Nightingale Primary School, Haringey - first Gove forced academy

[Rosebud05]

Nightingale Primary School, Haringey is the first victim of the powers that Gove strengthened in the Nov '11 Education Act. They received an e-mail on Tuesday informing them that their governing body was sacked from immediate effect and replaced with an interim executive board.

antiacademies.org.uk/2012/02/press-statement-by-former-nightingale-school-governors-sacked-by-gove/

To pre-empt responses about 'schools which have been under performing for years', the facts of the situation are that Nightingale has never been below the floor targets, and was put into an Ofsted category of 'notice to improve' for the first time last October. The Governors were taking robust steps to improve the school - new Interim Head, robust school improvement plan - and asked the DfE to let them consult and to see how the Ofsted monitoring visit due in a few weeks went before taking action.

The DfE didn't respond to this letter, but instead sacked the governing body and issued an Academy Order.

Does anyone still believe that Gove's academy agenda is a) non-apolitical b) about improving standards?

indigo, Cuckoo Hall isn't a sponsored academy. It's additional funding was the bribe given to 'outstanding' schools to convert as persuasion wasn't enough. Schools which converted before Sept '11 were given an enhanced amount, I understand.

This money isn't available to forced sponsored academies.

I'm less bothered about the underlying admin of any future arrangements.

But "more of the same" under LA control is proving itself disastrous for all those children whose schools demonstrably could and should be better. This really should never be tolerated.

blimey my son went to that school many moons ago, it was very mixed cultrally and lots of challenges then i imagine. still was really good for my son and he loved it

Rosebud - of course I'm equally sad and mad at those academies which are failing their kids.

That's what I'm saying - I don't care who runs the school, only that it teaches all kids.

There's absolutely zero proof that being a sponsored academy will 'teach all kids'. That's exactly the point.

In fact, given that academies have double the number of exclusions as maintained schools and that, of 'all through' academies that opened over 3 years ago and so have had time to embed improvements, about three quarters are progressing children less than averagely in maths and English, it's very clear that they're not.

An still no-one has any explanation as to why this school, which has never been below the government's floor targets, is the first primary to be forced into sponsored academy status.

It does seem to have been below floor standards though - SATS at 42% in 2011, target was 60%: other part of standard was whether or not standards were improving, and it went downwards (into special measures and a string f "low" from OFSTED).

Edith, you're looking at data from another school. This is Nightingale School in Haringey:-

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=102126&superview=pri

Combined m & E L4 62% in 2011, admitted down from 76% in 2009 but never below 60% floor target. It's also never been in special measures.

My mistake in terminology: its standards were declining and it was issued with a "notice to improve" in October 2011. It is a school that is failing, under its current management.

It was also your mistake in facts. The school has never been below floor target.

It has replaced its Head; Ofsted were due back in a few weeks to monitor.

'Notice to improve' is given when a school is deemed to have capacity to improve without 'special measures'.

It is no way follows that this school, clearly not one of the '200' that the media keep harping on about, should be the first in the country to be forced to convert to sponsored academy status. Absolutely no evidence base, and lots of evidence about excessive exclusions, poor progress and unsatisfactory results in sponsored secondary academies.

I meant simply to indicate the actual situation: that the school is getting worse - results declining, string of low judgements and an an adverse overall OFSTED (I initially used the wrong term at this point).

The school went from a fifth of its pupils failing (for its best results in 2009 were in the low 80s) to well over a third. I would find this decline from a low start point completely unacceptable, and I can see why tolerance has run out.

I don't think that wrangling over a particular definition of the high amount of pupils it has failed over the years is the key point.

Edith, you're completely missing the point about forced primary academies.

Last summer, Gove made a number of speeches about the '200 most under performing schools' being forced to become sponsored academies by Sept 2012. His office performed a 'retrospective analysis' and identified schools which have been below the floor target for at least 5 years.

Clearly, Nightingale isn't one of those schools.

He then identified 500 other schools which had been below the floor target for at least 3 (I think) of the last 5 years and who had to now demonstrate a trajectory of improvement at KS2.

Clearly, Nightingale isn't one of these schools. It has never been below the floor target.

