Please explain to me the benefits/drawbacks of becoming an academy?

[TheYuleLogLady]

apart from the extra cash? any why do academies get extra cash anyway?

TIA.

[Elibean]

Thanks - thats reassuring. Though it may be that there is some sort of agreement in our area - there is a Quindrat of schools in the Borough, and I think something was mentioned about staff moving between them. Clearly not a national thing though, so I'll ask in different quarters - thanks, 47bridge, for clarifying.

[prh47bridge]

The direct answer to your question is that converting to an academy has no impact on staff recruitment. It remains the responsibility of the school and the governors.

[prh47bridge]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. All schools are responsible for their own staff recruitment. Academies have full control over who they employ and on what terms and conditions. If anything, they have more control over their staff than LA schools. Of course, staff are free to move on at any time, but that is the case at any school.

[Elibean]

Can anyone fill me in on how converting to an academy impacts on staff recruitment? Someone mentioned to me that staff would be able to move between schools in the Borough, so we could lose control over who we employ and how stable that employment is. I'm utterly about it all - is this even partially right?

[twoterrors]

That's really clear, thank you.

The trouble in this area (South London) is that there are also schools which are partially or fully selective. In addition, I think the complexity of the system operates as a means of covert selection: some parents I have spoken to think banding tests are selective and are put off; time and commitment are also required(many of the tests are held on Saturdays and not necessarily at the school you are applying to, for example. Then there are the aptitude tests, with extremely opaque criteria....

Good luck to anyone going through it this year.

[prh47bridge]

Fair banding is supposed to be the reverse of selective - it should ensure that a school doesn't just have the top performers. That's why it is allowed for non-selective schools.

Using national scores for fair banding ensures that the intake is representative of the whole country, i.e. the whole of the United Kingdom. However, if children in Southwark are, on average, less intelligent than the rest of the country, using national scores will bias entry in favour of the more intelligent local children.

To illustrate, imagine the national average score is 100 but the average in Southwark is 90. If you have, say, 5 ability bands, using the national scores they may be 115+, 105-115, 95-105, 85-95, less than 85. Nationally there would be a roughly equal number of children in each band. However, a child getting the average score in Southwark would be in band 4, so over half the children in Southwark would be in bands 4 and 5. That means there would be much less competition for places in bands 1-3 making it easier for the more intelligent children to get places.

The reverse effect would also happen - if children in Southwark are, on average, more intelligent than the rest of the country there would be a lot of competition for places in bands 1 and 2, much less competition for places in bands 3-5.

Using the local scores ensures that the intake is representative of Southwark, so that there are roughly the same number of local children in each ability band.

In most areas I would expect little difference between the results using national scores and local scores. However, there may be a measurable difference in particularly deprived or particularly privileged areas.

[twoterrors]

I agree.

I think Dunraven used to use national scores for standardising but now uses local/the cohort (I don't really understand this either). I don't know whether they were pushed to change. I am not absolutely sure, though, that you could not use same tests and then standardise using different systems?

I also think it is down to the return of a selective system that no-one wants to acknowledge has crept back.

[prh47bridge]

I'm not a fan of fair banding but I know a lot of schools are using it in some areas. It is supposed to ensure that the intake is reflective of the community as a whole.

For what it is worth, the guideline talks about all schools in an area using the same test rather than schools in a particular LA. It specifically mentions the QCA Year 5 optional tests as something that should be considered.

I agree with twoterrors that it will be time consuming and frustrating but a campaign to at least get the testing issue sorted out could be worthwhile.

The supporters of academies would point to yesterday's international education league tables which again show the UK slipping. Whilst this is partly due to additional countries being included in the tables that is not the full explanation. The organisation that runs the league table (which is part of the OECD and does not, as far as I am aware, have a political agenda) conclude that good education results from schools that have autonomy but are accountable to parents, rigorous qualifications and an emphasis on hiring high quality teachers. Whether or not the academies/free schools will deliver this is not yet clear.

