Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Flip

Original poster

Do academy projects ever fail?

22 replies

ofstedconfused · 06/03/2013 10:38

I am involved with a school that is supposed to become a sponsored academy on 1 April, but things have gone very quiet.

The school has been losing teachers over the last year and as a consequence children have been leaving so the role is falling. Currently, there are 7 classes, but probably only enough children to fill 5. Two teachers are leaving at Easter - their jobs are being advertised, but will it be very easy to fill them? We are waiting for an OFSTED report which no-one seems to think will be very good.

I am informed by a good source that governors were told it had to be an academy or close.

Is it possible that the school could still close instead of becoming an academy?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

learnandsay · 06/03/2013 10:44

Or become an academy and then still close like this one www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gove-threatens-to-close-failing-academies-2196691.html

marquesas · 06/03/2013 10:52

I'm interested in seeing the answers to this. Although there aren't any primary schools local to me that are academies yet I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start to change.

afaik there are instances where the school isn't given a choice and the governors have to do as they are told but I thought in these cases there was a third party who helped support the school.

As a general point I'd have thought it was too early in the academy process to know if schools will fail in the future

ReallyTired · 06/03/2013 11:06

My undestanding was that outstanding academies supported weaker schools. Its a bit like empire building for a superhead.

My neighbour is a superhead who likes to take over a failing primary school, take it out of special measures and get it to OFSTED outstanding in four years. She has achieved this with two primaries in her career.

Superheads often have itchy feet. Once they have got a school to Ofsted Outstanding they want a new challenge. When the head leaves after 4 years the school can go backwards. Allowing a head to oversea more than one school (with each school having a deputy) means that more children benefit from the head's talent. It would also allow really superb heads to earn more money which attracts the best talent to managing our schools.

Having superheads overseeing several schools helps develop leadership talent. I suppose the only issue is what happens if a chain of academies goes into special measures. I suppose then the academy chain will be broken up and the failing schools allocated to other academy chains.

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 06/03/2013 11:10

But we already have a superhead who is leaving after one term. They are supposed to be finding another one, but we don't know who.

Our sponsors are new to the game and at present have no schools, but from April will have a handful. They are working with a company who have more experience but we can't look at the sponsors track record as they don't have one.

Really, really worried about this, as there are 150 children who are going through a lot of change and uncertainty at school - I'd like to know if there is hope or not.

OP posts:

ReallyTired · 06/03/2013 11:15

ofstedconfused

I feel for you. Its awful having children in a school which is collapsing around you. I find it shockiing that sponsors with no experience of turning round failing schools are being allowed to take on a chain of schools.

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 06/03/2013 13:39

Thanks

Any other experiences out there? I know this is quite new, but we're the first school in our Local Authority to be in this situation and it feels very scary!

Not sure LA want us anymore, but equally unsure that new sponsors can really make a difference.

OP posts:

admission · 06/03/2013 22:08

There are relatively few academies that are primary schools in comparison with secondary schools. Evidence would suggest that with time the schools do generally improve but the picture is far from all rosy as Mr Gove would have us believe, that academies solve all the problems.
The key people are the head teacher and the governing body. The quality of the head teacher is all important. The governing body will change substantially when the school becomes an academy.
So do not expect miracles overnight but there will be resources pushed at the school to improve it and most will.

alanyoung · 07/03/2013 21:00

We have a couple of academies near us and two of them are on special measures. Doesn't give you much confidence.

christinarossetti · 07/03/2013 21:41

Do you mind me asking what LA you're in?

Haringey local authority where I live are without a doubt handing over their schools - sounds yours might be doing the same.

christinarossetti · 07/03/2013 21:58

Do you mind me asking what LA you're in?

Haringey local authority where I live are without a doubt handing over their schools - sounds yours might be doing the same.

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 07/03/2013 22:09

Nowhere near Haringey. Just really concerned that 150 odd kids are being failed by this whole story. Transition to academy status doesn't appear to be failing them any less than the system it is due to replace.

I was in this morning, reading with a child who comes to school without breakfast 9 times out of 10, is fed and given extra support in his learning. He is one of many. Both the old system and the new system fail these children.

All the 'important people' seem to care about is balancing budgets.

Not even sure this project is going to make it to academy status, because I'm not sure anyone outside of the immediate school community actually cares.

OP posts:

rabbitstew · 07/03/2013 22:37

Would be interesting to see how many "superheads" when given the chance to manage several schools at the same time rather than leave after 4 years actually manage to get them all to outstanding and then keep them that way for an extended period of time... I have a strong suspicion that some move on after a short time so as to avoid it becoming obvious that appearances and reality are not always the same thing and rapid change is not always sustainable, particularly if you've had to be a bullying box-ticking dictator in order to achieve it. As for a seriously failing school, however, you would have to be a really strong character to do anything with it, once staff and pupils have already started flooding away. Hence failing schools having the strong potential to become failing academies. And what parent wants their child to go to a school which has a succession of different sponsors???...

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 07/03/2013 22:49

Some parents don't have the choice. Other parents are so busy just coping from day to day that they can't exercise choice. What happens to these children?

OP posts:

christinarossetti · 08/03/2013 11:32

I understand your concern ofstedconfused, and from what you've said, neither a disinterested LA or an inexperienced sponsor offers much hope to anyone at the moment.

It will all boil down to the Head and SLT as schools always do. Why did the 'super head' leave after only one term? Who is recruiting the new Head?

One of my main concerns about the rapid movement of sponsors into education is the cherry picking that is going on - established sponsors are picking and choosing which schools they take on, leaving the rest to festher in under funded LAs or be snapped up in some experiment by some inexperienced academy chain.

'what happens to these children?' is a really scary concern living in a Tory Britain.

rabbitstew · 08/03/2013 11:33

Of course some parents don't have the choice, don't exercise the choice or don't feel capable of exercising any choice. Ask the government what these parents are supposed to do, since the government have masterminded the current situation.

rabbitstew · 08/03/2013 11:40

The Headteacher is recruited by the governing body.

rabbitstew · 08/03/2013 11:56

So you could always get in touch with the chair of governors and ask what is happening???

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 08/03/2013 11:58

The current governing body are disbanded on the 31st of March. The new governing board has not yet been constituted. They are not involved in the recruitment of the new head - the sponsor is responsible for this. The Chair of Governors knows as much as I do.

OP posts:

rabbitstew · 08/03/2013 12:16

Well, if they don't even have a new governing body, then I'm not surprised nothing much appears to be happening.

christinarossetti · 08/03/2013 17:02

The uncertainty and worry are awful, aren't they?

Hopefully, the sponsor will appoint a good head who will move the school forward. But unfortunately, there is no guarantee that that will happen, and i can't imagine that taking on a school having a difficult time under a sponsor with no experience in the sector is a big pull for many heads, but I hope it works out for the school.

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 09/03/2013 10:46

Still no news on headteacher or class teachers. No idea who is leading our school or teaching our children from April. We break up in two weeks. Scary!

OP posts:

Original poster

ofstedconfused · 16/03/2013 15:29

So, only one week to breaking up and still no further forward. Still no head appointed. Academy conversion due 1 April, but so far as we are aware, funding agreement not yet signed.

Parents, staff and governors all seem to know as little as one another.

Not to mention the two classes without teachers in April. Apparently interviews are taking place this week.

OP posts:

Flip