Outstanding primary wants to join academy - Why would they?

[wontbedoingthat]

My son's school wants to join a small local academy trust that has already signed up the other local primary's. However this school is outstanding and as far as I am aware will be under no pressure to leave the LA. There is a meeting with the governors and head teacher and I wondered if there are any other parents who have been through a similar process and if so did anything come up in these 'consultations' that was interesting or worrying regarding the future of the school. This lot are promising no change and complete accountability, which is everything academies don't stand for...I am mistrustful. The head is great but he seems to have his hands tied somewhat mostly over funding. Is this the beginning of the end of maintained schools...?

I guess it depends on local conditions. In areas where there are a lot of academies, the problem can be that services offered by the local authority diminish so that the remaining schools are left with little choice.

However, I would still be concerned about this in your shoes. Becoming an academy is no longer the licence to print money it once was - rather the reverse, if anything, many academies are really feeling the pinch leading to lots of redundancies and other cost-cutting measures. The main concern for me is that they don't have to employ qualified teachers in teaching positions.

We had a group of good and outstanding primaries form a MAT, and another 2 outstanding ones joined this year. Locally the LA offer no School Improvement Support Services to schools with either grading and if they request help, they are charged for it, where as it is provided to RI and inadequalte schools for free. Joining a MAT in this area provides access to the School Improvement Services they provide for their schools, which is built on internal, mutual support systems.
The schools in the MAT also benefit from savings on common systems used, that are bought in. Suppliers are keen to provide a discounted rate to a MAT if they know they are going to sell the product to all schools within it. MATs also gain bid access to the Condition Improvement Fund that LAs have to bid into for capital projects. The MAT locally won bids to replace the roofs of 5/7 schools last year, as well as new windows for some. If they had waited for the LA to prioritise them, they would have to wait 5-10 years.

Could it be to do with secondary schools? My local secondary is part of an academy. The academy has taken on schools in areas that would originally have been outside the catchment however obviously now these schools have priority. I'm not saying they are doing it for this reason however this would enable them to control the intake.

Our Outstanding graded primary is considering joining a MAT mainly because the current trustees do not want to continue the role long term. The trustees are currently a subset of the Governors and the role was largely forced on them when the DFE decided at the 11th hour that the MAT we'd chosen to partner with had too many schools in pre-opening stage. The only thing we could do was form our own trust but it was never intended to be a long term answer.

We have always had the support of two fantastic school improvement officers.

The benefits to the school of the MAT are greater economies of scale and a stability that we don't currently have. We would also become a "feeder" school to the local MAT run highly desirable secondary. We will also be the first primary in the MAT and so have opportunity to shape the philosophy of subsequent primaries. The MAT have stated that they will not interfere with the ethos or running of the school.

The benefits to the MAT are that they will acquire an Outstanding, first choice, primary with the benefit of governors and senior teachers and managers who have experience in starting and developing a primary school.

Our situation is different to your son's school OP as we have always been a free school rather than LA controlled. I think I'd be interested to know what the current Head and senior teachers think of the plan. Perhaps ask if you could contact other parents of children at the other schools in the MAT for their views?

It's probably because of budget pressures. Share of cost for insurance, training, supply staff, IT support, computers, admin staff, anything from craft, resources, paper, etc. If the cost is shared between a number of schools, it's lower. Schools are under enormous financial pressure at the moment. I bet that comes up in the discussions.

I do not understand why LAs weren't doing cost lowering mass purchases! Imagine the discounts you could command if you were buying for ALL schools in the authority!

as far as I am aware will be under no pressure to leave the LA

Is the LEA close on 50% of schools already an academy? My understanding is that once it tips over 50% of schools join or gain academy status then its no longer viable for the LEA to continue running/supporting schools and they will then push for all schools to start looking to join a MAT or create their own.

Sadly you are right in that this is the end of maintained schools. LEA's are being constrained by government policy and budget. I am a school governor and our Ofsted rated good primary has voted to join a MAT, mainly because LEA services are being reduced and a decision to jump before we were pushed has been made.

Thank you everyone,

Bosswitch - I have wondered that. A group of 5 schools must get nowhere near the discount of hundreds. But with shrinking numbers of maintained schools the budgets are shrinking too perhaps..?
Reinette - I am certain that that its not even close to 50% though the number converting is increasing every year. This bothers me on moral grounds, that every academy is taking a little bit away from the schools trying to keep going, thereby making it harder for them and ultimately tipping them to breaking point.
Lostlemon - I have a feeling they will want to do this. There's also talk of a teaching school, maybe great for existing staff development but seems to pave the way for their own private teaching qualification as GnutherGnu mentioned before.

I do think funding is a big part of this change, however I have found out that after the school becomes an academy the overall budget will be the same, only with the top slice going to the business rather than the LA...
Having thought a lot today and read around a bit, I realise that my main issue and what all my questions boil down to is this; the school will no longer be accountable for what it does and the total transfer of assets and property to them (a listed business) means that they becomes beholden to no one but thenselves. They promise everything they think we would want to hear but this could easily change in a few years when funding is even lower. Their trustees are fairly distantly linked to the schools they are part of and there are no staff, barring heads on the board. Does anyone have any thoughts on 'negotiating' with them a restructuring their board so there is a majority of parents and staff that oversee the CEO and the trust decisions? Can I request this and if they, (as they are at great pains to point out), are completely open and want to keep the school as it is would surely want that too?? Then even if the CEO changes and heads change, the trust will not fall foul of some megalomaniac!