[gingeroots]

One of the issues for me is that there are different types of banding .
Harris banding is related to national scores - presumably to achieve an intake that doesn't reflect local scores ,while Kingsdale for example uses banding that uses the ability of the cohort applying as its base .
(I imagine prh47 can explain the banding bit better than I've done - I find it hard to get my head round . )
So I imagine that would scupper an effort to rationalise the testing .
And ,yes ,children living in Southwark will also be applying to schools in other boroughs with additional tests .
A fragmented education system is a direct result of setting schools against eachother in this competitive "I'm the sponsor with the best chain "approach .

[twoterrors]

Last academic year I raised similar points with Lambeth, suggesting they work towards a joint test with Wandsworth and Southwark, perhaps using the banding element of the Wandsworth test as a basis. They claimed it was cheaper to administer multiple and very simlar tests to the same children in succesive weeks!

Initially, they said it was the cost of giving the test to children applying to a non-testing school (as in wandsworth), but I kept pointing out that that was not necessary - they can just not sit the test. Eventually , they said the cost issue was that they had nothing to kick the process off with, but that Lambeth Academy would now use the main Lambeth test - which is great. They said the getting boroughs and then heads and govs to cooperate over this will be time consuming and cost money.


So I agree that it could be worth pursuing but be prepared for a lot of nonsense to come your way.

Last year, the children I know who sat Dunraven (main Lambeth Test) and Kingsdale (main Southwark test - used last year by all testing schools apart from the Harris ones) said the Lambeth NVR was the same as the Kingsdale test (ie NVR component of Lambeth same as Southwark), which makes the whole situation even more...words fail me.

Last year, Kingsdale definitely was involved in the admission process: it made waiting list offers by telephone and held the waiting list (although confusingly the LA did too and it was never clear whether the lists were identical).

Although it would be great if the Harris academies came into line, that is only the tip of the iceberg: where I live, with a shortage of local places at half-way popular schools, children can very reasonably sit different tests in four boroughs, and for different schools within that.

I would support a campaign to resolve this issue, and I know other parents would locally, but I would guess from previous things I have been involved in that there wil be a time-consuming and frustrating.

However, I don't think it should be beyond the wit of government that for schools allowed to select on academics, it comes up with a short menu of tests (one lot for banding, one for selective), and schools have to pick from them and share the results so that children do not have to keep sitting the same or similar tests.

Problem is: it sounds remarkably like the 11-plus and banding schools certainly, and local and national govt, will not want that association - they prefer to pretend it is not happening.

[prh47bridge]

What a complex situation! You have my sympathy. And no problem with the muddled train of thought - I understand why you are struggling with it.

Starting with the basics, when a school is its own admission authority it can set its own admission criteria. The LA cannot force it to adopt the same admission criteria as other schools in the area. This has, of course, always been the case for faith schools. Academies and foundation schools just add to the confusion.

There is a requirement that the admission criteria for each school are understandable by parents. Unfortunately each school is considered in isolation, so there is nothing to stop the kind of mish mash you have in Southwark.

The Admissions Code does say that if several schools within an LA band they SHOULD use a common test. In this context, SHOULD means it is a guideline and is not compulsory so schools can set their own tests. Perhaps if enough parents complained to those schools that use tests and pointed out the guideline in paragraph 2.91 of the admissions code it might bring about change. It is only a guideline so change can't be forced, but a campaign (possibly including the local press) highlighting the fact that your child has had to take X tests might get people's attention.

The Admissions Code allows faith schools and academies to use supplementary forms. There are strict limits as to what they can ask on those forms and the forms must be available through the LA but there is no requirement for them to band together and use a common form. Again, no-one has any power to use a common form but a campaign highlighting the difficulties for parents may have an effect.

The admissions process is administered by Southwark. The only involvement the schools have is in placing the applicants in order according to their admission criteria. Southwark sort out what offers are actually made and deal with all the administration. That is supposed to be enough to make it simple for parents, but in Southwark's case I would agree that it isn't.

