Re academies

[autienotnaughty]

Are academies worse as they are business run? My ds school became an academy a few years ago. It's gone from outstanding to RI . (Headteacher blames previous head saying problems were there long before she joined, she has been there at least 6/7 years. ) Since it's become an academy a number of long standing staff have left (I'm talking more than 50%) so it's largely NQT. They have also streamlined support staff, there's a morning ta in each reception- Y2 class but they finish at 12 and after that it's just a teacher with up to 30 children. Y3-6 no ta at all. This year's reception intake was 65 so they had 2 teachers and a relief teacher so 3 classes. But as of January they cancelled the relief and are now back down to 2 teachers and 5 of the reception children are now in y1.

Comparatively a friend works in a school that's not an academy and they have a ta in every class from reception- y6. Plus additional ta staff to work with groups for core subjects.

Just wondering are academies generally considered better or worse?

@autienotnaughty academies aren't "business run". They are run by non-profit charitable trusts. Some of them are sponsored by businesses, so-called "sponsored academies", but most aren't. If they are sponsored, the business may have one or more seats on the trust board, to contribute time and expertise and, in some cases, money too. However all academies have to be very transparent in how they are run, just like local-authority led schools. The success of the academy depends on the strength of the leadership, just like local-authority led schools. There are good and bad academies, just as there are good and bad local-authority led schools.

@wellygumboot thanks I guess there's a feeling the school has gone down hill since it became an academy. Do you know if there's an requirement regarding ta's in classes 1:30 seems a lot when they are 5.

No, I don't think there's any specific ratio required, it just depends on funding. Perhaps the school is struggling financially. Schools are funded based on the number of children and various other factors, e.g. how many disadvantaged or SEND students they have. A lot of schools are finding it difficult in the current financial climate, with soaring costs, and an academy can be rated RI simply for having a budget deficit. Do you know if it is a stand-alone academy or part of a multi-academy trust? (Schools sometimes join larger trusts if they are in financial difficulties, to achieve economies of scale).

@wellygumboot it's part of a trust there's about six primaries and 2 seniors in it .

Better or worse than what?
Virtually all schools are academies these days; some are good and some are not so good.

The going downhill may be more related to the reduction in school funding in real terms rather than becoming an academy - an awful lot of schools are having to cut the number of TAs. Does your friend's school have a lot of pupil premium children or children with EHCPs giving them a funded TA?

How are the other schools in the trust doing? If several of them are doing badly, the dfe has the power to intervene and replace the trust. But if they're doing well, that should give you hope. It's a relatively small trust, so finances may be difficult.

You can ask to see the board meeting minutes - if they're not already online you can email and ask to see them. That might give you some insight into what's happening.

Thank you I was surprised with what my friend said and had assumed all schools had reduced ta support. Don't know about their pupil premium though her school is a church school if that makes a difference?

My sons in yr 3 though I have two older children the school has definitely declined in my opinion mostly in the last few years. I just wasn't sure if it was the move to Academy or just about the school in general.

Academies are a govt. exercise to get rid of costly Local Authorities. It was sold as a means of competing with the private sector but in reality, like all state funded organisations, they’re all about cutting costs to the bone and treating children like widgets in a factory. Very little support for SEND, No toilet breaks in secondary, no ex-curricula fun, no trips outside of those that apply to the curriculum, silent corridors etc. Everything costed and pared back to the minimum. No wonder the mental health of children is rock bottom.

I’m not a fan, clearly. Unfortunately that is the unstoppable direction of travel in all schools now.

Some are bad, some are less so. Part of the issues may be due to the real terms reduction in school funding we've seen over the last 10 years or so.

Lots of experienced teachers leaving would be a concern to me, as would the lack of TAs, but there's no requirement to have TAs. Infant class sizes have a limit of 30, but there's no need to have a TA in there as well.

The 65 children in YR is probably very difficult for the school to manage- and they won't have enough funding to pay for a teacher effectively for 5 children.

It's far from ideal, but that situation could occur in an LA school too.

If you're unhappy, can you move to the LA school? But I'd say it's probably about funding more so than academies as such.

This is a misinformed post. Academisation was about taking control away from LAs because a lot of LAs were doing a poor job, as well as to achieve cost efficiencies. Some failing schools were forcibly academised, but many succesfull schools academised voluntarily. Every school and academy is different. The negatives you mentioned re toilet breaks and trips certainly don't reflect the academy where my children go, and sound much closer to the LA school I attended in the 1980s. All schools are having to cut back on costs, not just academies.

Very little support for SEND, No toilet breaks in secondary, no ex-curricula fun, no trips outside of those that apply to the curriculum, silent corridors etc. Everything costed and pared back to the minimum.

The academies my secondary school children have attended for the last 5/6 years bear no resemblance to this. None of that applies. Sweeping statements like this are unhelpful, to say the least.

Many academies, especially at secondary, are academies because of the increased flexibility they have to actually meet the needs of their students outside of LA control.

Very poor academy near us, designed for and controlled by large local employer (don't want to give many details). A friend teaches English there; not deemed a necessary subject so little respect given to that department and an unpleasant place to work overall.

This.

Funding, in real terms, has been cut, and cut again and again for everything paid for out of taxes, since 2010.
Schools are underfunded and under resourced, just like the NHS, things like Children's Centres, Social care, Mental Health services, the police, the courts, probation service, Youth service, Special schools, etc etc. You are noticing the cut in schools' funding as that is what is affecting you now. But everything is pared back to the bone.

