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

"which for new Academy convertors means setting up or joining a MAT"

So to answer part of my question above, non-academies cannot become stand-alone academies as did convertor academies before them, even if they are just as good (e.g. good / outstanding Ofsted as were the criteria before)? They can only join others in MATs.

To repeat my other question, can stand-alone convertor academies still remain stand alone?

Urban - in those situations you describe I'd have more faith in the ability of an LA with a proven track record and democratic accountability, than an unknown quantity, potentially not even local, overseen by a delegate from a quango in London.

Perhaps we don't talk about local bureaucrat wages because they're not worth talking about. As for PFI that was yet another policy that had people shouting at the telly at the obviously predictable terrible outcomes, but any criticism was condemned for being anti dynamic future of corporate Britain/ insert any other meaningless corporate-ese. And once these changes have been made the next government won't undo them because, whatever disaster it turns into, it will be too difficult and expensive to untangle, not because it is a better system.

As for my children's school what I am lamenting is the willingness of all involved to just follow along without realising what we stand to lose. I don't believe it will result in better outcomes for either the school or the children. And they might be deemed effective by Ofsted (a not particularly useful label because they are now using it as license to assume that whatever they decide must be right because Ofsted told them they're good) but that still doesn't mean that aren't prey to being overly influenced by the one person I can see who does stand to benefit in the short term - the head. Especially when the rumours are he's in a relationship with the chair of governors. Which are rumours and suspicions I am trying to put aside for the sake of being rational and balanced.

As a slight aside, I don't actually think single form entry primary schools are necessarily the best- I'd rather they went to a larger school with the greater diversity of experience they offer, but that's a whole other thread.

But just because other people don't have the luck I do and want it is again no justification for putting a successful LA and its schools at risk.

Non-academies cannot become stand-alone academies as did convertor academies before them, even if they are just as good (e.g. good / outstanding Ofsted as were the criteria before)? They can only join others in MATs.

Expect they would be encouraged to either join a MAT or start a MAT.

To repeat my other question, can stand-alone convertor academies still remain stand alone?

They will find it increasingly difficult to stand alone. The financial climate will encourage them to join or start a MAT.

Our Head was told that the intention is that every school will be in a MAT of around 12 schools, no option! Smaller MATs will be taken over until they are the "optimum" size.

spanieleyes Wed 30-Mar-16 20:59:27 Our Head was told that the intention is that every school will be in a MAT of around 12 schools, no option! Smaller MATs will be taken over until they are the "optimum" size.

OMG, it goes from bad to worse. What kind of hierarchy/cost structure are they planning for this.

Seriously, the management structure required to see a plan like this succeed will require huge amounts of money.

Surely most LEAs are responsible for more than 12 schools?

Spanieleyes, I really, really hope your head has been misinformed.

Our Head was told that the intention is that every school will be in a MAT of around 12 schools, no option!

Told by whom?

Just looking around the internet and whilst there is evidence about academies it usually comes with a warning that it's still too early to say or that there could be other factors affecting the data etc. But what about this one? FYI, I am not saying I am a supporter yet!

"The most comprehensive research on the GCSE performance of academy schools to date is that by Professor Steve Machin and colleagues at LSE. They compared results over time of sponsored academies to a group of maintained schools with similar characteristics at the time of conversion. Performance in sponsored academies increased more quickly than in the similar schools. The improvement was greatest in schools that had been academies for the longest, implying that the effect of academy status has a gradual impact on improving performance."

urbanfox1337 Wed 30-Mar-16 22:03:55 "The most comprehensive research on the GCSE performance of academy schools

OK my local secondary schools have not be academies long enought to attribute GCSE success to academy status. Remind me again, how long have academies been around?

They compared results over time of sponsored academies to a group of maintained schools with similar characteristics at the time of conversion.

Was funding (including any additonal funding) taken into account?

Interestingly all my local secondary schools (semi-selective) have seen a decline in GCSE grades over the last three years with the exception of one (out of 7). Am I to conclude that it takes much longer than 3 years to see an improvement in results?

" I don't actually think single form entry primary schools are necessarily the best- I'd rather they went to a larger school with the greater diversity of experience they offer"

But in rural areas, even to get 30 entry primaries, you may well be talking about having to amalgamate 2-3 schools, probably over 3 miles apart. To get to 60 entry primaries, children would be having to travel 10-20 miles per day to the single school, which would have to be increased in size 5-6x to achieve this - where would the money come from?

The smallest school I have taught in - and I am not talking remotest Scotland or Wales or Cornwall, but a county with some rural areas as well as large towns - had a PAN of 7, with 2 classes. The next nearest 2 schools had PANs of 10, the largest school for miles around had a PAN of 15. If all those schools had been amalgamated to give a 60 entry school, the children would have had to commute from a radius of around 15 miles

urbanfox1337

To understand where my concerns are comming from, this is one of my nearest schools:

schoolsweek.co.uk/parents-group-says-no-to-cold-call-for-donations/

The Head resigned in January.

The head of the boys Grammar stepped down last year. I know one of the teachers there so do have a faily good understanding of what is going on.

"Was funding (including any additonal funding) taken into account?"

That is the key question. The question is 'Given an LA school, and an academy, of the same size, with the same intake demographics and exactly the same amount of funding [obviously some would go to the LA from the LA funded school, the academy would have to pay for those services directly, so it is the 'gross' funding that would have to be matched], which performs better?'

You also have to ask whether any form of overt or covert (e.g. expensive new uniform) selection / altered admissions criteria have come into play, and to ensure that the GCSEs taken are comparable - GCSEs vs equivalents; History vs Tourism etc.

