What does Nicky Morgan not seem to understand?

[theluckiest]

Nicky Morgan urges teachers' unions to 'do their bit' www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35899478

No Nicky, teaching is not wonderful at the moment. No, teachers are not just moaning yet again (because that's what we usually do, isn't it?). No, your constant interfering, moving of goalposts and unnecessary 'reforms' are not helping anyone. In fact, you are damaging education irreparably.

Here's an example: the 'more rigorous' testing that you insist all 11 year olds should be put through are actually damaging. They are demoralising teachers but much more importantly, they are seriously damaging children's mental health. Yes, really. The stress these children are being put under is unforgivable this year. As a school we are held to ransom because of these tests (let's be honest, tests that we teachers, parents and schools know are bullshit).

They feel like they have failed already because your 'rigour' is inappropriate, unnecessary and completely pointless. They despise learning this nonsense and I can't blame them. At a time of their lives when learning should be exciting, they are force-fed inaccurate, archaic grammar and given the message that their writing cannot be good enough if it doesn't have a semi-colon.

Sounds crazy doesn't it? Because it is. So forgive me if I don't "Use the tools available to them to build up teachers, promote the profession and tell the story of what a rewarding job teaching really is" at the moment. (how I laughed when I read that one!!)

And don't get me started on academisation....Nicky, take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Before it's too late.

I don't feel particularly reassured, pretty, that already a significant number of MATs have been sanctioned only a few years into academisation. None of this helps me feel any happier or reassured about the fact that my DS will start his state education this September!

My school is the centre of a MAT and at the moment it has a handful of schools, which is manageable. I'm a bit worried that if everyone has to join a MAT then we'll suddenly get a bunch more, which would be over stretching.

'those bastards win the next election & force it on everyone'.
prescient fella!

MrsGuyOfGisbo

"however, logically if hitherto the academies have only taken over the failing schools ( ie that LAs have allowed to fail) then obviously they are starting from an unfavourable position in relation to the thriving schools."

the thing is that they haven't just taken over failing schools, some schools have moved towards being an academy, others had ofsted ratings that went from outstanding to special measures (who watches the watchmen?)

The figures shown by the government show that being an academy has had very little effect on these schools whether good, bad or indifferent.

Are there examples of LAs taking the piss so spectacularly financially Pretty?

As there is no way for the DfE to subject LA schools to the same financial scrutiny as Academies then it's difficult to compare, jelly.

I'd suggest the £thousand+ fees that some of LAs charge for an advisor to spend a few hours in the school might be viewed as 'taking the piss' as would be the lack of action by LAs referred to on this thread in relation to schools which have build up £millions in overspend.

That's the point. LAs are not accountable to anyone other than the local electorate. Academies are.

He was a wily old bugger, Guy.

To be fair, he encouraged me to oppose it, & having steamrollered it through anyway, insisted I be on the new P & C committee on the grounds that 'all the other bolshy sods listen to you, you can tell them I'm not sending them up chimneys just yet'

LA schools were/are audited every year and that is in the public domain. Perry Beeches shows just how private MATs can get away with being. AET had a financial scandal recently too, after which its MD "retired". LA schools were accountable to the public. Academies are not.

A couple of years ago

He was a wily old bugger

Different MAT

evil LAs are responsible for auditing schools. They are elected by and accountable to the public.

I fail to see the difference between that and the responsibility auditing of MATs by central government which is also elected by, and accountable to, the public.

I don't think that recent (and older) news stories suggest that auditing of MATs has been particularly successful, do you?

Unless you think that the public are happy with the amount of money being secreted away by top-of-the-tree employees of MATs? That money has to come from somewhere.

I don't think that recent (and older) news stories suggest that auditing of MATs has been particularly successful, do you?

It depends what you think the objective is?

If it's the detection of poor/fraudulent financial management, then it's been very effective.

As a deterrent, it's hard to tell - because no one knows what the rate of poor/fraudulent financial management is in the LA sector. It may be a lot lower in the Academy sector. Who knows?

Weren't the Perry Beeches irregularities found out after a whistle blower spoke out?

Unless you think that the public are happy with the amount of money being secreted away by top-of-the-tree employees of MATs? That money has to come from somewhere.

But LAs may be doing the same thing.

Why should schools pay the LA fees for services at a rate set by the LA that subsidises other LA depts?

It may not be lining private pockets but it's still being diverted away from DCs education. It is it ok to shortchange schools as long as the money is being spent on other public services?

Clearly that's not ideal but yes it's marginally better than lining private pockets! And why is the solution academies when there's no clear evidence that they are better?

It is it ok to shortchange schools as long as the money is being spent on other public services?

No but better that than spent on luxury holidays or fast cars by corrupt tossers.

however, logically if hitherto the academies have only taken over the failing schools ( ie that LAs have allowed to fail) then obviously they are starting from an unfavourable position in relation to the thriving schools. So they have a harder task than the LAs, which are just presumably maintaining the standards of the non-failing schools they kept?

That's not true though, is it? What about the Good/Outstanding schools that chose to become academies?

But any existing school can already 'sack' its LA & become an academy if it chooses.

It might choose to do so because the LA is inefficient or unfair re distribution of funding. Fair enough.

Why is that a good reason to compel another school in the next LA, who have a great working relationship with their LA, no desire to change, to join a MAT?

Still no answer to that Speak. I have yet to see a single reason why it would be a good idea for the students, teachers or taxpayers in general.

I have yet to see a single reason why it would be a good idea for the students, teachers or taxpayers in general.

There is the "value for money" reason I posted up thread. The DFE can, and does, hold Academies to account in a way it can't hold LAs to account for quality and standards.

Why should schools pay the LA fees for services at a rate set by the LA that subsidises other LA depts?

Any evidence at all that this happens?

I am pretty sure that LA Chief Education Officers never earned in excess of £220,000, or that they got paid twice.

And I really don't think that news stories about such things show that the audit process is working. These things should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, let alone be covered up. There is no transparency - the MATs who make the news are not running schools for the benefit of the children.

I'm not a teacher, so I hope nobody minds me posting, and I haven't read the full thread yet, but I am horrified.

My DCs don't even go to school now - we withdrew them last year, not because of any objection to the school system (they just aren't 'school shaped' IYSWIM), but I am so relieved they are out of this mess now. :( I seem to read something new every day that makes me despair even more.

The DFE can, and does, hold Academies to account in a way it can't hold LAs to account for quality and standards.

Which is why large MATs like AET are still running huge amounts of failing schools? Oh please. Value for money is a ridiculous argument - we are talking about children, whose life chances are being damaged. But hey, as long as it's cheap...