Academy status - pros and cons.

[LauraNorder]

I am attending a meeting later on in the week about the possibility of our school becoming an Academy. I am a recently elected Parent Governor and don't know a lot about it but have been asked to read up a bit and come prepared to avoid lengthy explanations.

So what are the pros and cons and also is there a good on line resource I could tap into to find out more?

academyblues - By that definition the governing bodies of all schools are given public assets. They are given taxpayers money to run schools. So by your definition all schools have already been privatised. However, putting that to one side as we clearly aren't going to agree...

Exclusion rates in primary schools are generally much lower than secondary schools. Nationally 0.02% of primary pupils were permanently excluded. The rate for fixed period exclusions was 0.91%. In secondary schools these figures rise to 0.15% and 8.59% respectively. Haringey primary schools are above the national average for permanent exclusions on 0.03% but below the national average for fixed period exclusions on 0.75%. For Haringey secondary schools the figures are 0.25% and 9.91% respectively, both above the national average. Haringey is does not have the highest exclusion rate in the country - there is one LA where the fixed period exclusion rate in secondary schools was almost 25% - but it is amongst the highest.

Your final sentence in that paragraph is something I would definitely include if I was putting together a case to defend your school.

You know as well as I do that the powers of governing bodies are not the same as those of a sponsor. Governors do not make micro decisions about which supplier they use, for example.

On your last paragraph, me too. And the fact that SEN pupils thrive at the school. We have dedicated 'nurture' units for the well above average proportion of SEN pupils (many come from other schools which don't meet their needs).

All this touchy feely inclusivity doesn't do much for our SATS levels, of course, and it's a shame that Gove and his mob can't see past that.

You have clearly never heard of LMS (Local Management of Schools) which was introduced over 20 years ago. The head teacher and governors already make purchasing decisions at most maintained schools. They will have some additional purchasing decisions to make in an academy, of course.

Governors could make micro decisions - but they choose to delegate those decisions to the school.

But govs absolutely can say they're not happy with a supplier, and ask that 3 quotes are obtained to compare.

Are those dedicated nurture units also teaching the pupils with SEN? Kids with SEN have a right to be educated and not just babysat.......

Yes, IndigoBell, the dedicated 'nurture' units are staffed by teachers who enable the children to make 'good' progress. In terms of levels, above national average progression and it's up to you whether you think that's a reasonable base line or not

My point about governors making micro decisions is what they choose to make decisions about and what suppliers they choose will look a leetle bit different when the governing body is composed of individuals appointed by a sponsor to purchase products supplied by the sponsor, rather than locally/democratically elected parent/community/staff governors as they are now.

Surely the only reason CRAPITA and the like are trying to get hold of schools is to increase their own purchasing power for their own products? Unless you think crap outsourcing firms have some sort of altruistic motive?

The other explanation is that the 93% of parents who said they that are overall happy with the school at the last inspection are completely deluded and it is a crock of shite.

Legal safeguards for children and parents are non existent in Academies and free schools www.naht.org.uk/welcome/comment/blogs/warwick-mansells-blog/?blogpost=510

The Government's Academies programme is not about providing better education, it is about the dismantling of our state edducation system. It is about privatisation and creating a new market for business and ultimately having schools run for profit. Everybody should be fighting this. It is happening right under our noses on a school by school basis. The children that will suffer the most from this are the ones who won't get schools up the league tables. The 2011 Education act gives Gove more powers to force schools to become Academies and gives him the power to totally bypass the Governing Body and negotiate a contract with a third party (sponsor). More here handsoffourschool.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/wake-up-britain-to-what-is-happening-to-our-schools/ and here davidwolfe.org.uk/wordpress/

I completely agree with you, fightergirl.

The DFE is meeting with the governing bodies of schools in Haringey at the moment, telling them that they have 3 weeks (over Christmas) to negotiate a deal with a sponsor, or they will disband their democratically elected governing body and replace it with one appointed by a sponsor.

This sponsor may well have no experience in running schools (CAPITA was one mentioned), though they will receive a contract for 125 years which, should it prove unsatisfactory, will take at least 7 years to dissolve.

Our school has launched a campaign and we've made contact with other schools across the country similarly affected. Guess what! Every single one of the targeted schools is in an socially deprived area and has significantly above average FSM etc.

So if you're fortunate enough to live in a naice area with 'good' or 'outstanding' schools, the DFE recommends that stake holders like parents have a 2/3 months consultation period. If you live in a poor area, you get absolutely no say and the governing body that you elected get disbanded.

This is shit. Seriously shit. I'll look up your links and maybe we can link up.

