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

Can someone explain how successful stand-alone academies - e.g. a local outstanding comp of about 1,500 pupils - will be 'required' to join MATs? Is there going to be more funding for MAT academies than for stand-alone academies?

Can someone explain how successful stand-alone academies - e.g. a local outstanding comp of about 1,500 pupils - will be 'required' to join MATs?

Something that big could probably hold out as a stand alone academy if it wanted to but it will be strongly encouraged to take other schools under its wing and that option will be made financially attractive as well as being presented as a moral obligation to help out locally struggling schools. That's what happened in my area anyway.

Does anyone feel that there is some 'snobbery' involved in g/os schools not wanting to be associated with help out less successful schools in a MAT. It just seems like a lot of posters are against them incase toxic RI schools drag them down or take their money.

Given I work for a RI school, no!

Urban, It isn't snobbery at all. I just don't understand what is in it for them, IYSWIM? Many converted to academy status because there was a substantial financial advantage bribe at the time, and many continue to manage absolutely fine as stand-alone academies, maintaining their Ofsted status, no more short of money that other schools in the same county etc.

I just don't understand why they should suddenly turn round and say 'welcome everyone. We know nothing whatever about the difficulties faced by an RI or Inadequate school, we are generally in naice areas and have no idea about deprivation, but we've been asked to share our SMT, our back office support and our 'expertise', so we will...'

Some of these schools do share expertise already, usually having been asked to by LA or other bodies - or in response to specific pots of money such as Maths hubs or Teaching Schools money. But i still don't understand why they should do so 'just because'.

Well yes thats just it, whats in it for me. It's frustrating when the answer is so 'selfish,' it's well I will only do it if you bribe me, or if it gets my DC better results. But there isn't enough money to go around anymore, so why not do it for altruistic reasons? Sure their is some cooperation between schools already but it's not all in is it? Actually tying schools together gives a lot more incentive to share everything, money, teacher's, resources, success. It might not be the perfect solution but I hate it being shot down without a good try to make it work and see if some of those pupils at challenging schools can be given a better chance than they have now.

urban The Academy Initiative actually supports another political Ideology that I thought most teachers shared - the "self improving schools model".

Apart from extra cash and the "feel good factor" there is something else in it for the people involved - career progression. If you're a successful head, leading a successful school, then you are no longer at the top of the career tree. Leading other schools out of the doldrums is being billed as the next career step of choice for those that have the energy and drive to do so.

Which is why I'm moving from an Outstanding school to one that is RI. But it doesn't need to be an academy for me to do so, in fact I'm glad it's not ( yet) !

Where is the extra cash coming from dlacey?

Career progression for the heads is the only thing in it for the head of my kids school and the head of the school I work at. Altruism??? I thought this was a business model.

Where is the extra cash coming from dlacey?

As I said previously, in the example I know of locally attractive financial incentives were cited as one of the reasons for the decision - I don't know the full details but I understand it's a mixture of DfE and LA funding.

jumping Self improvement within a system is a business model - which is why I've always been surprised that teachers have embraced it

Shared teachers can be very useful in offering subjects in secondary, such as Latin, Greek etc.

urbanfox1337 Thu 31-Mar-16 19:50:38 Well yes thats just it, whats in it for me. It's frustrating when the answer is so 'selfish,' it's well I will only do it if you bribe me, or if it gets my DC better results.

How about the fact that some of them are not able to take on any more work.

Given the number of teachers that are stating the home/work ballance issue is the reason they are leaving the profession, adding more work to their plate is not really going to encourage them to stay.

Actually tying schools together gives a lot more incentive to share everything, money, teacher's, resources.

Given the number of schools that are saying they are stretched to the limites in respect of these things, I'm not sure how they will be in a position to share what they do have.

MumTryingHerBest - for a classroom teacher, how does becoming an academy involve more work? How does sharing a lesson plan (or any resources) with another school put more burden on teacher? Teachers aren't the only profession that is 'stretched to the limit'.