The point is why this school is the first victim of the powers that Gove reinstated in the Education Act 2011, when it clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria for schools which were identified to be 'consistently under performing for many years'.

For example, here's the data for a school in Surrey which has been in special measures for over a year. It's had 3 monitoring visits which are far from stunning. This school is very likely in the '200' schools. Yet it isn't being forced to become a sponsored academy.

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=125116&superview=pri

Rosebud I've looked at the reports and the performance. If my child was at a school like that, and faced having his life chances blighted by mediocre teaching I would thank my lucky stars if someone from central government came in and forced through some changes.

I'm not missing the point. I'm going to the heart of the matter - the unaccepatability of enduring failure.

This school's performance simply isn't goof enough and hasn't been for years. And from that start point of failure, it's deteriorated further.

The bureaucratic approach of "well does this meet condition X or Y?" only prolongs failure. I do not think that such a low performing school, whose standards are going down, should be given yet more time on technicalities.

BTW: I agree with you about the Surrey school and damned well hope that change is made there asap as well.

The WHY gets to the heart of Gove's political agenda.

Why are 'under performing' schools in Surrey, Gove's own constituency being left alone, whilst those in Haringey having the DfE swoop in within a couple of weeks of being put into an Ofsted category?

Gove went to great lengths to articulate the objectivity of his criteria for forced conversion (see above, 200 schools below the floor target for 5 years etc etc), yet Nightingale clearly isn't one of these schools.

And Nightingale isn't a particularly 'low performing school', given its FSM, ESL mobility profile. There are about 3000 across the country performing less well, yet they're not being forced to convert.

The other WHY is the proposed solution. Sponsored academies have no evidence-base as a method of school improvement at primary. Secondary evidence shows significantly more exclusions than maintained schools, over 1 in 3 below 'floor target'. excessive use of vocational qualifications to 'game' League tables, over 1 in 4 with declining results.

Sponsored academies clearly NOT a method of school improvement, so WHY is this being proposed as the only solution? If there's no evidence base, it's impossible to see the academy agenda as anything other than ideological.

custard, they've replaced the Head. I said that about 3 times. Nightingale is one of those schools who are 'working bloody hard.'

Do you really think that the success or otherwise of a school depends on its governing body? That meets for a couple of hours about 6 times a year?

Look, here's yet another article about the lack of success in the academy agenda. Secondary, admittedly, as there is absolutely nothing to suggest that this model will be any more effective at primary.

There's been an article along these lines pretty much every day since the 2011 Secondary performance tables were published.

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/25/academny-schools-fewer-gcses-study

Just for clarity, Gove has not made use of any of the powers given to him or strengthened under the 2011 Education Act. The powers he has used have been in place since the Education and Inspections Act of 2006.

Where a school is under notice to improve or has been placed into special measures the LA or the DfE may remove the governors and put an Interim Executive Board in place. This can happen quickly, particularly where the inspectors have raised concerns about the leadership provided by the governors. The IEB should always consider conversion to academy status as a way of improving the school - again, this was a requirement under the last government.

Whilst this has happened quickly, it is by no means the fastest such action. I know of a school where an IEB was appointed by the LA within 48 hours of it being listed as causing concern.

An IEB appointed by the LA is something completely different. In this instance, the DfE have ridden rough shot over the LA. Nightingale clearly wasn't one of the 200 or 500 schools identified by Gove. Schools are put in categories every week and the first line of support is the LA. What are the reasons for this not being the first option in the case of Nightingale, do you think?

The Ofsted is grim but, prh, I know that you don't put much store in such things, but I can't see that the data on the school justifies this drastic action.

Also, an IEB apointed by an LA doesn't involve the school being converted to form the basis of some political experiment.

The evidence that the DFE repeatedly use to justify the speed and force of their academy programme is Prof Stephen Machin's research at the LSE. He concluded that whilst there was tentative evidence for success with sponsored academies established by the last Labour government, it wasn't substantial enough to justify rapid expansion of the programme. Recently, Prof Machin has confirmed that his findings can't be extrapolated to academies established under the coalition or to the primary sector. There is absolutely no evidence that this is a method of school improvement.