Hi academyblues, I've only just come back to this thread and seen your reply - must work out a way to get notifications! I've been following the Haringey schools' battle and have been so saddened by Downhills head teacher's resignation. It is truly shocking and I cannot understand why there is not national outrage at what is happening to school communities across the country.

I know what you mean, Over 100,000 people have signed the 'Stop the Health Bill' e-petition (and of course this Bill is just as odious) but the privatisation of our education system is at risk of going under the radar.

Although parent campaigns, like the one at Downhills, has raised the profile considerably over the last few months..

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/13/league-tables-academies-maintained-schools?INTCMP=SRCH

I too am saddened by the 'resignation' of the H of Downhills, particularly as Ofsted reported that the school was improving in September. I am mighty suspicious about the silence of the outgoing head.

I wrote to the union today about this, among other things. I can't understand why no-one is standing up to shout about all the things that are going on at the moment.

Just for clarity, Downhills was rated inadequate at its full inspection in January last year and placed on Notice to Improve. There was a monitoring inspection in September which found that progress was satisfactory but was still critical of some aspects, particularly some of the teaching. It appears there has been a further monitoring inspection as a result of which the inspectors decided to place the school in special measures. The report of this inspection has not yet been published.

Any claim that Ofsted may have had to neutrality is discredited by their employment of ARK trustees and the endless re-tinkering with the framework to claim as many schools as possible to be 'failing' and hence 'eligible for intervention'. This means that the DfE can intervene and force them to be handed over to a possibly for profit academy chain.

There weren't any Haringey schools in Special Measure when Gove made his speech last summer; now there are 4. I don't imagine that this is a coincidence.

Our head told us that although the money is similar, it is one large pot rather than lots of small pots allocatred for different resources (buildings,teachers pay, resources etc)

We had a situation a few years ago where we could pay for some lovely new loos for the school (which we didn't really need-the ones we had were fine) but had to make staff redundant. We would much rather have kept the human resources. Under academy funding this would not happen as heads/ governing bodies can choose what to spend the money on.

I personally don't have any particular objection to schools converting to academy status if the governors, parents, teachers etc are in favour. Though I do think this model has a lot of potential problems in it that will become evident over time.

I do object to schools being forced to become sponsored academies against the wishes of governors, teachers, parents and the local community. Especially when that sponsor is a Tory donor with no history of running primary schools, a patchy record with secondary schools and a reputation for managing children with SEN out of his schools.

www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9529435.Coleraine_Park__bullied__into_agreeing_academy_plan/?ref=mr

So this excerpt from the Section 8 report in September is 'critical in some aspects' prh47? They had clearly been implementing new procedures after the Jan inspection. They'd onluy been given 6 months' teaching time to improve between reports FGS! heaven help us all.

Monitoring of teaching by school leaders, the local authority and inspection evidence indicate that teaching is at least satisfactory and improving. In the lessons observed, some teachers have clearly taken on board the new initiatives introduced by the school. In the most effective practice, the teachers planned outcomes that were challenging for the pupils and they drew high quality responses from them. The teaching was well structured and delivered at a suitably brisk pace. Varied and well-chosen strategies were used. Some incorporated a good range of learning styles that successfully engaged the pupils and enhanced their understanding. The teachers? expectations were well pitched and modified to meet the pupils? different needs. The pupils? learning was regularly evaluated and fostered by the teachers? good subject knowledge. In the less effective lessons, teachers do not always introduce lesson objectives successfully and these objectives are often couched in jargon which is difficult for pupils to understand. In particular, teachers spend too much time talking, allowing insufficient time for pupils to develop their speaking skills or teachers accept brief responses to their questions and miss opportunities to challenge pupils to think things through for themselves.
Local authority consultants have been working alongside teachers to provide additional support. As a result, teachers are assessing pupils? work more accurately and setting realistic targets. There are instances when teachers use perceptive questioning to establish what pupils have learned and remembered. However, not all staff make sufficient use of this information to prepare and modify work so that it presents an equal level of challenge for all pupils. As school leaders acknowledge, the most able pupils are not being fully challenged, particularly in writing.
Since the previous inspection, rigorous procedures have been implemented for tracking pupil progress. For example, meetings are held between teachers and school leaders to check on the progress of individual pupils, to inform decisions regarding intervention groups and to address underachievement in specific areas. The development of these clear systems for monitoring pupils? progress, together with well-focused support to meet the needs of pupils, is beginning to have a positive impact on pupils? progress. Marking of work is uneven in quality. On occasion, simple praise does not drive progress and work to be corrected is not always followed up. There are, however, examples of good practice, with encouragement linked to clear and practical advice on how to improve.

