Gove's proposals for academy schools: parents and community will have no say at all!

[policywonk]

In the proposed Academies Act, which will be one of the first pieces of legislation the coalition government brings forward, the rules will be changed so that governors alone will be able to decide whether or not to turn their school into an academy. Parents and the wider community are explicitly excluded from the decision-making process.

Academy schools could be run by profit-making businesses and religious groups as well as by groups of parents. The sponsors are given the school land and buildings, and can decide which subjects are taught, and how. And once a school has become an academy, there's no clear way back into local authority control.

38 Degrees has set up an online action in which you can email your MP to ask him/her to oppose this move and sign an Early Day Motion against it.

just marking my place before I whizz off to make the tea

govs very often clueless and easily led

dh is staff governor at his school and he turned whistle blower as noone could see the reason the schools was failing was down to the head, who has now gone - not many prepared to stand up to heads, esp not staff

There are a lot of bloody good governors around - but I agree that there are too many who do it so their CV looks better and who have no real interest. Governors must challenge, and question, and monitor, and all the apparatus and training is there to do exactly that. It's not hard.

I agree hassled - maybe improved governance will be the silver lining of this misguided bill

Food for thought in this briefing note for MP's from Anti Academies Alliance
sites.google.com/a/antiacademies.org.uk/aaa/Home/parliament/briefingforlabourmpslords
Have to say - I seriously think outstanding state schools jumping ship with their element of monies previously given to LEA for support services is going to weaken LEA and reduce help available for schools with most difficulties .
What will become of struggling schools ?
What will become of special schools and education for children with special needs ?
What will happen to LEA 's role in ensuring that schools in it's area have fair ,open and understandable admissions policies ?
And what's this about these new Academies and Ofsted - is the suggestion that they need onl;y be inspected every 10 years correct ?

I think the nature of governing bodies will have to change very dramatically in some cases if these academies start to become reality and many existing governors will probably resign. As a parent governor, I would consider my role would change significantly if our school became an academy and I currently have neither the expertise or the time to commit to this. I'm sure many schools can find good quality new governors to face these challenges. What I would be more concerned about (and what I foresee happening even in our own school) is that some entrenched governors will fail to acknowledge their shortcomings and will just hunker down even further and fail to manage the school's new status properly.

As an outstanding faith primary school we've been advised by the diocese to take a wait and see approach to being an academy. I must admit that as a governor I would want to know a lot more about what I was agreeing to before I voted for the school to become an academy.

I think it's better than the previous process in which our local LEA/council made 2 schools into academies despite the govenors, parents and head teachers opposing it...they had the ultimate say. The public "consultation" was a joke.

Strangely one of the councillors who voted for the state schools to become academies has her daughter int he local private school.

Enough said.

Miggsie, but the answer isn't to narrow the decision-making powers still further. Neither the LEA nor the governors should be able to hijack an entire school without the consent of the parents.

if a school becomes an academy, as far as I can see there is no way back into LA control - so a one way street?
obviously I might be missing something significant. So correct me if I am wrong.
and, as a veteran of TUPE transfers, I have to say that the right of "consultation" is not the same thing as having a vote AT ALL

DSS attended an academy immediately following it's conversion from a failing school. We had issues with the way certain problems were covered up dealt with, one of which would have meant a disciplinary for a staff member. On consulting the LA Ed Dept for advice, were told more than once 'it's an academy, they can do what they like'.

Bloody hell.
This is horrendous -
Voice = means nothing
Consultation = meanings nothing.

The only thing that counts, in a debate as vital as this, is a vote. Not just because what happens to our schools is INCREDIBLY important, but on a point of principle.

It is an utterly retrograde step, away from 'progressive politics', away from democracy.

Yes, I know we don't have real democracy under the current system - but under the current system, governors weren't empowered to make this kind of decision on our behalf.

Parent power? Freedom? Utter, blazing hypocritical balls.

This is the semi-privatisation of the - sorry, our, education system - by the back door.

I think you're right hc.
With GM schools, they were quite easy to bring back into the fold as it were, but once schools become the interest of private companies, one cannot do that- ie in effect nationalise them- there would be outrage from the owners.

married- yes- LAs have no control really over what goes on in academies- they are answerable to central not local govt, and as most LA functions these days are chargable services (thanks NuLabour) most academies do not subscribe to the support and advice and mediation services available.

Nance agree that it's the irrevocability (?) of it which is most alarming. This is structural, permanent (in effect) change.

Forgive me though onebat... and other lefties... why no outcry why labour began the policy?
The only thing that's new is the scale of the (proposed) rollout, though I haven't actually yet heard of any schools that are going to opt for this in my area.

Got to run - but (though I had reservations) when Labour initiated academies they did so with the specific intention of raising ed standards in poor areas. Freeing up funds and the control of them in order to attract those who wouldn't otherwise want to work in, say, my neck of the woods.

This legislation will reward schools in middle class areas for being in middle class areas.

Perhaps I am too cynical, but I suggest it was more about removing the blame for poorly performing schools from cash-strapped LEAs and putting the focus and responsibility onto someone else, who quite rightly would only take that responsibility on if there was a commercial gain for them.

Academies certainly do not seem to be very attractive places to work in my LA.

How is this legislation going to reward schools in middle class areas? Schools will receive more funding for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

"Sponsors also get everything the school owns, including its land and buildings."

This is the bit im most concerned by.

marking place

I'm a school governor and would be terrified about not having LA support; they have been useful. Plus, if something went horribly wrong (a pupil accusation against a teacher for example) who would support the school legally?

What I don't understand is why taking schools out of LA control frees them up. It's the government (first the tories under Ken Baker, then labour, and not tory) who interfere the most with the constant changing of policy.

Mind you, there's no change we would become an academy; nowhere near considered outstanding by Ofsted, although we like it!

Same experience as wiggsie - "consultation " revealed 94% against becoming an Academy .We were told " Consultation isn't the same thing as a rolling ballot ,you can't just vote for what you want ".
Exisiting Academies have Funding Agreements - the final one only available for inspection after Academy opened .
Will there be Funding Agreements with these new Academies ?
Existing ones leased buildings to sponsor for 150 years - are we saying new ones are getting buildings and land in perpetuity ?
Surely not ? Surely will be leased ?
Is the detail in the text of the Bill ?