The academy bill got passed 16 years ago, believe it or not. As to the details of the study I quoted I am not an expert but it was done by the LSE to compare academies with state schools on an equal basis. So unless they are lying or stupid it's valid, with the disclaimer that there have still not been enough academies around for long enough to give a definitive conclusion.

urbanfox1337 Wed 30-Mar-16 22:57:23 The academy bill got passed 16 years ago, believe it or not.

16 years yet, no one is able to say if the business model will work or not, unbelievable.

Teacher- absolutely, I've worked in similar schools, and I would chose my child's single form entry in walking distance over a bigger amalgamation any day, even though I think a bigger one would in theory be better. That comment was in response to another that seemed to imply I had it perfect, no wonder I didn't want change.

urbanfox1337 Wed 30-Mar-16 22:57:23 with the disclaimer that there have still not been enough academies around for long enough to give a definitive conclusion.

So even with forced academisation of failing schools they were not able to pull together a big enough sample to draw any conclusions from. Does this not tell you something i.e. not enough schools were failing for them to use a guinea pigs?

And all of those converter academies in that comparison will be secondaries. My primary school would have to be in a MAT with 6 other schools to be the same size as a stand alone secondary. Even if it had a definite conclusion it could not be used to predict results.

There are so many more factors at play in schools success or failure that structural change alone will not make a lot of difference to standards. But could incur large costs and cause significant disruption.

MumTryingHerBest, do you have no grasp of statistics at all?

2 decades ago the lancet published an article by one Doctor, about a connection between MMR and autism. Despite the vaccine being invented in the sixties and being administered to over 500 million children in over 60 countries, it has taken until 2015 to prove definitively that their is no connection between the the jab and autism.

If your opinions are so bias against any sort of scientific study and so ignorant of how definitive facts are arrived at then you will never arrive at the truth.

I read the Research Paper from the LSE.

The academies covered in this research were those that converted pre-2010. They were failing schools and converted to single academies. Over the period until 2010 the academies improved outcomes for pupils (limited to those pupils that had been in the pre-conversion school) compared to similar secondary schools with similar pupil demographics.

The paper considers what factors may account for the improvement in outcomes and reviews available information and survey results. The main reason for improvement was not money or staff or freedom of curriculum. It was a change in Headteacher. There was far more leadership change in the academy schools than the comparative other schools. As single academies there is no 'management organisation' above the school so the chains/MATs point is not addressed by this study. Nor does it say that pupil outcomes improve the longer the academy is in existence.

The paper identifies that the conclusions reached do not reflect the post 2010 academy position which introduced voluntary conversion for good/o/s schools and the growth of academy chains. Further research will be required to determine what effect these academy changes have produced for pupil outcome.

Would it be unreasonable to conclude that what the school 'is' has far less to do with outcomes than the presence of successful leadership.

urbanfox1337 Wed 30-Mar-16 23:23:17 MumTryingHerBest, do you have no grasp of statistics at all?

What stats. have been posted on this thread? Are you referring to the approx. 50% of secondary schools that have converted but are not enough to drawn any conclusions from?

urbanfox1337 Wed 30-Mar-16 23:23:172 decades ago the lancet published an article by one Doctor, about a connection between MMR and autism. Despite the vaccine being invented in the sixties and being administered to over 500 million children in over 60 countries, it has taken until 2015 to prove definitively that their is no connection between the the jab and autism.

WTF? and this relates to academies how? Are you suggesting that we all conclude that academies will vause autism or that the long term prospects of academies are not looking good?

urbanfox1337 Wed 30-Mar-16 23:23:172 If your opinions are so bias against any sort of scientific study

Erm, I must have missed your post referring to a scientific study on academies. Could you post the link again please.

Actually can you provide a link to any studies that actually support the move to foreced blanket academisations please.

urbanfox1337 I'm an analytical thinker but I really am struggling to make a connection between a study on the MMR jab and forced blanket academisation.

Please do explain your reasoning behind this as I am really am at a loss for words.

The truth is that academies are not a total revolution in education. If they are onlt 5-10% better that the LA model, that is very difficult to show due to all the other factors that influence education. Therefore there will never be definative evidence that academies are better. Either you think that small groups of schools, run by experts, using expertise from wherever they can find it, can better serve children than one size fits all local authority meddling, or you don't.

Are you referring to the approx. 50% of secondary schools that have converted but are not enough to drawn any conclusions from?

The study to which urbanfox referred was conducted in 2011. Nowhere near 50% of secondary schools had been converted at that time. Even now, most of them haven't been academies for very long. However, the report did not caveat its conclusions. It was clear that the academy schools that converted in the 1997-2010 period had seen a significant improvement in pupil performance resulting from conversion, with the biggest effect in schools that had seen the largest increase in autonomy.

I must have missed your post referring to a scientific study on academies. Could you post the link again please

You can find the study to which urbanfox refers here.

prh47bridge thanks.

urbanfox1337 didn't provide any actual details on the study so I had no idea when it was published.

The 50% I referred to is a figure that has previously been mentioned on this thread and I mentioned it in the context of - "do you have no grasp of statistics at all?"

Carol - since when is there a guarantee that MATs will be small, or run by experts, or the board will be any less meddling than the LA? Or for that matter, any less one size fits all?

And there is certainly no guarantee that they will be better value for money.

By the way, does anyone know how the LA are going to provide a school place for every child now?

OP there is no blanket right or wrong. Dd's school is massively better off (at least in the short term ie while she is actually there and that is my immediate concern) as part of a MAT. Of course mostly that's because the LA were indescribably shite and the MAT is a good one. It also doesn't mean I agree wholesale with the policy of forced academisation.