Did Supply in a new Academy yesterday and feel sad

[gabid]

Yesterday I went into a once failing school in a deprived area that has been an Academy for a year now. The first impression was good - new buildings, great photos of children in the reception area, but at the end of the day I felt sad .

There was no ino given to me (e.g. rewards and sanctions, map of the school etc) so I felt I was sent into the classroom 'naked'. I had to ask someone in the staffroom.

In general, I felt the kids weren't motivated or interested, even the better groups, behaviour in class and around the school was very poor (shouting, swearing - just lots of noise). I entered a couple of classrooms and there was lots of rubbish on the floor (in period 4 and 5).

I spoke to some members of staff and they didn't seem to have enough textbooks to go round, I didn't see many in the classrooms either.

And in P5 I taught a bottom Y9 group who didn't know their timestables and after the lesson on the way out I had to break up a fight.

Shouldn't things change and improve with turning a school into an Academy?

You sound worried about this, warwick.

As Prh points out, academies can and are being put in special measures, and the academy trust should take measures to get them out. This doesn't always happen (see Marlowe Academy in Kent). Unlike when a community school is placed in special measures, the local authority has no responsibility to support the school.

The line of accountability from the academy chain is the DfE.

Are you concerned about a particular school?

The academy and academies I am concerned with have been run by a multi academy chain company for some years, the chain is apparently well thought of by Michael Gove, yet these academies despite their own PR have in reality (and according to data available) failed to improve to a satisfactory level and still can't reach even a 'good', ofsted rating. They appear to have introduced many GCSE 'equivalents' courses (valued at 2, 3 and 4 GCSE's) in order to try to boost their GCSE A*-C GSCE including Eng and Maths results but when these are discounted, their results are reduced by a further 13% against a national average of 6%.

The chain now appears to have an aim of 'all through education", that is taking over local feeder primary schools. Outcome will be that parents in the area will only have a chain group academy as an option.

It is true that once taken over there is no escaping. These chain groups are really new local authorities but without any accountability.

To say that the DFE control them is rather misleading, the DFE and Michael Gove appear to follow what the CEO's of these academy chains want. Although fully funded by the tax payer, the remuneration of executive staff is much higher than that given to DFE staff or local authority staff. The CEO's appear to be paid more the the chief executive of a large LA, certainly much more than the Prime Minister. Directors of academy chains can also be directors of the companies supplying them.

Academy chain companies appear to be running the education system in this country now, I'm not opposed to single or small group converter academies who run their own affairs but setting up unelected, unaccountable companies that run 30 - 80+ academies as replacements for local authorities seems to be stretching the original idea a touch to far.

Are you able to name the academy chain, Warwick?

Yes Rosebud: AET

I thought so. I looked at AET's schools as they've been given 2 primaries in Haringey. Their track record is poor and they're planning to double in size this year with more to come.

I agree with you about the insidious nature of academy chains - there's no mandate for this and it wasn't in any party's manifesto.

Yes. I was particularly concerned that AET's CEO has it appears according to the AET 2011 Finance Report, been awarded a 9% + pay award this year despite the poor record of the group. The CEO now appears to have a remuneration of £240,000+ K, is this as bad as business/ bank leaders being rewarded for failure. The fact that trust governors are also paid as consultants rubs salt into the wound.

It is also interesting to note that the CEO is also a director of a labour recruitment and provision of personnel company: Synarbor PLC.

It would be interesting to know how many other directorships are held by executive members of the AET.

It must be remembered that this was the first academy sponsor to be set up by the last government that was funded solely by the DFE (taxpayer), so surely we as parents (and tax payers) should have some transparency, at the very least the AET should be held publicly accountable. This doesn't appear to be the case as you say, as the DFE is handing over even more schools to the group even though they have failed to improve their existing schools. The AET say they challenge, support and monitor their academies, surely the AET should be challenged and monitored as well - if they are, currently that doesn't appear very effective.

Can you clarify that point - do you mean that Board members are being paid as consultants or something else?

Would it be unfair to assume that AET schools use supply and other staff from Synarbor PLC?

At the 2 schools which AET are taking over near me, they'be been at pains to say that nothing will change - Heads will stay the same, governing bodies etc, which begs the question 'what the hell are you doing then?

Yes Rosebud. According to AET Finance Report of 2011, AET Board members were paid considerable sums as consultants. Apparently this isn't illegal. It also isn't illegal for academy chain directors to be directors of companies supplying their academies with goods, resources or services.

