academy naysayers could provide the perfect solution, because the current model certainly ain't fit for purpose. maybe all academies will sort things out, maybe they won't but they are very unlikely to make things worse.

caroldecker Fri 01-Apr-16 00:47:41Maybe all the academy naysayers could provide the perfect solution

Is this to counter the current perfect solution being forced on people in the form of forced blanket academisation?

How about converting just those schools that need improving or actually want to convert. How about that for a better solution.

caroldecker very unlikely to make things worse. If you took your car to a garage to fix a flat tyre and they replaced it with another flat tyre, at a charge of a few hundred pounds, would you not think that things had gotten worse?

Current model worked absolutely fine. Aint broke = dont fix it

Why is a good or outstanding community school broken? Why does it have to be forced to become an academy? What is that supposed to be fixing? There is nothing broken about the schools my children attend.

I really don't see any countries in your list that have similar multi-cultures combined with similar issues with uncontrolled population increases and lack of space for school building in the areas where people are living

I haven't given the full list nor did I say that any country had all of those features. But I'm sure I could give a country that was identical to the UK in every way and you still wouldn't accept it.

You have also only specified that China, in the top two spaces of the league tables, does not have an academy system, without making clear which countries therefore do

You keep missing the point that this is about the freedoms given to schools. In the UK those freedoms are through the academy system. Other countries give similar freedoms to schools without it being identical to our academy system. The freedoms are what matters. Other differences in education systems mean that few countries will have something that exactly matches the UK's academy model.

How much curriculum time is devoted to other subjects, on average, in the countries which do best in these areas

It varies but plenty. They do not focus on those subjects to the exclusion of all others.

And what does improving the life chances of pupils mean

It means giving them the best possible chance of improving their quality of life. It means the ability to procure goods, have a career and obtain inner satisfaction (that is the definition used by Max Weber who came up with the concept, not my own words).

How much extra curricular/after school tuition/private education takes place in those countries

It varies. The conclusion of studies is that there is no clear link between the average amount of extra tuition received by pupils and the performance of the country's education system.

what does local autonomy actually mean in a country like China, where, eg, the Internet is still heavily censored and differences of opinion with the leadership are strongly discouraged from being expressed

I have repeatedly answered this question. It means the schools have considerable freedom to set their own curriculum and are free to compete with other schools for pupils.

Feel free to keep trying to explain away results that are accepted by academic researchers as sound and which have been subject to extensive peer review and challenge. But I won't be answering any more questions on these studies.

But you have repeatedly failed to provide any concrete examples, prh. Where in the world has no national curriculum whatsoever? Every system I have looked at has at minimum a core curriculum, specifying what subjects must be taught, indicating basic areas to be covered so that it is possible to move around the country and be educated in different schools without chaos ensuing, advising how much time to devote to specific subjects. And what specific freedoms? I presume you don't mean the freedom to find your own auditors? What freedoms can only be given by private organisations rather than local authorities? What is the massive need for the model chosen by the government?

And core curricula do not only encompass reading, science and maths! They include arts, drama, music, citizenship, health, religion, ethics, etc.