So overall my take on this is that the schools in Southwark are complying with the Admissions Code but that this shows that there can be problems where a high proportion of schools are their own admission authorities. If I were in your situation I would consider writing to my MP. I don't think that would immediately change things, especially as no rules appear to be being broken, but if enough people complain about this sort of problem it will make the authorities sit up and listen and may eventually bring about a rethink in the way the Admissions Code works in this kind of situation.

[gingeroots]

prh - thanks for being understanding about my view that Academies don't have /don't follow the same "rules " as maintained schools .
Regarding admission criteria - not regarding a particular school ,but the admission criteria for Southwark Secondary schools ( which are all faith ,Foundation ,or Academies )makes for a situation which I feel is definitely not in accordance with the Admissions Code .
Doesn't this require that the system be understandable by parents ?
There is such a mish mash in the borough - some schools give priority to distance ,one has 3 bands and scholarships ,the Harris Academies have 9 bands ,one has inner and outer areas and banding .
Nearly all require supplemental application forms - so what's the point of Southwark saying that they have a common entrance form ?
Those that band set their own tests - I understand that they ignore requests from Southwark that children should not be required to take multiple tests when going through secondary transfer .
All the secondary schools in Southwark are their own admissions authorities .The law might say that they have to go along with what Southwark advises them on admission procedures ( I'm guessing there is some such requirement ) but what leverage would the LA have over the big hitters ,like Harris ?
Bit of a muddled train of thought ,sorry . Guess I'm just trying to say that guidelines /laws etc are one thing - the reality and practice is another .I think things start to creep away from the letter of the law and that sponsors see a way of acheiving their own ends .

[prh47bridge]

Talkinpeace - Let me be clear - LA's get it wrong and ignore provisions within the law and the Admissions Code. I gave a recent example affecting over 60 schools in one of my posts and I could come up with many more. I see no reason to believe that academies are any better. However, gingeroots started by saying that academies are not required to stay within the law in the same way as LA schools. That is untrue. The law applies just as much to academies as the LA schools.

For what it is worth the ban on interviews was only introduced in February 2007 so interviews before then were legal.

I have to say that it is not my experience that the Admissions Code is widely ignored. Do you have any examples?

[Talkinpeace]

prh
You clearly know the law far better than most of us. But you seem very optimistic that it will be followed in both letter and spirit.
There have been cases in London (Mumsnetters will probably be able to name the schools)
where the Admissions code was ignored wholesale for years. Schools have been interviewing, you name it. Eventually they get reported. A few years later they get stopped - partly. But there are no sanctions on the HT or the GB so the got away with it.
And schools all over the country are getting away with it.
The admissions code is a great idea but it is widely ignored.
Especially by academies - not the Oasis ones here in Soton - they are the schools we avoid so they take anybody daft enough to go through the door.

[prh47bridge]

Nlondondad - Thanks for the praise by the way. Much appreciated

[prh47bridge]

Nlondondad - I am an evangelical protestant Christian (although I keep that to myself on here) and I used to know Steve Chalke, albeit that was a long time ago and I haven't been in touch with him for many years. I am aware that he founded Oasis but I would not describe them as "his own network of churches". I don't think that is an accurate description of the setup.

The Oasis position on homosexuality is shared by most of the mainstream churches, although some are more up front about it than others. I don't know how that reflects into Oasis' employment practises. I can't find any published statements regarding employment or otherwise of openly homosexual teachers. They do employ non-Christian teachers. Indeed, the at least one of their schools has a non-Christian head.

However, whatever the rights and wrongs (and I don't claim to be an expert on Oasis), clearly Oasis schools are not to your taste. My view is that there should be a range of provision so that parents have a good chance of getting their children into a school that they are happy with. Then, if parents weren't happy with what Oasis were providing, they could vote with their feet and the school would have to change or close.

[prh47bridge]

I can understand your caution if you feel that you have been fed a lot of spin - I obviously don't know your local academy so cannot comment. However, the information I am giving doesn't come from academies or their supporters and it isn't fine words. I am setting out the law. There is no way round the law.