Urban I don't have time to share lesson plans and resources with the teacher next door. (Other than on an ad hoc basis when we can) Which of course is utterly ridiculous because sharing stuff would, in the long term, save time for everyone. But sharing stuff involves conversations, conversations means meeting time, meeting time is already taken up with micro management bullshit. Not possible without less contact time. And what with teaching 4 different GCSEs specs and 3 different A level specs there is no time.

I suppose we could all teach the same stuff from a lesson plan carefully devised by experts, and then we wouldn't even need teachers, any bugger can do it far cheaper. National Strategies anyone?

But you're right actually, it won't make any more work for a classroom teacher. But it will add a whole new layer of expensive management that will suck money out of classrooms upwards. And school will have to do what the MAT decides, not what the school wants. (Which may or may not be better or worse) but the argument it gives schools more autonomy seems to me fallacious.

urbanfox1337 Thu 31-Mar-16 21:50:06 MumTryingHerBest - for a classroom teacher, how does becoming an academy involve more work?

My DCs HM has just resigned. They are leaving the profession and are not due for retirement. The reason they have stated is home/work balance.

In the MAT where I'm a governor, subject specialists are encouraged to network and share ideas as part of their Continued Professional Development, and time is allotted for that accordingly. There is a lead advisor for each of the specialisms who reviews the curriculum plans for all of the schools, so if there was a weakness in one school they would encourage further development and may recommend adopting material from another school. There's a spirit of support and cooperation and it works very well. It also provides an additional career path for senior subject specialists who can take on more of the advisory roll if they are that way inclined.

It's nothing new though. LAs have operated similar models in the past. However these days they tend not to employ subject-advisors directly - they buy in consultancy. Stand-alone academies also buy in subject-specialist consultancy, though that is probably more expensive than doing it in bulk across an LA or a MAT.

"Stand-alone academies also buy in subject-specialist consultancy!"

That's the point. I work in a (primary level) academy. We buy in the expertise we need - as a stand alone academy. We have everyday working links with two neighbouring stand-alone academies, and are involved in a large number of different cross-school links, with academy, foundation, faith and LA schools. But to tie ourselves in with 'MAT recommended' specialists or link us with 'just our partners in the MAT' rather than any other schools who we can learn from and who can learn from us - why? We don't need the extra costs of a MAT - extra level of 'executive headship' or 'head of a MAT - neither of these would free up our head to go back into the classroom, so it is genuinely extra overhead.

Primary teaching is a VERY flat heirarchy - little career progression however many schools you link together.

And having worked before in a 'struggling' school, I don't believe that my current school, despite its decent Ofsted and great results, actually has anything to offer a genuinely struggling school - it has no expertise. Its expertise is in getting the best out of naice kids in a naice area - and (funnily enough) very few struggling schools need that expertise!

So I suppose what I am asking for is 'how does the MAT model work for primaries (or primary-level schools - infants, juniors, middle-deemed primary, first schools) who are already stand-alone academies'?

dlacey, If LA's are already buying in subject specialists for schools, wouldn't cutting out the middleman (ie the LA) actually be cost effective?

MumTryingHerBest, a lot of professions would like a better work life balance, why is education different from any other sectors eg social workers?

Jumpingshipquick, thats a good idea, why not have experts doing the lesson plans and let teachers do the hard stuff, the actual teaching.

urbanfox1337 MumTryingHerBest, a lot of professions would like a better work life balance, why is education different from any other sectors eg social workers?

Without a doubt. I also imagine they too leave their job when the situation becomes unbearable. What exactly is your point?

urbanfox1337 Thu 31-Mar-16 23:05:16 why not have experts doing the lesson plans

Who exactly would these expert be?

MumTryingHerBest, my point is that everyone has to share the burden, it's unfair to say teachers are the only ones that get a work life balance. Are you implying there are no expert teachers?