AET usually say nothing will change, its all down to the academy how they progress they say!!! In reality, within a year or two there appears to be significant changes to staff, staffing levels, local governing board membership, curriculum, services bought in from third party companies, systems, policies and strategies. AET staff from other academies often appear to transfer as replacements for staff who leave for various reasons!! This can be useful during ofsted visits!! AET centralised HR deals with all staff recruitment.

When the AET take over, all staff become employees of the AET with all that entails. AET management systems, structures and policies are adopted, this cannot fail to impact greatly on the existing school. AET employ press and PR staff which makes it difficult to sort the 'sound bite' from genuine information and data.

Best advice is never take anything at face value, always ask the searching question. You will quickly find that the school suddenly becomes labelled 'world class'. Don't accept the supercial data provided, its necessary to dig deep although that is difficult given the lack of transparency. Academy chain companies appear adept at providing the data that backs their public argument, check the government sites for more meaningful data.

Once taken over the school/academy loses autonomy, as with any corporate company, loyalty to the AET is paramount. Both staff and local governors are bound by strict confidentiality policies which appear to be enforced to protect AET interests primarily. Its difficult for ordinary parents to get to the truth. Good luck.

Thanks, Warwick. I had some knowledge about the way directors of academy chains effectively divert public funds in to the pockets of themselves and their friends and that is useful - though very depressing - information.

I'm interested in what you said about the CEOs of academy chains being in control of Michael Gove. I wonder if these guys were promised schools in return for donations (I'm thinking of Harris in particular)?

I've had some experience of the spin of the academy chains. They're relentless, self-interested self-publicists who have no interest in the children, parents or teachers involved in their schools, only how they can make their brand look.

The directors of academy chains are trustees of charities. They cannot be paid for acting as trustees. They (or a connected person, which includes a company in which they have an interest) can supply goods or services to the charity but the law lays down rules that have to be followed. For example, trustees receiving payments must be in a minority, no trustee may be paid for acting as a trustee, the payment must be reasonable, the trustee concerned may not take part in any decisions concerning the agreement and so on. Of course this is sometimes abused as happens in all walks of life. This thread is once again getting very close to suggesting that the trustees of academy chains are engaged in criminal activities.

Since donations to political parties are public information it is easy to find out what has been donated. The Harris Federation has never donated anything to a political party. Lord Harris, who funds the Harris Federation, has not made any political donations since January 2006.

What are your thought, Warwick? Is it cash donations that are giving the CEOs of these companies such influence or, equally likely, that they were promised schools?

Lord Harris has donated millions of pounds to the Tory party. He's a close friend of David Cameron. And he's being given our children's schools in a deeply untransparent procurement process.

If you include donations made by his companies he has made substantial donations to the Conservative Party although I make it under £2M. However, as a trustee of Harris Federation he is unpaid and the most recent accounts show that he had no beneficial interest in any contract with the Federation. Money has, in fact, flowed the other way. He has provided funding to the Harris Federation and has also contributed to many other schools and colleges. If you are suggesting that the official accounts are incorrect and he has personally benefited you are saying that he and others within the Harris Federation are engaged in criminal activities.

It's fascinating how many posts of yours about Lord Harris contain the phrase 'criminal activity' PRH.

You're the one that suggested it; Warwick and I were discussing quite different matters.

I was responding to your last post which appeared to suggest that Lord Harris is personally profiting from Harris Academies. If that was what you meant you are, knowingly or not, making allegations that criminal offences have been committed. My apologies if that is not what you were suggesting.

I was also responding to Warwick1's post suggesting that trustees of academies are able to personally profit from academies and pointing out that this is regulated by law. The way Warwick1's post was written suggested that all or most of the trustees of an academy or academy chain might be profiting in various ways. That would be illegal.

So can anyone tell me why schools, failing or otherwise, schools are turned into academies? I thought it was the equivalent of a school bootcamp - tough love etc plus more investment. If not, what is the point?

Hello prh47bridge: Apparently it isn't illegal for trustees of the main board of an academy chain company to act as consultants to the chain group company and be paid accordingly. If it was then the 2011 Finance Report for the AET (audited and submitted) would not identify by name members who have received consultancy fees and the amounts they have received.

Likewise it is not illegal for directors of the academy chain company to also be directors of companies supplying their academies. This fact has been discussed in parliament by local MP's. The directors and board members concerned are apparently not doing anything wrong under the law. Morally, well thats another question as Rosebud expresses.

