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

The school already shares good practice effectively within a town-wide partnership. It's one of the reason taking such a risk with MAT status seems so unnecessary.

It sounds to me as if the school has a strong leadership, which predicted the contents of the White Paper and have decided to be proactive about its future rather than be "done to".
By becoming a MAT now, they can select who they work with, rather than being forced to join, or accept, schools with different values and ethos into their MAT as the new legislation takes affect.

Establishing an effective MAT over the next few years with the schools it works with now will reduce the chance of the Regional Schools Commissioner putting pressure on each of those schools to form separate MATS and to partner with other schools elsewhere who haven't been as proactive.

One thing you might want to read that could help you understand the reasoning is the Schools Strategic plan. It should cover the next 3-5 years, and will include the reasoning and benefits of this direction of travel.

I absolutely understand the reasoning, and I can see the benefits - for the MAT, just not the benefits for my children. I also see many disadvantages, and I do not think we should be going into this without considering them properly. And I don't believe they have been considered properly.

I guess academisation rightly or wrongly is to try and benefit all children equally. If you're one of the lucky parents that have a good school for their children then of course, why would you want anything to change. The best you can do is to make the change to an academy as successful as possible and as you have a good school possible that shouldn't be to hard.

Its so unfair that some schools in the country get a third more funding than others just because of a historical formulae. That's something I think is a greater unfairness but you don't hear many people kicking up a fuss about that.

urbanfox1337 Tue 29-Mar-16 20:16:56 Its so unfair that some schools in the country get a third more funding than others just because of a historical formulae.

Will the forced academisation change this?

"Will the forced academisation change this?"

The White Paper is a strategy document containing lots of things the DfE want to do by the end of the parliament. One of those things is total academisation. Another is a fairer funding formula.

In my area the strong schools are helping the weak schools by forming a MAT with the strong heads in control. However they are being given financial carrots.

dlacey Tue 29-Mar-16 20:57:01 One of those things is total academisation. Another is a fairer funding formula.

Has a deadline been set for fairer funding to be realised?

dlacey Tue 29-Mar-16 21:00:01 In my area the strong schools are helping the weak schools by forming a MAT with the strong heads in control. However they are being given financial carrots.

What do you think will happen if in 3-5 years time the strong schools are still needing to help the weak schools but the financial carrots are not longer being provided?

Forced academisation won't, but there is the new funding formula about to be released. It's supposed to redress the balance.

Urban - I live in a rural county historically hugely disadvantaged funding wise, and worked in one even worse off. We still have good primary schools and I hope all the Tory councillors will be agitating to keep control of them. After all, the LA retaining responsibility for academic standards and school places but no power or funding for it seems an impossible situation.

But the unfair funding has brought about huge improvements for those boroughs in London who have benefited most, has it not?

urbanfox1337 I think is a greater unfairness but you don't hear many people kicking up a fuss about that.

Perhaps this is the reason why:

Jumpingshipquick Tue 29-Mar-16 21:04:53 Forced academisation won't, but there is the new funding formula about to be released. It's supposed to redress the balance.

It looks like something is already being done about it. However, nothing is being done about addressing the rather gaping holes in the argument for forced blanket academisation.

What do you think will happen if in 3-5 years time the strong schools are still needing to help the weak schools but the financial carrots are not longer being provided?

Nobody can see beyond 2020. We'll have another gvt by then. But there are always financial carrots for something. Under the last Labour gvt it was specialisation, then under the coalition it was voluntary academisation, now it's MAT control. These schools have benefitted financially from all of those so I expect they will adapt to the next government's pet policies too. That helps to keep them at the top of their game in a way that political objection and resistance probably wouldn't.

dlacey 3 years time doesn't take you beyond 2020.

Are you suggesting that MATs are not producing medium term plans (which is what this time frame is in business terms)?

dlacey there is no evidence to suggest that any academies will stay "at the top of their game" with or without carrots.

MumTrying, some people never go outside for fear of being hit by a bus. But most sensible, successful people weigh up the risks and benefits of decisions before they make them. Whatever the financial details of the MAT example I'm referring to, those who are involved wouldn't be taking on the task if they didn't feel it was a good move for their schools, or that the "do nothing" option left them worse off.

The OP needs to understand the full risk versus benefit profile of her own situation rather than automatically assuming what can go wrong will go wrong.

dlacey But most sensible, successful people weigh up the risks and benefits of decisions before they make them.

Yet you are suggesting that OP shouldn't consider the mid term financial implication because no one knows what will happen in the future?

If "carrots" are being used then the money is comming from somewhere. Where and for how long is a pretty fundamental question that should be carefully considered. They should also be considering the fact that if the "carrots" are monetary based, they will only provide a short term motivation.

dlacey those who are involved wouldn't be taking on the task if they didn't feel it was a good move for their schools, or that the "do nothing" option left them worse off.

I think your post suggests that those involved wouldn't be taking on the task if it wasn't for the "carrots" being offered. I would imagine that this is the whole point of having the "carrots", surely.

