Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: "As a deputy head, these are my fears about academisation"

88 replies

KateMumsnet · 17/03/2016 11:11

Not a single school in the country closes at 3.30pm. In every town and village there is a mighty army of indomitable teachers and teaching assistants who, rather than allow extensive testing regimes to deprive children of art, music and sport, put aside their exhaustion to lead extra-curricular clubs, choirs and workshops after the bell has gone.

If you've ever worked in an office where you occasionally had to do big presentations that took hours to prepare, imagine having to deliver five hours' worth of those presentations every day to 30 people. Then you have to prove they've all understood exactly what you were saying.

Imagine if you then had to use your spare time to prepare more presentations as well as providing personalised written feedback to every participant. Then imagine conducting an orchestra or refereeing football matches for dozens of excited children at the end of it all.

Still, if George Osborne is going to give a bit of money to a small minority of schools so they can fund their after-school clubs slightly more generously, then fine. It's a start.

That was one of the main education stories of the Budget: a bit of extra money to fund extra-curricular clubs that already exist. But there was another announcement, one that looked liked the privatisation of the entire state education system.

The Budget announcement that between now and 2020 all schools, whether they like it or not, will be forced to become part of an "academy chain" means they will be privately controlled but publicly funded. You, the voter, will have no say over how schools are run - but you will still have to pay for them out of your taxes. This brings an end to the system of democratically controlled, locally accountable education which was introduced 114 years ago so that every child in the land could go to school, rather than down the mines or up the chimneys.

The announcement comes as no surprise to many teachers. Indeed, most schools have already taken steps to protect themselves from being overtaken by a large, corporate behemoth, usually by forming trusts and clusters with other local schools that can be turned into less sinister academy chains with relative ease.

But what will this mean for your children? Well, if all schools are academies then, in some ways, no schools are academies. Academies have always been defined by the ways they differ from their local authority-controlled counterparts: they're unconstrained by the national curriculum, they have to find their own HR and legal services and they have considerably more freedom over admissions. If these "distinctions" are applied to all schools, then what the government will actually be doing is abolishing the national curriculum (a bizarre new version of which was introduced in 2014, creating a great deal of now seemingly pointless work), taking away legal and HR support from schools that still feel they need it, and causing considerable confusion around the admissions process.

The curriculum is a moot point in the primary phase. Nowadays we live or die by our pupils' KS2 assessment results and, sadly, it's the content of those high-stakes tests that dictates what children learn between the ages of five and 11. The removal of HR and legal services could be a problem for many smaller primary schools and I worry that their leadership teams will be forced to spend more time addressing those matters rather than addressing the needs of their pupils.

But what is really unclear, and a little scary, is what it will mean for admissions. There already exists a chaotic and confused landscape around school places. Many academies already appear to discriminate against lower-achieving pupils and their families, even though they're not really supposed to, by claiming they are "unable to meet their needs." What will happen if all the schools in an area, now granted the freedom to do so, start discriminating in the same way? What will happen to the children no one dares accept, lest they bring down their test scores? My biggest fear is that local authorities will be forced to hastily set up large numbers of pupil referral units and special schools to educate all the children no one else will take, creating an underclass segregated by ability before they've reached their fifth birthdays.

There's no evidence that academies are any better or any worse than local authority schools in terms of educational outcomes - so the big question for most teachers I speak to is this: why take such a big gamble with our young people's futures? Whatever the explanation, it's hard to believe the government really has children's best interests at heart.

OP posts:
Badgerncub · 18/03/2016 03:50

It sounds broadly as though the people who are not in support of academies are those who yeah I'm or whose kids attend already good schools. These are all too often are in affluent areas and the attitude doesn't take in the bigger picture.
I teach in a 'failing' secondary school in one of the worst LEAs in my city. I came to it as a failing school in the hope that I could be around for a big turn around. We worked with advisors from the LEA who were, on the whole, jobsworths who had always taught in the same council as teachers and who brought nothing to the table. After two years of soul-destroyingly poor leadership from them and our own leadership team who are all only out to try and justify their own existence, we are now being led by professionals from a multi academy trust I can be proud to be associated with; an organisation run by teachers for the good of teachers and pupils.
People in the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it camp' need to look further afield than just their own already reasonable schools. Education for all was broken and I'm not sure this will fix it but at least it removes control from people who are inexpert and who often haven't taught for years who until now have been allowed to sit merrily in council offices and judge schools based on a completely anecdotal understanding of good practice in education.

