Every school to be an academy?

[CamboricumMinor]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35814215

Apparently this is expected in tomorrow's budget. I'm sure this isn't going to be a good move for school staff but what about the children? I'm not convinced at all.

That's why they need to be trained effectively when taking up the role. Non-parent governors can also be self-interested and ineffective.

PrettyBrightFireflies has explained it better than I could.

You do realise prettyfireflies that you are challenging the whole basis of representative democracy.

I particularly note your comments to the effect that ordinary parents are not fit to judge who should represent them.

Plato would have agreed with you of course, he thought democracy, which requires pandering to public opinion a very bad form of government. He preferred unelected experts. (But who decides what constitutes expertise, why experts of course)

Churchill responded to Plato's criticisms by agreeing that:

"Democracy is the worst form of government" but went on to say

"except for all the others..."

idealweather indeed. I didn't say anything about results. I don't think that is the only or even the primary way to judge a school actually. I'd prefer to judge on added value and ethos and the character of the students

It is equally illogical to expect LAs to co-ordinate admission arrangements for schools they have nothing to do with and where they have no power

Even before the advent of academies LAs co-ordinated admissions for VA schools. LAs will continue to co-ordinate admissions even when all schools are academies.

But the point is that that makes sense when the LA is running the majority of the schools in the area. It makes no sense whatsoever if the LA has no involvement with running schools.

I wonder how the suggestion of zero tolerance of disruptive pupils squares with the Equality Act? Given that a large degree of disruptiveness stems from SEN, particularly SEN for which inadequate provision has been made. Or are they planning to abolish the Equality Act as well?

It makes no sense whatsoever if the LA has no involvement with running schools.

It makes perfect sense.

It still needs someone to collect together all the applications, make sure they go out to schools, make sure the schools don't get information they aren't allowed to see (such as where they were placed in the list of preferences), collect the ordered lists of applicants from schools and make sure each applicant gets an offer from their highest preference with a place available. The schools can't do that so, unless the government sets up an independent agency to handle co-ordinated admissions (highly unlikely) this stays with the LA. That is why LAs continue to receive funding to carry out this function even if all schools in their area become academies.

Given the way admissions work the body co-ordinating admissions does not need any involvement with running schools.

I doubt longer school days will improve anything, school days are long enough as it is. School days are 6 hours at their longest here and one quarter of that is break time and Finland does a lot better than the UK in International comparisons.

rollonthesummer
If your going to pick out my quote, use the whole thing where I agree with you about zero tolerance and no funding at academies.

The zero tolerance of disruptive pupils is brilliant and well needed. But there needs to be adequate provision for the disruptive ones to be educated. I know that sounds like a contradiction. But that requires extra funds no "business" is going to want to spend the extra on them?

Parents are not being excluded from governance. Many parents are on the Trust Boards of Academy's and Foundation Schools, as well as Governing Boards in Community, VA and VC schools in positions other than "representative parent". They haven't been elected to their position, they've been co-opted for their skills and abilities.

The issue is - who does the coopting? Based on what criteria? These people may be parents, but they do not necessarily represent the interests of parents. On the contrary, a parent who is an accountant may put the financial interests of the school ahead of children's welfare. A parent who is a lawyer may be coopted to protect the school's legal interests rather than those of other parents and children.

There may well be issues with the current model of parent representation, but that does not mean that parents' interests will be better served by having no representation at all.

State schools had to employ qualified teachers academy schools do not, education will not be served well by unqualified staff. Academies have notoriously strict discipline and expulsion criteria that do not serve kids with SEN. Michael Give refused a FOI request about the title deeds of schools which local authorities had kept safe for decades, presumably sold to his cronies companies. This government are not content with destroying, privitising the NHS, they are clearly now set on education.

These people may be parents, but they do not necessarily represent the interests of parents.

Elected parent governors do not represent the interests of parents. They are elected as representative parents and do not and should not bring the views of other parents to the table.

Once at the table, they are required to operate in exactly the same way as other governors.

The fact that so many believe, as you seem to, that they should be canvassing opinion and bringing parent body issues to the attention of the Board is why so many Governing Bodies are judged as weak.

I am extremely concerned, and pretty much disgusted, with the majority of the white paper and am gutted by the thought of our primary school becoming an academy.

I have to say, however, that I am not remotely surprised by the changes to governance. We reconstituted last September, and did a skills audit for our governors, and have a far stronger GB than previously.