Yes, admission policies can be changed. But they cannot be changed in ways which flout the law. If an academy's admission arrangements do not comply with the law or the Admissions Code (which has the force of law), parents, local authorities, admission forums, other schools and relevant faith groups can appeal to the Secretary of State. Decisions by the Secretary of State can be taken to judicial review. The courts will insist that academies comply with the law and the Admissions Code, even if the Secretary of State doesn't.

If the admission arrangements are not administered correctly parents can appeal. If the appeal is successful the academy MUST admit the child. If the appeal panel finds that the admission arrangements are contrary to the relevant legislation and/or the Admissions Code they are required to notify the relevant authorities who will ensure that the academy changes its arrangements to comply.

If the appeal is unsuccessful parents can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman if the appeal process did not conform to the relevant legislation and codes or if the appeal panel made a decision that was clearly contrary to the evidence. The LGO will enforce the law, the Admissions Code and the Admission Appeals Code. Parents also have the option of taking the matter to judicial review. The courts have wider powers than the LGO, both in terms of reviewing appeal decisions and enforcing the law. They will enforce the law and the codes. If the academy ignores a decision by the courts they will be guilty of contempt of court, which can result in large fines and/or imprisonment.

Fundamentally, you are suggesting that academies don't have to comply with the law. That is not true. The law applies to everyone. There is no way the academies can persuade the courts that the law (and the relevant codes, which have the force of law) does not apply to them. There is no way the academies can persuade the courts not to enforce the law. Unless and until the law changes to give academies some exemptions they MUST comply. They have no choice.

I am sure there will be some failures to comply but that happens with faith schools and LA schools as well. I helped a parent with an appeal earlier this year where the LA was operating waiting lists in a manner contrary to the Admissions Code for every one of their 60+ schools. That LA has now been forced to change its policies so that it does comply with the Code. So yes, I am sure that some academies will get it wrong. But they are in exactly the same position as LA schools and faith schools - they are required to comply with the law and the relevant statutory codes and can be forced to do so if necessary.

[nlondondad]

prh47Bridge

I accept that you are authoritative on admissions law and procedures -not blind faith on my part as so far all the advice you give that I am in a position to verify is correct, so it seems reasonable to me to assume that you know what you are talking about and I think your guidance and knowledge adds much to this forum -"added value" even.

BUT

I fear you do not know much about religion or the ways of Steve Chalke, who is unfortunately, not unique.

If you did you would know that what he means by having a Christian School rather than a school for Christians is that a school for Christians, like my local C of E school is for people who are committed to the Anglican version of Christianity and wish their children to be educated in that ethos. A "Christian" school in Chalkes sense is there precisely to recruit in children from a secular background so that they may be ultimately, converted.

And by Christian he means Protestant and by Protestant he means non episcopal and evangelical.

The network of community churches is his own establishment, as although an ordained Baptist he broke with the Baptists on a point of theology. (And as it happens its a disagreement where if I had to choose sides, I would be on Steve Chalkes')

The Oasis position on homosexuality is that one should hate the sin and not the sinner, however employment of "out" gays is contrary to their ethos, as they do not wish to "promote" homosexuality. Their sex education programme is declared to be based on the bible, but as he told Libby Purves on "The learning Curve" the bible is common sense on these matters anyway. So why should a secular person worry?

Oasis, however, do NOT promote creationism. Steve Chalke's view is that the Genesis story should be read as a poem based on a Babylonian creation myth and so should not be taught as fact, unlike say, the Vardy Academy.

So you could say, he is not the worst, but he is very active and why should he be subsidised by our taxes in his enterprises?

AND

Why should the right of parents to elect members of the Governing Body be reduced to a vestige when a school becomes an Academy?

Of course you are right to point out that the loss of parental influence is not required, but it is permitted.