Peregrina · 18/03/2016 07:03

I hear how expensive it is for council schools to get maintenance done because they have to use council contractors but the local free school uses local companies that are three times cheaper.

Bolognese Then what you have heard is way out of date. There has been Local Management of Schools since the early 90s, which enabled schools to put their own maintenance in hand using local companies if they wish.

Peregrina · 18/03/2016 07:07

Don't know what went wrong there. Italics not working for some reason.

I was replying to this quote:

I hear how expensive it is for council schools to get maintenance done because they have to use council contractors but the local free school uses local companies that are three times cheaper.

megletthesecond · 18/03/2016 07:16

We have one secondary academy in our town. It's not in a great catchment and struggles.I'd love to know where all these successful academies are and what they're doing Hmm.

Quillered · 18/03/2016 08:31

Why will schools no longer have to have parent governors?

And what exactly has the government got against local authority run schools - is it that the local authorities may not be Tory controlled?

forkhandles4candles · 18/03/2016 09:01

In Camden where I live the borough has resisted academies, except for one sponsored by UCL. The LA schools are fantastic. All I can see is them being wrecked by the ideology of the market....schools run along profits lines by Tory cronies. The things I have heard about Toby harris's chain from a parent are so shocking. I am petrified about what is to come.
It is worth looking at the anti academies webpage.

Divya321 · 18/03/2016 09:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Peregrina · 18/03/2016 10:07

is it that the local authorities may not be Tory controlled?
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

BungoWomble · 18/03/2016 10:34

The neoliberalists, of whatever colour, have been against local government and democracy both for as long as I can remember. I don't doubt that there are bad examples of local government, but some part of that is because they have been run-down, disregarded, and vilified for so long. Those few bad examples do not make centralised control better in principle. It's funny how the bad examples in the public sector are used to denigrate the whole principle of the public domain and public service, but the bad examples of the private sector are just, well, they're not even encouraged to be mentioned are they.

elkiedee · 18/03/2016 10:57

"t sounds broadly as though the people who are not in support of academies are those who yeah I'm or whose kids attend already good schools. These are all too often are in affluent areas and the attitude doesn't take in the bigger picture. "

You clearly know nothing about the people who've posted against academies here. I'm against academies as are many parents and others in my area. This is an area of North London where there is a lot of deprivation and a lot of inequality.

cestlavielife · 18/03/2016 11:03

and the issue is about imposing academy status on all schools. in some areas maybe yes it's the best thing, in others schools function pretty well without being academies (and Camden has many areas of deprivation with inner city as well as leafy Hampstead..)

it is about ideology.

NynaevesSister · 18/03/2016 11:22

Badgerncub For schools that are failing becoming part of a successful academy chain can be a boost. Likewise joining a successful federation of local authority run schools can be a boost. The key as you can see is robust school leadership.

However there is no proof that academies are the only model or option for failing schools. And until now there was at least a choice.

Now there won't be. No matter how good or outstanding the school is, it will have to join or become an academy chain. Why? Why make a school that is doing an outstanding job providing a quality education for pupils convert?

It makes no sense.

IPityThePontipines · 18/03/2016 12:31

Has with every other bit of ideologically led privatisation, the question is, what is the evidence that this will improve things?

There doesn't seem to be any. That is what worries me.

I am an oldish Leftie, but hand on heart, if there was solid evidence that schools becoming academies would lead to better standards for all children, I would support it.

Instead it seems that it will be open season for various Tory cronies to profit without any proper oversight, which is terrifying, because this is our educational system at stake.