As far as OrmIrian's question - why! The theory was that schools would have more money to spend and less bureaucracy. Unfortunately, so many of these academies end up having to lose staff to pay for all the services they need to pay for once they leave the LA and the centralised services they have to take on as part of the agreement they make when joining a chain academy group. Also, chain academy groups appear to be imposing an even greater level of bureaucracy on their academies. In theory it was a good idea, not sure its now working out, particularly for chain academy group academies. They don't appear to be reaping the school improvement they were promised by these chain groups.

In my opinion Mr Gove gives undue weight to the opinions of chain group CEO's. He seems to believe they are the answer to his prayers and will somehow deliver the 'world class' education he seeks, which is why he is asking existing chains like the AET to take on more and more schools. Most evidence so far doesn't indicate that these chains are delivering as promised. They just appear to know how to give a superficial impression of success which doesn't bare forensic scutiny.

Mr Gove needs to get better data to inform his decisions. He owes it to us parents and more importantly to our children.

Warwick1 - No, I did not say it is illegal. However, there are rules. Trustees can only be paid for things they do beyond acting as a trustee. If they are being paid simply for acting as a trustee an offence is being committed. The trustess receiving payments must be in a minority. If the majority of the trustees are being paid an offence is being committed. Similarly they must be able to show that any payment is reasonable for the services provided. If the trustee or a company with which the trustee is connected is being paid over the odds an offence is being committed. That is not an exhaustive list of the requirements laid down by the law.

The Academies Show today. Lots of information about profit making 'providers' who can supply essential services to schools.

Nothing about teaching and learning.

www.academiesshow.co.uk/who-should-exhibit/

That's about it, really.

Exactly Rosebud. Profitable business all round it seems.

prh47bridge: How about £44 +K payment for a consultancy fee. Is that reasonable.

Of course supplying the education sector is a profitable business. I know a number of people who have become millionaires through supplying goods and services to LA-controlled schools. If it wasn't profitable no-one would want to supply them.

For comparison, this is the equivalant page for the Education Show:

www.education-show.com/education/website/Default2.aspx?refer=8&id=mainLnk8

Again, all about profit making providers who can supply essential services to schools. Other organisations may exhibit but companies looking to make a profit will generally dominate exhibitions. Both shows, of course, have conferences running alongside that have plenty about teaching and learning.

As for whether £44k is a reasonable fee for consultancy, that, of course, depends on the nature of the consultancy work, the seniority of the consultant and the number of days involved. If you were paying Hampshire County Council's Learning Centre for consultancy you would get around 75 days work for that, for example. In some lines of work you might get less than half that many days for a senior consultant. Ultimately whether or not the amount involved is reasonable is for the courts to decide.

Seriously?

This lot of seminars are about teaching and learning?
www.academiesshow.co.uk/seminar-programme/

I did not say all the sessions are about teaching and learning but to highlight a few:

Evidence-Based Strategies to Improve Learning

Going beyond CPD for outstanding teaching

From Good to Outstanding ? Improve your school using the Lilac Sky Schools Strategy

Looking at the descriptions I think a number of the other sessions also touch on teaching/learning to a greater or lesser degree. Of course, since the focus of this conference is converting to and successfully managing academies, there are lots of sessions on other subjects as well. The Education Show conference is pretty much exclusively about teaching/learning but there are plenty of other conferences aimed at LA-controlled schools that are less about teaching/learning and more about the other aspects of running a school - Building Future Education, for example.

That's a very, very few and at least one of them is obviously a sales pitch!!

Seems profitable for the CEO's of academy chain companies who set up third party companies to supply the academies they manage. Also appears profitable for trust board members who receive "consultancy fees" !!!

Not sure that the aim of the academy programme was to make the CEO's, directors and board member''s etc that manage them rich. I thought it was all about improving teaching and learning.

My impression of academies has give teachers more freedom in some areas in exchange for a chance in where funding comes from and some other things.

If you give more freedom to teachers who will use it, who have ideas and aspirations, then they'll go far. If you give more freedom to those who are tired and have given up dreaming then you won't get far....obviously that's an assumption about those teachers (I'd hope that at least some of them are good) but it sounds pretty bleak so that's the impression I get...

I imagine it could be worse though. No point getting depressed and negative (unless that's what motivates you) - your job is to be a supply so, unless you're thinking of changing jobs - go in there and be the best supply you can be! Hopefully provide a bit of inspiration and such. : )