[gingeroots]

Perhaps I should add ,I'm not just ignoring what you say out of bloodymindeness.
But my experience of DC's school becoming an Academy has been so bad ,involved so many lies ,so much spin amd manoevering and it still goes on .
We have a horrible school now in place of a good ,all inclusive one .Parents are fed a constant diet of " what a wonderful success we are " ,but it's based on massive exclusions and exam results that have risen because for eg on line exams ( Asdan ? ) and portfolio courses which are deemed to be the equiovalent of GCSE are now taken .
I just don't trust the information ( sincerely repeated I'm sure ) that you quote .
Easy for fine words to turn out to be something different in reality ,or for these Academies to find a way round them .

[gingeroots]

Thanks 47bridge ,but I remain doubtful .
And as you know adimissions policies can be changed after consultation ,and we all know what consultation means .
We tell you whhat we're going to do .

[prh47bridge]

gingeroots - "Having regard to" and "operating within the framework" are typical bureaucratic gobbledegook which mean the same as "complying in full". After all, if you fail to comply in full you are not operating within the framework - you are straying outside it.

To take admissions (my specialist subject!) as an example, academies MUST comply with the relevant legislation IN FULL. They must also comply with the Admissions Code IN FULL - as a statutory document it has the force of law. If they fail to comply they can be referred to the Schools Adjudicator or the Local Government Ombudsman as appropriate. Neither of these bodies will allow academies to get away with a lower standard of compliance with the law than state schools. Aggrieved parents can also take the academies to judicial review. The courts will enforce the law. They will not allow academies to ignore the law. They will not give any leeway in compliance to academies.

Academies DO NOT have lesser obligations than state schools. The obligations are identical. There are no exemptions for academies. In the absence of exemptions, full compliance is compulsory.

And by the way, the same language IS used for state schools. The Admissions Code, for example, at one point talks about "having regard to the reasonable adjustments required under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005". That does NOT mean that schools can get away with anything less than complete compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

[Talkinpeace]

I think there is a real issue of perception now.
No good school will want to be called an "Academy" as it has become shorthand for "was failing now hiding behind lack of LEA control".
Too many of the existing academies were set up with too little knowledge. Cory's school and my local are a case in point.
Nobody quite knows why the University tender to to run the four old schools was turned down in favour of a bunch of happy clappies with little long term experience of making schools work.
Giving each of the kids a bible has not stopped them throwing stones at buses.
Giving the first year intake free uniforms just caused resentment from the second year intake.
Making teachers drive between sites to deliver lessons with no timetable gap between them should never have been allowed.

And the level of exclusions at some (not the Soton ones) is extraordinary.

[cory]

"Serving and respecting everyone regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability."

Yup, this was exactly the kind of guff they gave us. What they were not able to explain is how they can serve children of any physical capability if they can't even be bothered to find out if the school they have just started is wheelchair adapted and have NO plan for dealing with accessibility problems. Dd wouldn't exactly have been helped by the knowledge that they "respected" her.

To be fair, there have been very few complaints, if any, about Oasis trying to impose their Christian beliefs on the community. This does not seem to be a major problem.

All the complaints (and they have been vociferous!) have centered on the fact that we had a well organised council-run secondary school with good results, and this was taken away from us to be replaced by a chaotic school with appalling results and no discipline. Parent protests were completely ignored.

The other fact that was blatantly obvious at the open evening was that the management had a very negative attitude towards academic studies: the assumption in the introductory talk was clearly that we all had negative experiences of school and wanted to be reassured that there wouldn't be lots of nasty academic learning going on. From what I gather, there hasn't been

[gingeroots]

47bridge - sorry to highjack the thread ,it is of course a different conversation if we are discussing new style ,rather than existing Academies . ( although they do seem similar )
However ..I didn't say that old Academies were exempt from the law re SEN and asdmissions ,my point was that they have lesser obligations .
You feel that " having regard to " /" operating within the framework " ( which are 2 of the phrases found in existing Academy Funding Agreements ) puts them in exactly the same position as state maintained schools .But why would such imprecise language be used ,it's not the language used when state sector schools'responsibilties are discussed.
I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence and that we'll have to differ on this one .

[prh47bridge]

Sorry - for "founding new churches" read "founding new schools"!