MumTrying in a democracy where the gvt potentially changes every 5 years it's never going to be possible to guarantee the long term flow of public funds. That's why some people stick to the private sector.

However that's not a good argument for digging in heels and doing nothing. It is a good argument for being adaptable in a changing world - always being ready to make the most of what's on offer. Think Darwinism.

I am considering both risks and benefits. But those involved at my school will not consider the risks. I am exploring what is possible. And I know from personal experience that what is possible often quickly becomes reality. At the moment my school has an effective governing body, a good head and good teachers and is working within an effective LA with cross town town partnership to share expertise.

What will happen very quickly after academisation is that the effective team in place will be no longer working for the good of my school and my children but for the good of the MAT- because that is what they are obliged to do. Parents will have less influence, not more. The person with executive control will no longer be someone I see in the playground or attends every parents evening or school fair as is currently the case.

Instead they will be spending all their time working out the intricacies of their medium term business plan despite not knowing what the money situation is, without the shelter and experience of the LA. They will probably be working out how to plug the funding gap that will appear as has happened with foundation hospitals, presumably by making money by selling services. Or by taking on higher pupil numbers to increase their funding from central government. They will have to spend hours negotiating individual teachers contracts and pay because this will no longer be negotiated at the national/ LA level. Once teachers get the hang of negotiating bonuses and pay deals, they will and then insist on appeals when things aren't fair. Which might be good for teachers if there wasn't also such downward pressure on wages. The unions won't be able to give accurate advice to either schools or teachers because everything will be so fragmented. (One of the reasons for the changes, teachers unions being the last stand of the trade union movement currently being broken) Before we know it the governing body will be in thrall to expensive HR and accountancy advisors and spending all their time talking about money instead of education.

This is already happening up and down the country in secondary schools. Yet we just get dismissed as moaning teachers. And so there is a recruitment and retention crisis. Ofsted are saying there is no evidence academies improve standards. So they are talking about appointing an American.

Things in my children's school were already working quite well thank you very much, and I don't see why we should be allowing such huge changes to the structure of our education system for a dogmatic insistence that free market practice is the only way of doing things when we've seen time and time again that the only people who benefit are the elite and the 'brilliant' few.

So I have listened, and whilst I am reassured if people like me ask the right questions and trust in the already strong management we will probably be ok. But I am far from convinced any of these changes will make things better.

jumping if the schools leadership team including the Governors are refusing to consider the risks then they are not effective in their role.

Blindly following a course of action with no awareness of the pitfalls is poor governance.

Weighing up the risks and benefits and deciding on a course of action that not everyone agrees with, is of course, totally different and forms part of the strategic leadership of the school.

Why are you so sure that they won't consider the risks? Do the minutes of the Board meetings indicate a lack of awareness of the potential issues?

I can't find the minutes. Should they be available or would I have to request them? The ppt to parents certainly didn't consider any risks, just the benefits taken from d f e documentation. I couldn't attend the meeting because I was working.

dlacey whilst you compare the forced blanket academisation to evolutionary change that all should embrace in order to survive, many business professionals would cringe at the prospect of implementing change just for the sake of it and at high financial cost.

I do agree that companies should be ready to make the most of what's on offer. However, if that "what's on offer" is the main key to success, contingency must be planned for in order to sustain success. As previously mentioned, monetary incentives are a short lived motivator.

dlacey However that's not a good argument for digging in heels and doing nothing.

I agree, however, there is no good argument for implementing change just for the sake of it and at high financial cost. Does anyone actually understand the logic behind forcing high performing schools through the academisation process?

Fine if high performing schools want to jump on board, however, if it isn't broken don't fix it.

I would also suggest that high performing schools do not need to move now/as fast as they can to seize the opportunities that are/will be made available to them. Those schools are highly likely to have opportunities presented to them throughout the entire conversion process. I imagine schools like this will be highly desirable to MATs looking to build a portfolio of successful schools. However, I heavily suspect the failing schools and lower performing schools are in for a bumpy ride.

Some schools publish their Board minutes - others have a folder in school that can be read on site.

Have you asked whether the Board intends to host further meetings at different times of day? A lot of chairs will duplicate meetings so that as many parents as possible can be included.

I imagine schools like this will be highly desirable to MATs looking to build a portfolio of successful schools.

I disagree. schools Commissioners are already encouraging such schools to become MATs themselves. Far better that they actively select the schools they wish to work with than be left pressured to accept schools which have been resistant to change into their MAT in a few years time.

Pretty- thank you, I will ask to see the minutes. Given that so few people attended the first meeting, I doubt whether they would bother. All parental responses so far have focuses on the proposed uniform changes.

Most parents don't understand and don't want to.

PrettyBrightFireflies I disagree. schools Commissioners are already encouraging such schools to become MATs themselves.

So you think that if those high performing schools don't become MATs themselves they will be of no interest to other MATs? Really?

From what I understand existing MATs are already disposing of under performing/failing schools, are you suggesting those same MATs will not be seeking out high performing schools to replace those they have disposed of?