fighting conversion to MAT - help?

[Jumpingshipquick]

My children's school is pushing for conversion to MAT. It's a school considered 'good' with a governing body considered 'effective' by OFSTED, within a local authority that performs well. It's a single form entry school, and has no good reason to convert - it won't give them anything they can't already do. I have my suspicions why, but the argument so far is that it is better to lead rather than be forced. Whilst I don't doubt the good intentions of the people currently running the school, I have serious concerns about the implications of the change of structure. I would really appreciate someone looking over my points to see whether I am right for now.

• My school will legally cease to exist.
• Funding will go to the MAT, not individual schools within the MAT and the Board of Directors is required to make spending decisions based on the MAT priorities, not individual (ex)school priorities.
• The Board of Directors of the MAT can be paid for their roles.
• Teachers are employed by the MAT, not the individual schools (and can therefore be deployed anywhere within the MAT)
• There is no legal requirement to keep the individual school’s board of governors, and as it will have no power beyond what the Board happen to devolve, it will only be a talking shop anyway.
• The MAT will be run by a board of governors, akin to the board of directors in a business. This board will consist purely of co-opted members, no requirement for parent governors, no teachers, not necessary local people. Appointments are neither required to be advertised, nor elected and members can only be removed by the Secretary of State, from London.
• The only form of public scrutiny is the published accounts.
• The only way parents can hold the MAT board to account is via the Regional Schools Commissioner. (There are going to be 8 for the whole country) The RSC will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
• The Secretary of State retains the right to remove, or force schools/ MATs to join other MATs.

Thanks

EvilTwins, you could leave your MAT and join a better one.

Assuming this government remains in power long enough to do the forcing, of course

Yep. If another gvt get in then they will control the academy system instead. I expect there are many in the Labour Party who would like that.

Crowy- I've also considered it, but at the moment the children are happy.

Edith- yes, out of frustration, but you don't have to look very far to find evidence of it.

Dlacey- I didn't vote for my council, or my MP, but I still prefer the semblance of democratic accountability than none. And locally managed, not by London.

And yes I'm very much interested in what is legally possible. I am hoping I will be able to point it out to someone in the hope they set up a system of governance that avoids it. Or persuade people not to do it.

Thanks for directing me where to look about company directors prh, I've never concerned myself with these things and it's so intricate there's no wonder so many governors themselves don't understand it.

GAG- pooling is the latest DfE funding model. And is the only way MATs will be financially sustainable long term for little primary schools such as mine.

I don't have any problem with 'brilliant people' making money out of it. But they already could under the old system. And most people aren't brilliant. I'm not so concerned about corruption as I am about the inevitable inefficiencies. Schools suddenly have to make far more financial decisions than they used to. So they need business managers and admin hours. Suddenly schools are spending more on admin costs than they used to. They have to spend more time discussing those decisions and making sure those decisions are compliant. So they need more management time. Only it's not management useful for the education of children and teachers don't have the knowledge and understanding to do it. So mistakes are made, and they have to cede management of the school to those accountants they bought in. Then they have to make money to fill the funding gaps that are appearing. (Or sack teachers as was the case in the previous school I worked) All of a sudden managing the money, and HR, takes up far more time, and therefore money, than managing the education. All the schools I know of that have converted are now spending more money on running costs as a proportion of their budget than they were before conversion. I'm afraid I have to go on anecdotal evidence because it's not data currently being gathered.

Everybody keeps talking about LA top slicing like its a given that it offers poor value for money. Maybe it does, in some cases, but isn't it also the means by which rural village primary schools are subsidised? What's going to happen to those schools? Presumably a MAT won't want them because they won't generate enough funding to warrant taking on the running costs. Or do we have to wait and see how the latest 'fair' funding model is going to be managed?

And small- commiserations, that is exactly the situation I envisage for my school, and it's not a happy one.

My only hope is that the Tory shires make enough fuss about their good schools being threatened in this way to force a U turn.

Dlacey - I did just leave an academy where a weak GB was enabling the head to force staff out so she could appoint her mates. She's made the staff so unhappy they've spent 140 grand on covering staff absence since September. They've issued another 118 notice for redundancy to find the money to pay for it. I'm glad I left to work in a very effective academy. But I'm now so horrendously over worked I am looking for an exit strategy altogether. I'm an adult and can get another job.

Unfortunately there is no choice about where to send my children to school.

So I'd rather not just leave it to luck.

dlacey I don't think it's our choice. I think the DfE could force rebrokering but isn't it the same as a branch of Starbucks deciding it's rather be a branch of Costa? Not the decision of the baristas.

