What do you think of Harris Academy's?

[Lightbulbs]

Harris schools seem to have taken over our area and I'm genuinely interested to hear peoples opinions on them. I hear mixed reviews from teachers and parents. I'm interested from both perspectives.

I considered it for oldest but didnt in the end. Main reason was 3 heads in 3 years at one local one. The other newly opening one near me had a head that had only been at previous school 3 or 4 years. He had been the second head there starting the year after opening.
I just thought it sounded like way to much staff turnover!

They are terrible. Academies often save money by hiring unqualified teachers, so the quality of teaching isn't always great. Teachers who have come to work at my school after being at Harris say it is a very toxic culture to work in. One said that each teacher had to present their data to the governors every term and be grilled about progress, bearing in mind that governors don't always know much about teaching and learning and governors in Harris are actually shareholders concerned about profits.

I work in a borough with lots of Harris academies and they are not popular with parents due to high turnover of staff and moving SEN children around within their different schools rather than supporting them.

Thanks for your feedback. This is what I've heard. I don't seem to have much choice when it comes to schools as Harris' are everywhere. All of them in this area are outstanding though?

#ThisIsNotARealAvo how do shareholders make money out of a school that is non fee paying?

@Lightbulbs

The first ofsted for the one local to me was outstanding. It was still technically that but the interim report did not make good reading. It came out between school application and offers. Glad it did as it changed my mind.

how do shareholders make money out of a school that is non fee paying?

They are paid per pupil that attends. Cut costs to the bone, give contracts for poor quality services to firms connected to the governers, save money by employing unqualified teachers...

There have been a number of scandals about money being mispent or creamed off budgets in this way (in particular bodged or incomplete repairs to buildings by firms connected to the shareholders) but somehow this never hits the front pages in the way that stories about "lazy sir" appear.

The big academy chains are privatised education with a fraction of the oversight schools had in LEAs.

I know a teacher at one, she moved house to make sure her son didn’t end up at the school.

Harris is a charity. There is no profit as no shareholders. Their limited company is not for profit.

They’ve done excellent work with bright disadvantaged pupils but Dan is quite ruthless. He likes who he likes staff wise and the rest go. He’s intolerant of poor performance.

They game results. So not quite the picture everyone sees. Some real positives but if you’re struggling, have low attendance, show poor behaviour or have special needs you might be pointed towards other schools.

In fairness, the big chains of MATs have stronger governance frameworks and have driven up results far more than many local authorities that used worn out advisers with cosy relationships to allow schools to perform badly for years. Some MATs have turned those schools around.

governors in Harris are actually shareholders concerned about profits

No they are not. Harris, as with all academy trusts, is a charity - to be precise, it is a company limited by guarantee which is also a charity. It doesn't have shareholders nor does it make a profit. CherryPavlova is right.

@prh is right. And in their annual report they are audited on 'regularity and propriety' - to test whether they are spending their money in an appropriate way as indicated in the Academies Financial Handbook. Any instances of, for example - giving overpriced contracts to the governors' companies - would be reported factually there.

Terrible reports from two teacher friends who worked at them, both very experienced. They both left another friend removed her daughter from one.

Any instances of, for example - giving overpriced contracts to the governors' companies - would be reported factually there

Contracts given to connections of the governers or the wider academy chains however are not. Many of the chains are the fiefdoms of wealthy businessme, patrons of political parties. Over half were using their chains to push religious influence on the curriculum - creationism for example - in schools which are supposedly state secular.

There are numerous way to slice money and benefits out of large budget organisations, none of which particularly attract attention in themselves.

There are plenty of examples of taking money for capital spending and instead doing cheap shoddy work leaving schools not fit to work in. Essex and Cumbria both spring to mind as having particularly egregious examples in recent years. Plenty of examples of bad employment practice as well.

There is far less oversight of academy chains than LEA schools and they are much more able and willing to game the results tables by excluding many children with difficulties or additional needs, who then go to other neighbouring schools.