5 months to be precise. 4 if you discount the 2 weeks off over Christmas and 1 at half term.

Try these excerpts from the bit you have reproduced:

"In the less effective lessons, teachers do not always introduce lesson objectives successfully and these objectives are often couched in jargon which is difficult for pupils to understand. In particular, teachers spend too much time talking, allowing insufficient time for pupils to develop their speaking skills or teachers accept brief responses to their questions and miss opportunities to challenge pupils to think things through for themselves."

"However, not all staff make sufficient use of this information to prepare and modify work so that it presents an equal level of challenge for all pupils. As school leaders acknowledge, the most able pupils are not being fully challenged, particularly in writing."

"Marking of work is uneven in quality. On occasion, simple praise does not drive progress and work to be corrected is not always followed up."

Those bits are clearly critical. But as I said, that report found that progress overall was satisfactory.

That inspection was around 8 months since they were placed on Notice to Improve. The latest inspection, which has put the school into special measures, is one year after they were placed Notice to Improve. Most schools on Notice to Improve are either sufficiently improved to lose that status or getting close to doing so after one year.

As I have made clear previously, I am not comfortable with schools being forced to convert to academies even if they are failing.

ARK is not a commercial organisation. Its trustees are unpaid. I therefore do not see what they have to gain by undermining the neutrality of Ofsted. I think Rosebud05 is referring to Baroness Sally Morgan, who is an adviser to ARK and chair of Ofsted. She is also on the advisory committee of the Institute for Education, chairs the Future Leaders charity, has been a school governor and has worked as a secondary school teacher. Her experience as a governor and teacher was at ordinary state schools. She is a Labour peer.

The Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was Director of Education for ARK but has given up that role on joining Ofsted. I personally think it would have been wise if Sally Morgan had ended her involvement with ARK on becoming chair of Ofsted in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

I do not accept that those statements are 'critical' as the phrases:
'in the less effective lessons', 'not all staff', 'marking of work is uneven'
imply that these problems are being addressed.

Furthermore, these wishy-washy statements are unquantified and, therefore, futile.

Since the previous inspection, rigorous procedures have been implemented for tracking pupil progress. For example, meetings are held between teachers and school leaders to check on the progress of individual pupils, to inform decisions regarding intervention groups and to address underachievement in specific areas.

That bit of the report is really scary. You mean previously they weren't doing pupil progress meetings!

Every other school in the country is.

Sounds to me like it's a bad school with a charismatic head and a political PTA.

I really can't see any evidence that it's a good school - and it's certainly not a school I'd be happy to send my kids to.

Certainly not all parents are in favour:

Special measures in 2002/03/04/05,and 2010/11/12,but no one talk about that,some people with interest and the promise of a future position as teacher or suply teacher are still fighting in this school ( downhills ),but the reality is that many parent are disagreed with this anti-academie coalition and they gave they own opinion in the ofsted questionnaire,and I'm not supprise by the result(special measures). they continious talking in the name of all parent but we are not agreed with the anti-academie coalition,they say Mickael goves force them to became academie and it's not good but in the meantime they do the same thing by forcing parents to be anti-academie by chasing them inside the school. parent evening with anti-academie stand winter festival no christmas tree but anti-academie stand

I'm fed-up with this energy lost in this battle when the childrens of this school are regressing and are not getting the support expected.

Stop disturbing this childrens and stop making too much,you are incompetent and try to found many excuses for your worthless.

I don't know if academie will be great or not,but one thing is sure, any other governing body and teachers will do much better than this actual one

www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9525489.Downhills_headteacher_resigns_as_school_fails_Ofsted_inspection/

But I think the point is that many parents are happy to send their children there. Are the over 90% of parents who are happy with the school to be thought stupid.

That extract you've posted is bizarre - reads like someone pretending to have EAL.

I do not accept that those statements are 'critical'

Get real! Those statements are clearly critical. And the phrases you quote certainly do not imply that the problems were being addressed. They merely imply that some of the staff are doing a reasonable job but others are not.

As I said, the report is critical of some aspects, particularly some of the teaching. It does, however, say that at that point the school was making satisfactory progress. It does not do the school (or anyone else) any favours to try and pretend that this report said it was wonderful and was completely uncritical.

The fact is, Indigo, that they implemented the progress meetings, etc, as required by the inspectors.

From their section 8 report, it looks as if they were having a pretty good go at turning the place around.

Why hasn't the HT made a statement? It seems like he's been ordered to keep quiet about what's happened. What must he feel like?