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 really. You made the point that having LA people on a governing body means schools have a "cosy" relationship with the LA and are therefore less likely to complain. I'm saying it's the same for academies.

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.

It's a longer term strategy.

The fact that E-ACT, Perry Beeches and AET have already been held to account - in a way that LA's can't be - will result in higher standards longer term because they will either change their ways, or the schools will be rebrokered and the MAT's prevented from sponsoring any more schools.

And the children who are caught up in it? Will they feel ok that they languished in a school in SM because the MATs were playing the "long game"? There can be no "long term" strategy in education because kids get one chance. And if their one chance was during the time that a school was going through turmoil, they're shafted.

You seem very unconcerned about the kids. You make no reference to them at all.

17 pages and still no evidence that it would be a good thing in any way for schools to be forced to become academies.

And "being prevented from sponsoring any further schools" doesn't help the schools suffering at the hands of well-paid but largely disinterested MAT managers.

You made the point that having LA people on a governing body means schools have a "cosy" relationship with the LA and are therefore less likely to complain. I'm saying it's the same for academies.

But the LA has no external motivation for driving up standards in schools. MAT's do.

An MAT model offers additional protection that the money will benefit students - because even if the school and MAT are in cahoots, there is external accountability with penalities for results on the MAT. There is no such external accountability or penalties on LA's

No evidence that it works. None.

Look, pretty, I can totally envisage, in theory, an effective, ethical, well resourced MAT doing a fabulous job, getting great results, teaching happy kids & with enthusiastic teachers begging to work there.

& if such a set up can sell itself to a school - as better than the LA alternative - then it's hard to argue against the school having that option.

(I still would; I'm not a fan of commercial interests in education, but I'd have to concede that the school governors have the right to make that choice & my option would be then to go elsewhere).

But you simply aren't offering persuasive arguments for compelling schools to go down the MAT route.

Every school in the UK has already considered the academy option. Lots of them clearly aren't convinced it will be good for them - understandably, given the total lack of evidence of any raise in standards.

The government have failed to make their case for universal academisation. School leaders aren't convinced, teachers aren't convinced, parents aren't convinced; & there is NO evidence the government could use to convince them.

And the children who are caught up in it? Will they feel ok that they languished in a school in SM because the MATs were playing the "long game"?

What about the DC's caught up in LA schools in SM? My DD was in a primary school that was failing for over 5 years. Her year group made no progress for two years in KS2.
At least something has been done about the MAT's. Nothing was done about the LA.

I teach in an academy. We were RI when we joined the MAT. We are now in SM. About 1/3 of the staff are supply. Several are unqualified. We are not allowed to advertise through the normal channels because our sponsor says we have no money. How is that being supportive and accountable? It is indefensible and it makes me sick that the man at the top is taking home £220,000+ whilst the kids in my school are being "taught" by a string of random supply staff.

So excuse me if I cannot see anything in your arguments but crap. MATs are not a magic solution. It's taken 4 years for this particular trust to destroy my school, and they have done literally fuck about it. The DFE issued a warning in September. It looks likely we'll be rebrokered and that the current sponsor has therefore cut their losses and decided to step back and leave us to it.

Any comeback on that Evil? What with all that lovely 'accountability' your MAT has?

pretty

Academies have been running for 8ish years (possibly) and have shown no evidence of improvement of pupils levels, or VFM.

Given that the term long term strategy seems to mean a year possibly 2 years (diplomas, new gcses, ebacc, progress 8, changing grades during exams, moving grades to levels, introducing rigour to completely changing exams, removal of mickey mouse subjects, still doing most of the same mickey mouse subjects under a different specification), how long should we give academies to prove themselves and how many children should suffer due to the change over from MAT to a different MAT before anyone suddenly blames schools/teachers/LEA for poor results? (remembering that from gove onwards, success is measured in children failing exams.)

*evil" How many schools does the MAT have? Have standards dropped in all of the schools? How is the Regional Schools Commissioner addressing the issue?

That pattern in a single school cannot be attributed to the school joining an MAT - similar examples can be given from the LA sector. But if the MAT has overseen the failure of several schools, then it can, and should, be held to account. An LA could oversee dozens of schools moving into SM and not only are the LA not held to account, they are expected to provide the support to improve standards!

No system will guarantee that all schools will be Good or Better all the time, at the same time.

The DFE issued a warning in September. It looks likely we'll be rebrokered and that the current sponsor has therefore cut their losses and decided to step back and leave us to it.

x-post.

So the MAT has been held to account. What would have happened if the school had gone from RI to SM under a poor LA?

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/academies-accountability-schools-halewood-knowsley-11100105

Trying to hold an academy to account.

Issuing a letter has had no effect. Read the post. There have been no improvements where those improvements are needed. Holding an MAT to account is meaningless if nothing happens.

It's a huge MAT. I believe at last count more than half of its schools were RI or Inadequate.

PrettyBrightFireflies

"So the MAT has been held to account"

but they haven't been held to account, no fines, no real sanctions. the MAT has been allowed to step back and leave the school to drift.

The next MAT gets a "poorly" performing school which they don't want to invest money in to and the cycle begins again.

Her year group made no progress for two years in KS2

Really?

Every single child in her whole year group made no progress whatsoever in any subject for 2 whole years?

Which school was that?

but they haven't been held to account, no fines, no real sanctions. the MAT has been allowed to step back and leave the school to drift.

The School is being rebrokered to another MAT - and if half or more of it's schools are RI/SM, then it won't be long before it is an exMAT. Take all the schools away from an MAT and the MAT ceases to exist.

summer - I'm not naming the school because it will identify me. However, it is documented in the OfSTED report as being the case. Of course, individual pupils may have made some progress, but overall, the year group she was in had the same average attainment at the end of Yr 6 as they did at the end of Yr 4. Some specific groups had dropped in attainment over that period. I wish I could say it's the worst OfSTED report I've ever read, but it isn't. I've seen worse.

The School is being rebrokered to another MAT

I said that it looks likely. The DfE warning letter said the MAT had until the end of the academic year to sort it out. That's ludicrous. A whole year - in which to do fuck all.

This MAT has been around for years. There have been several newsworthy issues. It still exists. Your cheery optimism, pretty, that MATs will be held to account is starting to look rather naive.

So it becomes an exMAT. Bit late for all the children it's failed.

Ok, so is the long term plan that all the rubbish MATs die off, & through a process of Darwinism we are left with just the good ones?

How long might that take, to weed out all the bad apple MATs?

What if you are happy with your LA, but now you have to join a MAT, & only Evil's lot are interested? Let's say you know teachers & parents from Evil's school, you know it's a car crash, you want nothing to do with these chancers...you want to stay with your LA, thanks.

Why shouldn't you?

So it becomes an exMAT. Bit late for all the children it's failed

Whereas the LA which failed my DD is still responsible for schools which are going into SM 8 years later.

From what I've read on this thread, the negative Academy experiences are still far better than the LA experience I've had.

Oh, I know not all LA's are like that, but then neither are all Academies. Just as any MAT could fiddle the figures and abandon failing schools, so could all LA's be as bad as the one that failed my DD.

The academy model is not going to fix anything. Some MATs treat schools badly, just as some LAs do. So it's not going to change. So why bother?

Still haven't read a reason to academise.

Oh, and my MAT has also been around for 8 years. And it has over 30 substandard schools. Definitely pushing up standards.