No EvilTwins but the baristas can leave Starbucks and work for Costa. Or set up their own independent coffee shop.

In other words as a teacher you can vote with your feet.

And being forced above the parapet means you are more likely to be shot!

Well yes, but that is the same in all jobs and professions, isn't it?

Either you are paid to do a job in the way that the person paying you wants it done, or you become the boss, and can decide how to do it yourself. Being the boss carries more risk, but you get to call the shots.

Teachers have not really had the opportunity to "become the boss" until now; they have had to do the job the way the Government, or a private School Board, decide they want. The Academisation agenda offers teachers the chance to take more control - without having to have the £££ needed to establish an independent school. The Government will fund groups of teachers and professionals to set up their own free school or MAT.

In other words as a teacher you can vote with your feet

Not leaving my yr 12s. They already have supply teachers for two of their A Levels, That's the thing a lot of politicians people seems to be forgetting - the kids. I've been at that school 12 years. During that time we've been through 4 Headteachers. There are only 3 members of staff who have been there over 5 years. I can't do it to the kids.

IME teachers don't actually want to 'be the boss'.

They want to crack on & teach.

I have a management role now (teaching abroad) & I'd happily step down tomorrow. It's the teaching that's rewarding.

I think what you're suggesting is that teachers would like more autonomy, not power. Probably true - but teaching is not full of academy teachers raving about how gloriously empowered they now feel, is it?

In fact, increasingly we're just plain buggering off.

In fact, increasingly we're just plain buggering off.

The same happened when there were other big changes like turning grammars into comps. These things go in cycles.

Many bright young things who wouldn't consider working in a maintained school in a complacent local authority with lacklustre performance would jump at the chance of working for inspiring leaders at another school (maintained or academy). It's the leadership that matters and the strong leaders I know aren't dewy eyed about the loss of LA control. However, some of them are ex- LA themselves and have brought what they consider to be the best of LA practice with them to the MAT.

But is that what we want? Teachers leaving all the time feeling dissatisfied or bullied. I like the fact that I've been at my school for some time and feel committed to and part of a community. Contrary to most images in the national press, most of the teachers I've ever taught with or met are generally conservative with a small c. Most only belong to unions in case of false allegations from students or management bullying. However, I'm glad that unions are speaking up about this.

I regret encouraging DD to become a teacher, even though I have enjoyed teaching myself having entered the profession as a mature student. There are some huge problems with academies at the moment including the scandal at Perry beeches and E-act losing schools but this is not widely reported. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but someone is controlling and filtering bad news about academies and that is very worrying.

If the academies model is so good, shouldn't the government have evidence to back it up rather than just say...it's a good idea because we say it is. It is worrying that Conservative party donars are heavily involved in this don't you think? Such a big change should warrant discussion. I think the government would love teachers to strike like the doctors so they can be seen to crush them.

GAG- pooling is the latest DfE funding model. And is the only way MATs will be financially sustainable long term for little primary schools such as mine

It is the latest in the sense that they have only recently allowed it. The DfE is not recommending that new MATs adopt it and it is definitely not the only way MATs will be financially sustainable for small primary schools. Small schools receive an additional grant from government of up to £100k per annum on top of the funding they receive per pupil.

But where are these bright young things? Where's the evidence that they're desperate to work for a lovely MAT?

My old post hasn't been filled with one.

The BYTs I worked with there are mostly on my FB asking advice on teaching internationally.

Pretty so why aren't all those 'teachers and professionals (whoever they are)' not forming MATs now - as the legislation already allows? Surely if there was an appetite that some HTs and/or teachers generally had to take control they would be doing it already. Indeed I am aware of only one such example of a HT led MAT over the county border close to my home (and a school that occasionally features in Primary on Mumsnet in less than positive terms even though it is the/one of the best Primaries in England).

The forcing of all schools in to academy status is not going to address the issue of schools that are RI or SM. Good or O/S schools in one part of the country will likely not team up with RI/SM schools at some geographic distance to share their HT/staff/good practice. My example MAT above has merely picked up other local schools - all good - whilst leaving one infant school likely to close due to falling numbers because there is now no link Junior/Primary as a result of the MAT.

Chopper, problems at some MATs shouldn't colour your perception of all MATs any more than problems at one LA should colour your perception of all.

The gvt didn't give evidence for privatising other industries either. It's just what happens when the nation votes Conservative.

However if it's going to happen then it'll happen best if good leaders from within the teaching profession take control and call the shots instead of sitting around moaning about it.