Quillered · 18/03/2016 13:14

Is it about allowing friends of top Tories, and perhaps some top Tories themselves, to make (more) money then?
That seems to be what is happening in other areas that are heading towards privatisation. And eg in taking support away from renewables and into nuclear (where I'm told there is a connection to a top Tory).

forkhandles4candles · 18/03/2016 13:44

yes, asset stripping, land grab, monetisation of everything that does and doesn't move

Badgerncub · 18/03/2016 18:39

NynaevesSister, I agree that it doesn't need to be the only model but in many areas the extra layer of bureaucracy involved in dealing with an LEA was often draining resources better spent in schools by school teachers and leaders. If schools are being poorly led, that has to be managed by governors. And, to be clear, all academies are not being forced to become part of chains- these I really do understand have been ineffective and ideologically barren as a result of a strange and poorly placed money- driven ethos. They are also, according to many schools I know of, are driving themselves into the ground as people come to the realisation that schools are expensive to run well (duh!).
The academies that will be successful should function in the same way as really good LEAs (which are now few and far between) because they will rely on leaders promulgating a real culture of excellence, of genuine sharing of good practice within and between schools and a look at equalising funding across affluent and less affluent areas. I think there are other ways of doing this but at the moment, for a lot of young people, this isn't the worst option.

Jux · 18/03/2016 18:54

I am so relieved that dd will finish school in a year or so. The Tories really are shits.

FunKitten · 18/03/2016 20:35

Academies are NOT a good idea. It is a Government incentive to move control to Central Government away from Local Authority Control.

And do you think those Corporate Bodies do it for charity? Of course not!

And as an Academy they control teachers pay, control admissions, control exclusions, control what is taught and basically can do what they want. Even as one school is doing, not teaching the "Big Bang" theory as they are "owned" by a religious group. Also, interestingly, the Head Teachers are paid on numbers and can negotiate a higher rate of pay. For some Heads that is too much of a carrot.......

agnes89 · 18/03/2016 20:41

Thank you Tim. Wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence "Whatever the explanation, it's hard to believe the government really has children's best interests at heart.”

gemtheboats · 18/03/2016 21:25

I imagine it's only a matter of time before we start getting the option to pay a small fee to guarantee a place at our academy of choice...

22sailors · 18/03/2016 22:09

Gemtheboats - you have put m thoughts into words, how can they get people to pay more for a better education. Their idea have schools which need sponsors in all areas whether rich or poor. Im sure we all realise that making all schools academies is not a magic formula. For good schools we need well paid teachers who realise we appreciate their value and therefore work for the love of it but we also need much better behaved children and that is up to the parents. Knowing how to behave and not be destructive plus that swearing and worse are a no go area especially at school would make schools a different place to be. Some of the language used on this site horrified me and it's no wonder children think nothing of it. Any ordinary child of 5 should be able to read and write from what they have been taught at home but this just isn't happening so before talking about spending all this money for yt more changes lets get the foundations prepared.

tangerinesarenottheonlyfruit · 18/03/2016 22:14

Did you see Nicky Morgan posted a response?

Didn't have the guts to stick around and answer any questions - not surprising though, considering that her post is the most patronising load of weasel-talk you could imagine. She's getting a roasting from the vipers in return and quite rightly so!

In other news, did you see IDS has quit?

Please, please let this be the start of the Tories imploding! They are doing so much damage to our country and the future of all our children.

Ragusa · 18/03/2016 22:21

I don't understand the point about admissions. Academies are not currently permitted to select on the basis of socioeconomic background, nor are they allowed to reject children on account of low attainment or existence of any SEN.

Ragusa · 18/03/2016 22:23

But to correct something said above, the Government have clearly said that yes, they do expect most schools to convert as part of a multi-academy trust AKA a chain.

Dontyouopenthattrapdoor · 18/03/2016 23:02

Ragusa academies have the right to say they can't meet a child with SEN's needs, as does any school. But the difference is that the LA has no power to tell an academy to admit them anyway. So less scrupulous academies just say they can't meet children with SEN's needs and there's nothing the LA can do to force them to admit the child and work on meeting those needs.

Swipe left for the next trending thread