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 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.

But why are the government spending lots of money-that they claim they do not have- doing something for which there is no measurable evidence for?

Why not leave the good and outstanding schools as they are? Why not spend that money on books?

You just seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on a chat board for teachers and seem to be a lone voice in supporting this half baked idea. It was also odd that the newspaper article about this thread was rewritten to quote you repeatedly.

I'm leaving this thread now. I'd hoped you would have come up with some evidence to support why you feel so strongly Nicky Morgan is doing the right thing by now, but it appears not.

If there was a child-centred motivation and evidence to prove that acadmies are the best place for learning, then the Tories would be shouting it from the rooftops and supporters of the system would be quoting it on this thread. But there isn't.

It was also odd that the newspaper article about this thread was rewritten to quote you repeatedly.

You're right, it was fucking odd. (Although it wasn't about this thread, it was the guest thread NM posted). So odd in fact, that I came very close to quitting MN and hiding under a rock. I was talked out of it by some other MN members, though. It took me several days to post again, and only after support from a range of RL and online friends.

I very much resent the implication that I somehow influenced the national e-media to publish comments posted by me - when their publication frightened the living shit out of me.

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.

jelly. There's a discussion going on in Primary Education at the moment where misinformation and scaremongering has resulted in parental fears, and it is being countered in a balanced and reasonable way by teachers and other professionals. I'm sure they'd appreciate your input.

No one on that thread has a decent reason for forced academisation either.

PrettyBrightFireflies

"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."

the government (and it really doesn't matter which government) has had over 10 year to provide proof that this is a workable, sustainable and beneficial solution, yet they have produced nothing to support the view that forcing schools to become academies is a good thing

And I would still like an answer as to why schools like ours, lovely inclusive community schools in deprived parts of the country, doing fantastic work to educate children and support their families, pulling the school out of special measures to good in the process, cannot simply be allowed to get on with doing what it is clearly already doing so well.

If you did this to a successful, profitable business you would be considered, at best, not to have any business sense whatsoever.

If it ain't broke ...

Reading back through threads, PrettyBrightFireFlies, I don't understand how you peddle the notion that LA's aren't accountable for school outcomes and performance? Personal experience tells me this isn't the case. outcomes are scrutinised at every level and senior staff play a key role in regular meetings with the DfE. These meetings involve trends in statistics and actions to change outcomes as well as providing the DFE with details of individual school performance, support and impact.

Rhonda - why not email her and ask?
(But to be transparent, would be honest to declare your own interest - you love your job and it might be at risk now)

outcomes are scrutinised at every level and senior staff play a key role in regular meetings with the DfE. These meetings involve trends in statistics and actions to change outcomes as well as providing the DFE with details of individual school performance, support and impact.

Oh, I agree - dedicated senior LA officers work very hard, but all they can do is recommend a course of action to the politicians. If the politicians ignore officer recommendations - lauding themselves as brave for not taking the 'easy' option - then there is very little the officers can do.

Just like school staff who fear MAT boards will refuse to listen to what they need to run a good school, local politicians can, and do, put their own self interest to get re-elected ahead of the professional advice.

If you know Senior LA Education Officers, ask them if Councillors always listen to them, and their peers in other authorities - or whether some DCs are being failed because of the local political climate.

Rhonda - why not email her and ask?

Way ahead of you. Not with your sarcasm, though - that's in a class of its own. And not in a good way.

Is removing parental rights to complain a good thing?

Summer Have you read the White Paper?

It makes no mention of removing the legal requirement on schools to have a complaints procedure.

Tom Pride is using the experience of a journalist trying to get a quote for a new article as 'evidence' that parents can no longer make a complaint about the school. Hardly the same thing; not that he cares.

Lazy, sensationalist blogging that does nothing positive. Do teachers really believe that drivel?

pretty - fwiw I don't think you are a Nicky SPAD! & you have my sympathy re the Guardian - I have nc'ed after being rather identifiably quoted in the same article.

I think you had an appalling experience with a LA school & are projecting.

Fair enough for your position to be 'I would prefer my children's school to be an academy; IME they are better.'

But what about Rhonda's school? Should the happy, successful LA schools be forced to convert in the face of overwhelming opposition from both staff & parents?