We are more effective, meetings are more productive, the recent Ofsted inspection was impressed and we felt that our hard work paid off.

We are now in a position where three key governors (who chair vital committees) are coming to the end of their terms as parent governors. New blood is good, but I reckon it takes around two years to train to the point of being effective.

We will probably co-opt the original governors in anyway.

applecatchers my DS has been taught geography by an ex army cartographer. No teaching qualification but one if the best most inspirational teachers he or we have come across. I was taught economics (a million years ago) by an ex banker. No teaching qualification. It's the only thing I remember about my A level studies. I know I sound like a broken record but independent schools don't necessarily require teaching qualifications and do fine

Thank you for sharing your experience homesbythesea however I think that unqualified staff reaching in public schools with children who are essentially very privileged is vastly different to the pupils in for example inner city academies, who are facing huge social problems, SEN and effects of cuts to services, housing, mental and physical health and so on, so while you have obviously had a good experience in your independent school, I do not really think it is comparable for all state schools.

And in what ways does the current teacher training regime prepare graduates to deal with all those factors?

There are undoubtedly talented people out there, without a teaching qualification, who would make excellent teachers.

The questions I would ask are:

Why aren't they already teaching, then? What is it about teaching that makes it such an unattractive option as a 'first choice' career?

Why, if someone is potentially an excellent teacher & keen to move from another field into teaching, would they be put off by the need to pick up a teaching qualification? I did my pgce in my late 20s after working in a different field. It didn't seem unreasonable then that I should spend some time being shown how to teach & supervised having a go, & have to pass some fairly basic standards, before being unleashed.

Finally, ok, so if we accept the premise are apparently all these brilliant natural teachers out there who are desperate to teach but sadly thwarted by the requirement to obtain a qualification. There will also, of course, be a supply of similarly unqualified people who are perfectly willing to have a go but totally unsuited - without the subject knowledge required, or the ability to convey it, or to keep order. How do we ensure that every school - whatever its location or demographic - gets its fair share of both ends of the spectrum?

I'm not a huge fan of traditional PGCE courses tbh, & I'm all for giving credit to potential teachers with valid experience outside of the classroom - train them on the job, fine.

But I don't think that removing the need for any qualification & allowing schools simply to recruit the best warm body available is the way forward.

Maybe by the system of placements and being exposed to precisely these complex difficulties in such schools, whilst being supervised by experienced staff who are used to dealing with all these situations and can give advice and guidance might help?

raven
I think one big thing that puts off people doing the qualification later is money. My DH would make a fantastic teacher, he really would. He teaches apprentices already and many have gone on to do very well.
But the one thing that stops him is money. We just can't afford to lose the wage whilst he becomes qualified.

I don't think we should have unqualified teachers by the way, just pointing out why a lot of people who would make fantastic teachers can't take those years out to become qualified.

Which is a perfectly valid point HopIt & exactly why we need flexible routes in & to take account of industry experience - obviously your dh is not starting from the same place as a 22 yo graduate going directly from being taught to teaching!

No objection at all to 'on the job' courses, for suitably qualified/experienced people, which lead to a recognised, standard teaching qualification.

Getting rid of QTS simply means the Head can employ any old random, & young UK teachers don't have a respected qualification they can port elsewhere.

Hard to see how that won't drive down both the pay & the average calibre of teachers - I'm surprised even the most hawkish teacher basher thinks it's a good idea.

applecatcher you assume the complex issues you note exist on every single class in every single school which they clearly do not. A trainee teacher in a highly selective grammar for example will obviously have a very different experience. And who's to say that those coming to the profession later don't have exposure to all sorts of children and families and issues. What I don't like is close mindedness- let's open minds to other ways to bring great people into schools

How will the proposed changes attract those 'great people'?

What evidence is there that they're out there?

How do we distinguish between them & not so great people, if there's no recognised standard?

A trainee in a grammar school will also get experience in other schools while training!!

As I suspected earlier homes you need some actual experience of state schools or state school teachers. Honestly you're the one sounding closed minded!

PRH some postings ago asseterted (without saying what it was) that there was "evidence" academies do better than community schools.

Well I respond with actual evidence that Academies DO NOT DO BETTER

schoolsweek.co.uk/what-is-an-academy-and-other-questions-about-converting-schools/#comment-89893

Sorry -wrong link I meant this one, for the evidence.

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2016/03/the-white-paper-justification-for-academy-conversion-is-pathetic