Surely if there was an appetite that some HTs and/or teachers generally had to take control they would be doing it already

They are in my area. With the help of the LA too.

prh47bridge do you have any information on the funding of schools once the academisation is complete e.g. what will happend to those schools that find themselves financially over stretched (sorry only asking you as you seem to be the only person providing any supporting facts).

I am a little concerned about this aspect as a number of my local secondaries who opted to convert a number of years ago are now making some worrying sounds about funding or rather lack thereof.

prh47bridge hope you don't mind me asking but do you have any insight into how closely aligned the UK academy model is to that in Sweden and the US?

Do you know any top level successes and problems that are likely to be mirrored across the academies in these Countries?

They aren't in mine. Many schools work successfully together from pre-school to 6th form sharing expertise/experience ,some academies most not. They all work with the LA and most source their HR/Finance/School Improvement services from the LA, having benchmarked against external service providers.

Stories like this are also a concern.

dlacey I don't know of any free schools set up by teachers. There are certainly none in my area.

My school has gone from RI to SM since becoming part of a MAT three years ago. In that time, not only have we had 3 Headteachers, but we've had two regional officers from the trust. Good schools work on relationships - kids need to know where they are and to build relationships with their teachers. If your DC has three maths teachers within a year, there is less progress. It's the same with MATs - schools are being run by people who neither know the school or care about it.

• Once another school has joined the MAT, my school becomes a ‘branch’ of the Trust.
• The responsibilities of the Board of Directors (the body with executive control of the Trust) are for the standards of education and finances of the whole Trust, no longer my school as an individual school, and as such has to make decisions based on the need to fulfil those responsibilities.
• In the most recent funding model from the DfE for running Multi-Academy Trusts, funding for each school goes into one central pot of money that is controlled by the Board, and then is shared out to the individual schools. (known as GAG pooling) This is to smooth any financial ‘bumps’. Under this model, if another ‘branch’ suffers a financial crisis, money would be redirected from my school to solve the problem.
• In the more common funding model, the school’s funding is ‘top-sliced’ by the MAT (as it is now by the LA) – and the percentage can vary. So for example a good school within the chain might pay more to support a different school which needs extra money to raise standards.
• Likewise, if a school within the chain has a staffing crisis, the Board could ask one of the staff from a different school to go and teach there instead – because the Board’s duties are to the whole MAT, teachers are employed by the MAT, and no longer the individual schools.
• Because Nicky Morgan has removed (is talking about removing?) the requirement for Governing Bodies of schools to have parent governors, all of this could happen without any involvement of any parents from the entire MAT, never mind my school.
• If the Academy chain grows bigger, the governing structure will have to be adapted to suit. This could result in a controlling governing body that consists of no one that has anything to do with my school, other than in the sense my school is a branch of the MAT.
• The Local Governing Body of my school (ie the layer of governance still linked to the original school) may or may not have any power, depending on how the governing structure is made up, in fact there need not even be one.

Thanks to all for your help in clarifying my understanding of all of this, especially prh. I want to be able to argue from a factual basis, and I am far from an expert.

I need to frame an argument that helps to ensure the best possible outcome for my children in their school. Whilst obviously I care about the raising of standards in a wider sense, my priority has to lie with my children. And so what matters is who is going to be teaching them, and what. I can only think that I need to be asking the right questions during the consultation period, and making sure the governors (and parents) are fully aware of the implications of what they are doing. And given even OFSTED are saying that standards are not higher in academy chains I think my reservations are not without foundation.

More questions though, sorry and again, thank you if anybody is still reading!

During the conversion process should the school be considering the governance and funding structures? Should parents know about these proposals? Or do they seek legal advice with the conversion grant and so do it afterwards? Will parents be consulted later in the process as other schools join? At the moment the school is going to be a MAT but the only school in the MAT. So are discussions about the funding/ governance structure merely academic and pointless at this moment?

MAT = Multi Academy Trust.

One school does not = MAT

Being a MAT means you've signed the MAT funding agreement. There can be just one school in the MAT. The MAT can then grow as it takes on more schools.

Dlacey the trouble with Perry beeches is that it's 5 schools and Eact had to lose 10 schools and still has 24, so a poor MAT can have a wide influence if it is poor, it's not just 2 schools which have been mismanaged. The way bad news about academies always gets buried and under reported annoys me. The policy should stand up to scrutiny.
It was big news when Derbyshire LA was slated for education, but the scrutiny of some of these mats seems obscured. And now they propose to take parents out of the governance model.

Clopper, it always seems to me that it's the MAT digressions that get the news coverage while the maintained school failings don't because they've been around longer.

If MATs fail of course they should lose schools. That's the model. We're going to need a lot more good MATs though.