@autienotnaughty
Academies are all different. Few primaries are where I live. All the secondaries are. The grammars are academies (13 of them) and they are all outstanding. What matters is leadership. It’s not all about school budgets. My DC had TAs in infant primary in the mornings but not from y3-6 in junior. Only send children had help and this was 20 years ago. So extremely well resourced schools with TAs in every class were never what we had! As a governor since, we didn’t have such lavish provision either.

A head that blames a previous head of 6 years ago is simply useless. It’s their job to improve the school by recognising weaknesses and making sure there are improvements. The academy chain should hold them to account. As they haven’t, they are poor too. Obviously money helps but if you cannot recognise where improvement is required, you will be RI. Even if you are lavishly funded!

@TizerorFizz thank you that makes a lot of sense.

When I started working in a school (not a teaching role) it was a local authority school. It converted to a multi academy trust in 2017 and was issued a financial notice to improve in early 2020. It disbanded in 2022 officially. The central team were the most corrupt group of people I have ever met and the whole lot of them were friends of friend. The systems the schools had to use kept changing, mainly because someone was given a backhander to implement them within the trust. The education of the children was not paramount. Schools also get a 'free pass' from ofsted for a while after converting too. So it all goes under the radar until a lot of damage has been done.
I'm at a new school now. The education is much better but it's central team is still run by people who are desperately trying to prove their job is important and who don't really know what they're doing. And, again nepotism is everywhere.
I dare say there are good academies out there but I haven't had a positive experience of them. I'm looking for another job and I'm desperately trying to get local authority one. I know it won't be long until they all fall down, but I can enjoy it while it lasts.

Very little support for SEND, No toilet breaks in secondary, no ex-curricula fun, no trips outside of those that apply to the curriculum, silent corridors etc. Everything costed and pared back to the minimum. No wonder the mental health of children is rock bottom.

All the secondary academies round here are like this too. I teach primary and the SEND provision is dire. SENCOs often shared across multiple schools in the academy to cut costs but more children with additional needs than ever.

To be fair, the LA-led schools that are left tend to be relatively well run by definition because, if they weren't, they'd have been forced to convert to academy status by now.

Sorry you've had bad experiences with academies. The one I have experience of is very well run. The people who run it at trust level are former headteachers who had bad experiences of LA management in the past, so they leapt at the opportunity to run a group of schools outside of LA control. All the schools in their trust are good or outstanding.

I think I'm suspicious because I worked for social services and ours was one to became a trust . Whilst on paper it improved the reality was more stress/work load, more people on sick for mental health, more staff leaving, less supervision/support, more risk taking.

At my sons school The governing board is largely made up of staff from within the academies so the head at one primary will be safe guarding Governor at another etc. Obviously the parent governors are neutral but the rest aren't really.

@autienotnaughty
Im not keen on that model of governance. The job of a head is to lead their school and be accountable to their governors. I’m amazed they have time to be effective as governors at other schools. It’s too close to be an effective chain of accountability too. Ok in a professional role to mentor but, in my view, heads are governors at their own school and nowhere else.

My son’s special primary school was forced to become an academy, no one wanted it, they brought in a ‘superhead’ who spent most of her time away from the school at conferences telling other people how to be a superhead.
Whilst there were some issues at the school, the staff were happy, the parents were happy but most importantly the children were safe, happy and learning.
Nothing much improved, the walls got a coat of paint. what was most galling was that the ‘sponsor’ was a nearby specialist college with great facilities including a swimming pool and sensory rooms which our children could have got great benefit from. They didnt even get to visit, instead £40,000 was hived off to cover the sponsors ‘costs’ , our children got no direct benefit and lost its residential week because the school couldnt afford it.

My son went to a mainsteam secondary academy. It was a stand alone school, not part of a trust, and was utterly fabulous, it was the making of my son.

So it very much depends on the individual school. I am very much opposed to forced academisation, if the parents and staff don’t want it it shouldnt take place.

Staff usually are quite happy doing what they have always done. Dc are often quite happy when little is expected of them. I don’t like superheads coming in but a great head really does make a difference. Academy or not!

@TizerorFizz

When my son joined his school age 8 he was working below national curriculum levels. By the end of his first full academic year there, whilst still delayed, he had caught up 3 academic years. I'd say quite a lot was expected of him.
That says to me the teachers were doing something right.
There is always room for improvement and I agree a great head makes all the difference. The head was coming to the end of her career but she was at least present and cared about the children.

The superhead was largely absent telling other people how to be a superhead and left the day to day management of the school to the deputy who was already in post.
I've nothing against academies in principle, I can't speak highly enough of his secondary which was an academy.
I do object to forced academisation when staff, parents and governors do not want it.

@Ted27
If all was well and every Dc was doing exceptionally well, it would not have been RI or Inadequate. So would not have become an academy. That’s the key. It’s progress of all Dc and management affecting every child, plus loads of other criteria, that ofsted look at. No brilliant school is forced to be an academy. Near me, the very few that are were awful. My local special school is outstanding.

I don’t agree with any head being absent and not getting on with the job. That is not acceptable.

@TizerorFizz

I'm not saying everything was perfect, I'm arguing that forced academisation is not the only solution to issues in schools