Rather than blame teachers for believing what they read about academies, maybe the government could take control of the situation and come clean about their evidence and reasoning for forcing every school in the county to convert to academy status. They could even consult teachers and parents about the planned changes.

Perhaps the reason people are believing things that might not be true is that removing the right of parents to complain doesn't seem so outlandish against a backdrop of forced legislation and complete absence of consultation.

crowy Thanks.

What my experience has taught me is that if/when LAs go wrong - there is absolutely nothing central government can do about it. The DCs in Rhondas school are fine until the LA decides to shirk its responsibilities.

At least the Academy System does give School Commissioners the powers to intervene in a way that Central Government would never be allowed to intervene in Local Government.

Four year ago, the Government implemented an inspection framework for LA School Improvement Provision. It was introduced due to concerns that had been raised about specific authorities. What I believe has happened is that in the aftermath of introducing those inspections the Government has discovered that Local Authorities are not taking steps to improve, despite the inspection findings. And that nothing can be done about that.
In those circumstances, I believe it would be irresponsible for the Government not to address the issue and ensure that DCs are not left at the mercy of LAs who disregard professional advice.

That's so depressing, pretty - that despite the fact we've worked so hard with our LA to provide an excellent, inclusive education for the children in our school, we're going to be forced to convert just in case we stop performing as well? Are Ofsted inspections not there to identify any areas of weakness in the school?

Surely this represents a massive lack of trust in the ability of our school staff and governors to continue to take our school from strength to strength?

But you simply haven't provided evidence that MATs will be more accountable than LAs, or that a crap MAT will be ousted & replaced with something better.

What happens if a crap MAT is running a crap school & no one better comes forward to take it on - because it is a failing school & therefore unattractive to good sponsors?

What's to stop it shambling from one crap MAT to the next indefinitely?

As for currently successful schools hypothetically being let down by their successful LA in the future - well, that's a bit like insisting every woman in the country LTB because her partner might cheat/abuse her at some hypothetical time in the future, whereas your shiny fleet of mandroids are programmed not to. Except you can't prove the programming works, but your own droid is great, so...droids all round it is!

rhonda it's not about the school, it's about the LA.

If you suddenly stopped receiving the good quality support from the LA, you as a school would be left hanging. No one to complain to, no choice but to try and muddle through without.
Some schools would manage - but they'd do better with a good LA. And some schools won't manage. Standards will slip, with no one keeping an eye out for a head experiencing burnout or an ineffective GB. It'll come to light when the school is inspected - and if several formally good schools drop in standards it may trigger an inspection of the LA. But even if it does the LA can't be forced to deliver those good services that help schools. The schools will be left muddling through - trying to drive up standards despite a bad LA, not supported by one.

Brilliant analogy, crowy

crowy those safeguards are written into the legislation currently. A MAT can be stripped of its schools. Unlike LAs.

Of course if it's not implemented by the School Commissioners then that's a completely different issue - but the law allows for them to act.

But a school can strip itself of its LA.

Any time it wants.

You seem to be positing that a failing school, which is failing because of its unsupportive or whatever LA, will continue to bimble along happily failing.

But we already have the legislation to force failing schools to become academies. No evidence that it actually helps, but if the government thinks that is the solution for a failing school they can impose it.

Whilst leaving the successful LA schools alone.

But we don't have a bad LA!

This "just in case" argument is nonsense and I don't get it. The evidence in black and white is that our school and the LA are working well together to provide our children with a good education.

There is no evidence that we will perform as well as part of a MAT. But it's only the LA the government refuses to believe in,. The hypothetical MAT, untried and untested for our school, is accepted as the right model before they've even set foot in our school.

It's breathtaking in its lack of logic.

rhonda I don't disagree that it's seems preemptive - and an extension of the current forced academisation rules (to include schools that have dropped to RI, for instance) could be sufficient.

But, if becoming an Academy is deemed to be the best way of raising standards in failing schools (and there's political agreement from both parties on that) then I can see the logic that all schools will improve that way.

Of course, there's no evidence to prove that academisation of failing schools is working yet, but that initiative isn't going to be reversed any time soon.

We do not have the same needs as a failing school.