The original idea of failing schools being given a fresh start with a different model made sense. The changes over the past decade have forced many schools into becoming reluctant academies (or lose a large chunk of their budget in a recession) and increased the rate of academies being consumed by chains, with political or religious agendas.

The reputation of the chains in my borough and both the neighbouring boroughs is such that people will move to try and avoid them. Fortunately most of the schools forced into academy status locally are large enough to resist the chains at the moment. How long that will last I don't know.

Contracts given to connections of the governers or the wider academy chains however are not

It depends what you mean by "connections of the governors". In broad terms, the Charities Act defines "connected persons" to mean family, relatives or business partners of a trustee, as well as businesses in which a trustee has an interest through ownership or influence. Any transactions with a connected person would attract the interest of the auditors and, if overpriced or awarded incorrectly, would be reported.

If you mean contracts awarded to friends of a governor, that, of course, goes on in all types of school. It would still draw comment from auditors if it was clearly overpriced.

Over half were using their chains to push religious influence on the curriculum - creationism for example - in schools which are supposedly state secular

Since most of the chains are not religious, I do not believe this claim is correct. In any event, teaching of creationism as fact was banned years ago.

Many of the chains are the fiefdoms of wealthy businessme, patrons of political parties

Simply not true. A charity cannot be owned or controlled by anybody. Most of the chains are not associated with wealthy businessmen or patrons of political parties. Harris Federation was, of course, set up and is still sponsored by Lord Harris who has also given money to other schools and colleges. So yes, Harris Federation is associated with a wealthy businessman but it is not his fiefdom.

There are numerous way to slice money and benefits out of large budget organisations, none of which particularly attract attention in themselves

Which, of course, happens in local authority controlled schools as well.

There is far less oversight of academy chains than LEA schools

In what way? An academy chain is subject to independent audit, oversight from the Charity Commission and oversight from the ESFA. I would, however, support Ofsted's request that they should be able to conduct full inspections of MATs rather than the summary inspections currently used.

they are much more able and willing to game the results tables by excluding many children with difficulties or additional needs, who then go to other neighbouring schools

The latest statistics on exclusions suggest that this charge, often levelled at academies, is the reverse of the truth. The exclusion rate for academies is identical to that for other types of schools. However, the statistics suggest that pupils with SEN are less likely to be excluded from academies than from other types of school. Of course, there will be some academies that have high exclusion rates for SEN children.

The changes over the past decade have forced many schools into becoming reluctant academies (or lose a large chunk of their budget in a recession)

No school was threatened with loss of budget to force academy conversion. Before funding arrangements changed academies received slightly more funding than other types of school to cover the additional costs academies face through having to do things themselves that are dealt with by the LA for other schools.

increased the rate of academies being consumed by chains, with political or religious agendas

I don't know of any academy chains with political agendas.

This makes really interesting reading, thank you for all your contributions. I

One of the problems in MATs is fat cat CEO's earning huge amounts of money ( and paying their own wife to carry out expensive training). In my experience self appointed through cosy relationships.

Ineffective school improvement, large amounts of money wasted, poor treatment of staff, I've seen it all, yet the DfE continue to offer more schools to them, just why if you are ineffective?

Easy Ofsted inspections if you are due to convert and the inspector doesn't want to derail.

Disgraceful to see the amount of tax payers money being wasted, disgraceful to see the large amounts of financial support the DfE seems to find again and again to help academies out. This is not the case for LA maintained schools.

The recent decision to publish CEO and leadership staff salaries is very welcome but only a tiny part of what is wrong with the whole system.

Two years ago someone did a FoI in my borough for all state secondary schools asking for number of pupils in Y10 and number who sat exams in Y11. It is a borough with a good number of Harris’. All the Harris schools had significant numbers off rolled presumably so they wouldn’t damage the schools league table positions. Most of the others didn’t have this discrepancy in Y10 to Y11 figures, so it really stood out.

Another Harris was in the local press for putting all pupils in for the EAL rather than full GCSE English language to boost their results.

Awful
Awful

I'm in shock at some of the things they do and try to get away with 😡😡😡😡😡