Trust Boards have a requirement to be skills based rather than interest based. LA schools can be less accountable than those in a Trust because they don't have to engage with the LA in regard to any of the bought services. Therefore they can exist with little monitoring and run up deficits which an academy would have to ask the ESFA for permission to do. One of the schools in the local Trust joined because they wanted more accountability and had been the subject of a big scandal under the LA. Not all Trusts are decent but there are some good ones out there.

Thank you, I didn't know that. So, they don't have a requirement but is it something they could do to safeguard the school and protect it from potentially harmful future members? Adding further trustees with an interest in the school would at least be a counterbalance to the top down approach that seems to be the way academies are run. Surely when a school becomes part of a chain, even a small one, it's voice can be lost. This trust is absolutely evangelical about how our school will retain its individual character. They are insistent they are not like the other academies but I think it's all talk. Is there a better way to challenge this?

I'd ask them to demonstrate how existing member schools have retained their own identity - real examples. Also, ask about their governance structure. Do they retain local governing bodies, and if so what delegated powers do they have? What support is given to local governors and how are they able to have their voice heard at trustee level. Are there briefings where local governors can meet others from other member schools? How many of their trustees were originally governors on local governing bodies? How do the trustees ensure they treat each school fairly? These are all questions they should be able to answer positively if the Trust does value individulaity.

Ace. Great questions.
I can tell you though, two of our governors are moving to the trustee board. One's the chair (with his fingers in many, many pies) and the other was sitting on both before so will lose her governors position, but retain the trustee position. You've reminded me, I have marked this person in the back of my mind. She has several conflicts of interest stated on the site. Both are regarding education services, of the sort that schools commission when they require help managing finance structures. I expect this person can offer advice but would hope that she don't benefit financially should her consultancy get work based on her position. This is another point I want to raise, this person has been in a position to influence the decision to become an academy and how did the board maintain integrity...?
Two of the current trustees were governors and SLT of the main school that instigated the birth of the trust and there is one from the latest school to join and a governor from a school undisclosed. The rest have links to education or schools in some form but not one of those faces would you ever see at the school gates or helping out with a trip to the woods.

The system is a mess. I am working with schools setting up a new MAT.
Issues I see:

• Group of schools profess trust, honesty and working together except all are unhappy with the quality the 'working together' provides, all 'back biting behind each other. *No one is prepared to stand up and make leaders accountable. *The CEO is self appointed through the MAT. *Consultation happened. Less than 5% of parents even bothered to respond...to such a major decision? Some strongly disagreed with the proposed MAT, the proposal was carried. *Governing bodies who I am busy training, because they have very little idea of how to run their own schools, have taken a vote to convert. How do they know this is the 'best' option for their pupils when they are so poorly skilled. *Some governors work in various capacities with already formed MATS yet can vote on conversion. Biased view? *Self appointed trustees. *LA officers working with the schools are so tied politically that they can't express a view about the optimum solutions for the schools. LA officers can see that this group of schools is heading for disaster given their various needs, no one else has that bigger view. *Economies of scale are great and talked about as a major reason for conversion. Why? Maintained schools have the same freedoms to 'buy in bulk' together even in small local groups. Choice of training providers is also given as a reason, again maintained schools have this freedom now. *School to school support is the answer to improvement, except there is no quality assurance or time. Self appointed experts, tired teachers at the end of a working day and HT's out of their own school to 'support' another. *LA is strong and successful but the more schools that convert the less this will be so. *MATs don't take all schools. We have many sitting with academy orders that no MAT will take. Financially unviable small schools or schools that require support. Cherry picking. LA left with these schools...LA critisised and closed for the amount of unsuccessful schools!

The newly converted schools have 3 years to their next inspection ....I can't wait!

There are potential benefits which are around the ability to improve the school further within a group of schools (even though they are outstanding). There are also opportunities to be more effective in areas such as finance, HR etc where a small central team will have better experience and will do the work more effectively.
Personally I think that the potential cost savings are over-blown, I am convinced that my 2 form entry primary school, with a really good school business manager, buys as effectively as anybody else based on all the comparison data I have seen.
The areas that really need to resolved are around the level of autonomy that the school will have. There may be 2 of the current governors going onto the Trust Board but there job is strategic around all the schools in the MAT, not batting for their own school. The Local Governing Board or whatever it is being called is actually not a governing board, they are simply a committee. The power lies with the Trust Board and not withstanding what the scheme of delegation says, that can be changed by the Trust Board at any time. So whilst everybody might be saying the school will have the last say on things, that is to put it politely a load of horse manure.
Having indicated the obvious negatives I do believe that everybody does have to accept that things are changing in education, that there will be financial problems over the next few years without more funding. Does it really matter how the school is organised as long as the kids are getting the best possible education?