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 found this statistic from BoneyBacks link above most interesting:

St Francis of Assisi, GCSE pass rate 17%, 74% disadvantaged kids.
St Margaret’s, pass rate 68%, 12% disadvantaged.
North Liverpool Academy, pass rate 31%, 70% disadvantaged.
Belvedere Academy, pass rate 86%, 24% disadvantaged.
South Liverpool, pass rate 21%, 70% disadvantaged.
Liverpool College, pass rate 98%, 5% disadvantaged.

i.e. the huge link to social class it shows. Tinkering around making all schools academies won't do anything to address that problem. All it will do is cost money.

I notice how pro-academisation arguments talk about LA "control" of schools whereas we tend to view our involvement with our LA as "support".

Very true, Rhonda!

Our lea is great-really supportive and helpful, our school is Good and staff are happy. Why would we want to leave this set up when all of the local academies are haemorrhaging staff because they treat them so badly, making TAs redundant and over 80% of them in RI or SM?

rhonda forgive the shorthand - When I refer to LA controlled schools, I am of course referring to LA maintained, Voluntary Controlled and Voluntary Aided schools. All of those funded through the LA.

fedup. I have posted my involvement In schools earlier in the thread. I do not teach. I work for myself, providing support to schools in their non-teaching functions - often on behalf of LAs.

pretty

I wasn't really talking about the phrase "LA-controlled schools."

So are you like a school improvement partner? Don't worry - not trying to out you. I'm a home school link worker, as I've posted many time on here and there are so few of us with that title that I could easily out myself

Our lea is great-really supportive and helpful, our school is Good and staff are happy. Why would we want to leave this set up when all of the local academies are haemorrhaging staff because they treat them so badly, making TAs redundant and over 80% of them in RI or SM?

But what if the LA weren't supportive? But despite that, the school chose not to academise? And slowly slipped into a downward spiral with no scrutiny from the LA? Is that fair on DCs?

This isn't about what's fair on "schools" - it's an attempt to address the unfairness on DCs of the LA system which relies entirely on the local community having high expectations, the local politicians doing the "right" thing even if it's not popular, and local governing bodies being aware enough to leave the safety of the ineffective LA.

But what if the LA weren't supportive?

Then that wouldn't be a school as described by fedup, and that school may well need intervention.

However, fedup's school (and mine, by the way) have no need to change but because it's an all or nothing policy, we will have to, even if it means the education and support we provide to the children is worse. And we won't know that until after we convert - maybe for several years, and I'm assuming the policy will never be reversed.

I just don't understand why the thinking has to be, "We think A isn't working so here is B, which isn't right for every school but we think it will work because it isn't A." How about looking at what's right for each school and leaving the ones who are doing a great job without being part of a MAT to just get on with it?

And slowly slipped into a downward spiral with no scrutiny from the LA? Is that fair on DCs?

Same could (& has) happened with academies.

it's an attempt to address the unfairness on DCs of the LA system

Sorry, but this is the biggest pile of crap you've written pretty. Are you actually claiming that forced academisatiom has at its core an idealogical, child-centred motivation?

I suspect pretty is working for Nicky Morgan.

evil we went through that last week on the first NM thread. Despite the speculation in the Guardian comments - No, I'm not working for Nicky Morgan. I'm not a civil servant, I'm not an Academy Broker.

I run a very small (under the tax threshold) business that provides specialist support services to schools. I'm not poised to benefit hugely from the Academisation of schools. I have no financial or personal stake in the White Paper.

I'm also a mum.

And I appreciate it seems incomprehensible to you why someone without an underlying agenda could possible agree which a Government White paper that you disagree with so strongly, but there is it. People have different opinions.

Pretty

I actually like it when articulate and intelligent people support what I oppose, generally because they are the type of people that will post facts and statistics about the various subjects, But what this thread and others have repeatedly shown is that there is no measurable evidence to support a forced migration to academies from LA control.

Yes people do. But usually they have reasons for it. You still haven't been able to present an argument for forced academisation.

Don't think I saw the other thread. Obviously you're doing a pretty convincing job of impersonating a Nicky Morgan employee.

Pretty, yes people have different opinions but you have taken a huge amount of time and effort to defend something which you yourself say may or may not be better for the education of students. It is obviously something you feel strongly about or get paid to do.

You have not provided any evidence as to why schools being forced to become academies is a good thing and yet you keep on defending it. People keep asking about your motives because it makes no sense to agree with the White Paper unless you have some kind of vested interest.

Is it because you hate LAs?

and you still could be anyone at all despite a back story

back story with holes in

what this thread and others have repeatedly shown is that there is no measurable evidence to support a forced migration to academies from LA control.

I have never argued that there is. But neither is there measurable evidence to show it will definitely be the catastrophe that is being made put by some people within the profession.

Other threads discussing this issue are more balanced. I am by no means a lone voice. It will be interesting to see just how much feeling there is against these proposals as the White Paper progresses through parliament.

jelly if you think I'm a plant, or a troll, report me. Insinuating that I'm misrepresenting myself by using the strikeout function is petty and a little bitchy, tbh.

If you don't like what I post, ignore me.

Other threads discussing this issue are more balanced

This one is in THE STAFFROOM. Which is for teachers and TAs. So it's not really a surprise.

it makes no sense to agree with the White Paper unless you have some kind of vested interest.

Makes no sense to whom? It's rather narrow minded to assume that everyone sees things the way you do, isn't it?

evil - there are people who say they are teachers on other threads putting forward more balanced views too.

Of course, they could be Nicky Morgan employees because what kind of teacher wouldn't have the sense to agree with the teachers here?

Are you actually claiming that forced academisatiom has at its core an idealogical [sic], child-centred motivation?

Why do assume that it hasn't? Because it is proposed by evil Tories?
If so, that is simply prejudice stemming from your own ideology.

There doesn't need to be evidence for it to be a catastrophe, why spend a huge amount of time on funding that could be better used for children's education if there are no reasons to do so.

Please point me to the more balanced threads. I haven't seen a single thread where the majority of people agree that forcing schools to become academies is a good thing.

I'm not saying you're a troll, I'm saying I have no way of knowing who you are or what your motives might be whatever story you give on here, it's basic e-safety, not a personal vendetta against you. I also didn't say that I don't like what you post, some of it is hilarious. And I'm not going to ignore you otherwise people might take the misinformation you're trying to peddle seriously.

There's already a mechanism for forcing academisation on failing schools. There is soon to be a mechanism for forcing academisation on coasting schools (once defined). There is also a mechanism for triggering an out of schedule ofsted on schools which are declining (ofsted scrutinise the dashboard data and can swoop in - as happened to my school).

So why the bloody hell do we need to force academisation on schools which are neither failing nor coasting just in case the current checks and balances don't work and in case (unproved) that MATs are better at stopping this decline before Ofsted step in than LAs are?

I have never argued that there is. But neither is there measurable evidence to show it will definitely be the catastrophe that is being made put by some people within the profession.

That might be because when people do stick their head above the parapet with measurable evidence about falling academy chains (Wilshaw), their views are rubbished by the government who, let's be truthful, have a vested interest in not answering the question about what failing academies should be forced to convert to.

And I realise it's hard when you're the only one answering questions on a thread but my question still stands - if this is all about getting the best education for children, why force schools to convert when they are already providing good or outstanding education for children? Why take risks with children's education in this cavalier manner? Why all schools and why forced academisation?

Makes no sense to whom? It's rather narrow minded to assume that everyone sees things the way you do, isn't it?

Provide some evidence then! I'm happy to be convinced.