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.

Not a good reason. It's not 'value for money' if there are so much of the money is going into individuals pockets.

What do you mean by quality and standards? At the moment a school can get taken away from an LA if it is failing. What happens in an academy system?

Value for money is a ridiculous argument
There is no magic porridge pot of money - it has to come from somewhere. Which other budget should it come from?

In theory, a school can be "rebrokered" which is what happened to one near me. Prospects Academy Trust withdrew. Someone else took over. Very unsettling for kids, parents and staff. It's a long winded process. DFE issues a warning and then it can be months.

At the moment a school can get taken away from an LA if it is failing.

No. A LA cannot be stripped of it's responsibilities. The schools can be "forced" to academise if they are failing as individual schools - but there are no penalties to the LA, who continue to be responsible for overseeing education in the area.

MAT's with failing schools are penalised by not being permitted to expand, and can be removed from being MAT's all together.

I don't think MATs do offer value. Or did I miss the news about tax cuts because state education is now cheaper? I think it's immoral that the fat cats at the top of MATs are drawing such a huge salary, whilst schools are impoverished.

MAT's with failing schools are penalised by not being permitted to expand

Which doesn't help the schools being failed by the MAT. Sure, it harms the MAT - sort of, but find me an example of an MAT which has been told to stop expanding and then suddenly pulls up the standards in its failing schools.

Any evidence at all that this happens?

Anecdotally - lots.

Independently through auditing - no, not because it doesn't happen, but because there is no process for checking.

As I pp's - some LA's charge schools the equivalent of a months TA salary for a one day Specialist Evaluation Visit. Does it really cost the LA that much?

Possibly. Auditors to private sector businesses charge £thousands per day.

Pretty sorry, I really don't understand your last post. A failing school can be "forced to academise" but that is not the same as taking it away from an LA?

MAT's with failing schools are penalised by not being permitted to expand, and can be removed from being MAT's all together.

What? Can LAs expand (good, bad or ugly)?

I don't think MATs do offer value. Or did I miss the news about tax cuts because state education is now cheaper?

Value for money does not mean cheaper.

It means that the benefits are greater for the same money. And, if accountability is greater for MAT's than LA's, then that is a benefit to the DfE and the public.

I really don't understand your last post. A failing school can be "forced to academise" but that is not the same as taking it away from an LA?

I didn't say that. MAT's loses it's responsibilities for education. The LA does not lose it's responsibilities for Education.

Even if all the schools in the area are forced to convert to academies (which is a far longer process than rebrokering), then that LA still receives funding for it's statutory responsibilities for education provision in the area, no matter how bad they are at it.

And yes, it can also set up new LA schools, despite having all the old ones removed.

But surely if value for money doesn't mean cheaper, it means 'we're spending the same or more, but we are getting much better results for it, so it's worth it!'

& there is no evidence that academies are better schools.

So if MATs don't work out cheaper, & they don't get better results, how are they giving better VFM?

There needs to be evidence that by moving to this model money will actually be saved without compromising standards OR that standards will improve relative to costs.

Can you show either?

Possibly. Auditors to private sector businesses charge £thousands per day.

Exactly - those auditors make a profit. The LA are employing Advisors on LA salaris, yet charge a day rate equivalent to a months TA salary. What are the LA doing with the rest of the money?

So if MATs don't work out cheaper, & they don't get better results, how are they giving better VFM?

Yes, very true!

Ok, I'll dance - so I'm running LA controlled school A & the LA is taking the piss in terms of charges for auditing (or whatever).

So screw you, LA, we're going academy!

Why does that mean school B, who are very happy with their LA, thank you, have to convert too?

There needs to be evidence that by moving to this model money will actually be saved without compromising standards OR that standards will improve relative to costs.

The "improvement" is the increased accountability for the same cost. MATs can be held accountable for results in a way that LA's can't. That in itself can drive up standards.

LA's have little motive to drive up standards - they are motivated by votes, which may, or may not, be linked to the quality of education in local schools.
MAT's on the other hand, have direct motivation to ensure standards in their schools are high.

That's rubbish, I'm afraid.

Schools are held very, very accountable for their results. Because league tables.

It's really not realistic that schools are cheerfully telling themselves 'oh our results are crap, lucky our LA don't care! Eek, we've been taken over by a carpet manufacturer - better start raising our game then!'

If MATs were, in fact, raising standards through greater 'accountability' we'd be able to find some hard evidence for that, no? I'd imagine Nicky & her team have tried.

Still haven't seen a convincing reason for forcing schools to become academies.

so I'm running LA controlled school A & the LA is taking the piss in terms of charges for auditing (or whatever). So screw you, LA, we're going academy!

But that assumes that the Schools are unhappy with the charges the LA are making.
If the school (ie the Governors) are willing to accept it, there is no external oversight that prevents the school remaining with an LA which is creaming off far more from school budgets than the neighbouring LA, for instance.

Given that LA Councillors have a seat on all Governing Bodies in their Wards, (not to mention the professional and personal relationships between LA and school staff) it's not difficult to see how a "cosy" relationship between schools and LA's can result in DC's being shortchanged.

There is absolutely no evidence that MATs are pushing up standards. None.

MATs also put "their" people on governing bodies/management boards. And are perfectly at liberty to remove parent governors, teacher governors and have as small a committee as they like.

It seems we are in agreement that creaming off education capitation for other purposes is not a good thing, then?

Well, I can definitely see how you'd get from there to championing MATs...

It's really not realistic that schools are cheerfully telling themselves 'oh our results are crap, lucky our LA don't care! Eek, we've been taken over by a carpet manufacturer - better start raising our game then!'

This isn't about the schools, its about the MAT and how they "support" the schools.

I have absolutely no doubt that schools are doing the best they can with the resources available. They may, or may not, be happy about the level of funding they are giving to the LA or MAT for services received.

But the services delivered will reflect the motivations of the MAT or LA that delivers them. An MAT which knows they will be held accountable for poor school performance is more likely to deliver good services than a LA which knows they are not.

But that is not what has been happening for the last few years. E-ACT, Perry Beeches, AET etc etc - they have not driven standards up. So many MATs are failing schools, and therefore are failing children. There is no evidence to the contrary.

MATs also put "their" people on governing bodies/management boards. And are perfectly at liberty to remove parent governors, teacher governors and have as small a committee as they like.

That's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not an LA school decides to become an Academy to avoid being shafted by a greedy LA.