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.

school would lose one of its safeguarding leads within eight years experience (who loves her job).
Why would they lose her?
(Tho' her loving her job is not a good reason to keep her on if she is not needed)

evil apologies - The 8 years refers to the fact her school, (and other schools in the LA) was failing long before her year 6 - hence her year group not making any progress between years 4-6. it was, in hindsight, a poor school from the day she started.

One years worth of poor education can arguably be undone in subsequent years. A cohort that is poor throughout a key stage is systematically failing DCs.

The autonomy that HT have under the LA system relies on good HT being in post. A poor HT under a poor LA can do damage to hundreds of DCs even in a small primary, as failures are not addressed year after year.

The Academy System being proposed has safeguards written into it that the LA system doesn't. I accept that it may be taking longer to strip poor academies of schools than is desirable, but at least it can happen, unlike in the current LA system.

Because in three out of four schools in our local academy chain they have got rid of the person doing my role due to budget constraints. The one who remains is now on a yearly renewable contract. I don't think I said I should be kept on because I love my job. And I think the families I support would say the post is definitely neede.

The Academy System being proposed has safeguards written into it that the LA system doesn't.

Examples please? Because it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

pretty, the success of a school is largely due to the HT regardless of whether it is LA or MAT. Poor management is poor management. And arguably, a school in, say, Worcestershire, run by an MAT based in London, is less likely to have poor management picked up on than one run by a LA. IME, regional directors of MATs don't spend enough time in schools to know what is happening. Obviously my experience concerns one of the larger chains so perhaps smaller, more locally based MATs have more of an interest. Though Perry Beeches would suggest not.

Examples please? Because it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

Academy chains are being prevented from expanding. Schools are being rebrokered.

And the legislation permits the Regional Schools Commissioners to remove all schools from an MAT, effectively closing it.

The "academy chains can be prevented from expanding" argument is one you keep coming back to. But certain MATs were prevented from expanding several years ago, and are still running schools into the ground. Saying "you can't have any more" is not the same as ensuring that improvements are made in existing schools.

And arguably, a school in, say, Worcestershire, run by an MAT based in London, is less likely to have poor management picked up on than one run by a LA.

The External scrutiny after a School joins an MAT is greater than if the school had remained in an LA. MATs are being monitored to "check" the quality of education the new schools are delivering - if they weren't being checked, there wouldn't be the rebrokering and other headlines in the media about what a bad job MATs are doing.
If LA schools had been subject to the same level of scrutiny over the same period, then a fair comparison could be made. You can't say Academies are worse than LA schools when LA schools have not been subject to the same assessment process.

Saying "you can't have any more" is not the same as ensuring that improvements are made in existing schools.

But it's still better than the situation in some LAs. Which is that improvements are not being made AND they can take on responsibility for more DCs, through increasing PAN and/or new schools.

I'm not lauding MATs as a cure all, but there are definite improvements on the current system.

I thought that LAs aren't allowed to start new schools?

I'm not lauding MATs as a cure all, but there are definite improvements on the current system.

I still have not seen any evidence that this is the case.

jelly the expectation is that LAs will seek a sponsor/free school, but there are circumstances in which they can establish new schools.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/270471/guidanceonestablishingnewmaintainedschools.pdf

Whether the DfE would agree if an LA was known to be failing badly, I don't know. There have certainly been situations in which LAs have agreed to accept DfE support, only to ignore the advice and guidance given, so I can imagine a scenario in which a poor LA is given permission to open a new school on the proviso that it works with another LA to improve, only to reject that support once the school has opened.

And that's the point. The DfE cannot force LAs to change. At least the Academy legislation gives the a DfE powers to intervene.

The External scrutiny after a School joins an MAT is greater than if the school had remained in an LA. MATs are being monitored to "check" the quality of education the new schools are delivering

Sorry, you've lost me. who is doing this "external checking"??

Evil - OFSTED. all new schools (ie those transferred to a MAT) have to have a full Section 5 inspection within 2 years of opening.

Whereas, if they'd remained a LA school, they would remain on the framework schedule.

Which, if it was on outstanding school, would have been never unless there was reason to trigger an inspection. Good schools - 4 years until a short inspection.

The reason that Wilshaw had so much evidence for his report into academy chains is because all those schools have been inspected within 2 years of Academisation. But he couldn't make a direct comparison with the LA sector, because the schools remaining in the LA do not have the same inspection schedule as the MAT schools.

Sorry am very late to the party here. However, I've tried to wade through all of this and the thing that strikes me is just that it is all so chuffing complicated. Pretty Can I please try and explain how I understand it and you can tell me if I am wrong?
So, there used to be LEAs that were responsible for a clutch of schools. However, now, schools, however strong they are, will need to reposition themselves as part of a MAT and restructure themselves to streamline into these big umbrella operations.
Now, to me, accountability has shifted from democratically accountable authorities to organisations sponsored by sources ranging from carpet magnates to faith groups with loads in between. Education has effectively been privatised. In my mind, and do tell me if I am wrong, a huge shift is now happening- one of the most seismic in education possibly ever. Instead of education being a macro concern, it's now devolved to individual MATs with central government (via regional schools commissioners I think they are called) overseeing standards. Within that there is no mandatory levelling or assessment structure and no statutory curriculum.
Now. This strikes me as both totally nebulous and open to massive corruption. Am I wrong?
By way of background, I teach primary. Or rather, I do at the moment- my husband and i are actively scouring the tes to find jobs in Europe. Not just for our sakes but for our kids'. We don't want them to be assessed and scored within hours of entering reception and I don't want them beaten round the heads with pointless spag terminology and made to feel they are failing should they not prove naturally academic.

Ah, yes. I knew you were going to say OFSTED. So an MAT can do what it likes for 2 years with no external checks. That's a long time in education. And if a school converts 4 years after its previous inspection, it's then another 2 before it gets seen. So 6 years. During which time 6 cohorts of kids can be failed. There is no "extra scrutiny".

evil. It's more scrutiny than there would have been if it had remained in a poor LA.

Hardly.

So why not have a better OFSTED regime then? And while you're at it, change their role into a more supportive one to help schools improve rather than to try to catch them out (& I say this for both maintained and academy schools).

Exactly what I was going to say. Reform Ofsted and make it more supportive. We had a far more constructive hmi inspection in the 90s than any Ofsted I've ever had.

Your repeated argument about making schools more accountable if they are academies really doesn't make sense.

Do you work in a school, pretty? Just wondering what your involvement in education is?

I'm also puzzled at to why the failings of the current Ofsted inspection regime are being used as a stick to beat LAs with. Just change how Ofsted inspect, surely? It wouldn't be the first time.

Rhonda I think it's just clutching at straws. There isn't a good reason why schools should be forced to become academies otherwise why have we got to 19 pages of discussion without a single reason that can be backed up with evidence?

pretty

a continued link from giraffe

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/academy-schools-liverpool-worked-11110282

stating that academies that have under 60% A - C are good yet if where I work had less than 60% A - C we would automatically generate an ofsted inspection.

they don't seem to be very accountable even to ofsted.

SuburbanRhonda
Just change how Ofsted inspect, surely? It wouldn't be the first time.

Ofsted changes its regime every 2 ish years, sometimes more.

There is no reason to push successful schools into being academies.

Maybe what we should be campaigning for is a better-more 'robust' -system of monitoring schools.

This is a massive proposal that is being pushed forward with very little support from teachers, parents and even Tories! This should be properly discussed and voted on. Nicky morgan should be forced to provide evidence proving why it would be a good thing.