Acadmies, and I am talking about one of the biggest local chains here, do not have the education of the masses at their heart. They are, in essence, grammar schools that provide for the bright and fairly affluent.
Their admissions policy will ensure they pick the brighter local students. This policy also allows them to remove pupils who, later in in the school, will hamper their results. There is some excellent research into the missing students in Acadmies who start yr 10 but then mysteriously go off roll before their GCSEs.
He new way of measuring achievement has hit them hard as it focuses in progress not attainment. The fact is that many Academies do not ''add value' to a child's education. Hence they are now adjusting their policies further.
People can admire the work they do but please do not be fooled into thinking they work alongside local authority schools. They cream off the most able and therefore do not represent the area they claim to support.
And this, too. That the academy my wife is working at is slashing provision for special needs children who, as a result of their condition, may be disruptive, says it all. So kids with learning difficulties at the academy now find their provision is taken away and ultimately leave for a school that can provide help for their needs. And eventually, hey presto, all the 'disruptive' children are gone. Which I find morally reprehensible and slightly sinisiter.
I thought the Tories had made it illegal for poor people to be educated?
Too true, just got to rub the grubby little bastards noses in it first!
It's all part of their master plan to make it illegal to be poor. Then they'll turn all of these academies into work camps to make more cigars, suits and watches for the rich.
strip out Lewy's yet to be developed ability to have a debate (don't be too hard, he's a lot younger than most on here), its a really interesting debate.
Without knowing too much, i just assumed from the soundbytes that the move to Academies had been a widely seen successful venture, but very interested on the views added to this thread from those with a better insight.
strip out Lewy's yet to be developed ability to have a debate (don't be too hard, he's a lot younger than most on here), its a really interesting debate.
Without knowing too much, i just assumed from the soundbytes that the move to Academies had been a widely seen successful venture, but very interested on the views added to this thread from those with a better insight.
Same here, it's not an issue I know too much about, so good to hear the opinion of others.
I had been under the impression they were ... primarily ... a good thing but it does appear that there is a less-appealing aspect to it.
Schools become academies because there is a short term boost to their budgets. Academies can then manipulate their catchment area, catchment 'rules' and intake of children, so as to cream off the children most likely to show the school in a better light according to the skewed parameters that are used to measure success and failure. Lewisham has a local authority based system where some school services can be shared across the borough. Prendergast will have to buy in those services from elsewhere, or as I said skew their intake to avoid spending money on the more tricky areas of educational provision. If anybody can tell me how academies can make the actual teaching in the classroom any better for all the students I would be interested to know.
Fully understand the desire to drive standards higher (and the long-term benefits that brings to the nation), but there always has to be a balance and it does sometimes come at a cost.
Saw some data on a local borough from 2 years ago. That borough is having to fund the very expensive sending of well in excess of 100+ pupils to 33 schools outside the borough, because their needs (mainly Autism and Behavioural, Social and Emotional Difficulties) can't be adequately met within the borough.
With Academies more focused on delivering results as opposed to delivering eduction, i can see the squeeze on things like this becoming greater and greater and having a bigger impact on local authorities budgets
There is a more difficult question inherent regarding what we as a nation mean by 'standards'. The present government seem to regard Education mainly as a utilitarian function, where the purpose is to support the economy, and to that end it is about tests, measurement and examination results. There is also an argument about Education being of benefit to the individual as the primary function, and that benefit may not always be measured in results and tests, much like you don't make a plant grow by measuring it, it needs tending to as well. Of course there is also a constituency out there that regard schooling as a form of child care which is cheaper than independent child care. I really don't believe society has ever tackled the question of why send our children to school at all, and come to any great conclusion, and this is in the context where everybody thinks they're an expert because everybody has attended school at some time.
Acadmies, and I am talking about one of the biggest local chains here, do not have the education of the masses at their heart. They are, in essence, grammar schools that provide for the bright and fairly affluent.
Their admissions policy will ensure they pick the brighter local students. This policy also allows them to remove pupils who, later in in the school, will hamper their results. There is some excellent research into the missing students in Acadmies who start yr 10 but then mysteriously go off roll before their GCSEs.
He new way of measuring achievement has hit them hard as it focuses in progress not attainment. The fact is that many Academies do not ''add value' to a child's education. Hence they are now adjusting their policies further.
People can admire the work they do but please do not be fooled into thinking they work alongside local authority schools. They cream off the most able and therefore do not represent the area they claim to support.
And this, too. That the academy my wife is working at is slashing provision for special needs children who, as a result of their condition, may be disruptive, says it all. So kids with learning difficulties at the academy now find their provision is taken away and ultimately leave for a school that can provide help for their needs. And eventually, hey presto, all the 'disruptive' children are gone. Which I find morally reprehensible and slightly sinisiter.
100% this. Advantages - better budget control. Disadvantage - any student who doesnt look like making 5 grade C's. Loss of vocational courses. Students have to move to non academies which become diluted.
Overall? Good for the more able (of all income groups), probably good for the average (who in an Academy, dont have the disruption of the least able in the lower sets), a disaster for the lowest ability groups.
I think the utilitarian argument is one of the most dismal going, TBH. Of course there needs to be a general basic level of education (literacy, numeracy, ethics) but realistically most kids get that in primary. (I'm aware some don't, but that's a separate argument). But why do we write off kids who can add and subtract but struggle with trigonometry (which they are unlikely to ever use)? What is Britain good at? Lots of "soft" stuff like film, TV, theatre, music. What are the subjects most likely to be dropped by Academies? Yes, the same, as none of them count towards the endless league tables.
I remain suspicious as to why the governors of the most successful school in the borough of Lewisham (and as I said before that includes ones that cost parents £10000s a year) want to become an academy? I don't get the impression that Lewisham Council are holding them back in any way. The underhand way this has been done has got all sort s of rumours flying. I heard one the other day that they want to turn the upper site on Hilly Fields into flats and that's how they are going to profit (I think this is absurd BTW, but we all know on here what happens in the absence of credible communications).
The other Prendergast schools are both different, and I've no idea if any case has been made there for turning them into academies, but I suspect from conversations with people with kids there they haven't.
Whenever something bad happens abroad, it's always contrasted with how things are done here, as we are a democracy. But when it comes to decisions that actually have a big effect on our lives, such as changing the status of my child's school, I appear to have no say at all.
Where academies are business based the teachers are set unrealistic targets as you would expect in an office environment. The pupils with additional needs are continuously affecting these targets so teachers are unknowingly taking a dislike to these children. Academy teachers also work much longer hours, you'd find that they are often not leaving the school until 6-7 pm and it's all paperwork. School trips are often better such as trips abroad or skiing etc but they change from being inclusive to being selective only parents that can afford them and only high achievers and well behaved can go. Subject choices and options that are available are limited to overall ability for example they won't let you do a foreign language for GCSE unless you're excelling at English. Primary is just as selective too I've found. The extracurricular activities struggle too as staff are often too over worked to manage them. Parent teacher relations is a lot more distant and there is a hierarchy to work through before you can get to a head, even in primary where there is usually an open door policy when it comes to discussing your child with the headteacher gets changed, you would now have to email them first then attend a meeting with class ta, then teacher then deputy head and then head. Parents also find themselves faced with a lot more regulations and restrictions. To be honest I could go on forever and ever. Academies are the governments way out of the big education budget, they benefit no one but we are brainwashed into thinking they are the best thing going.
All this is based on experience both as a parent and as a school worker. I have had first hand experience with 5 different schools, 2 secondary and 3 primary which were all converted to academies and I have witnessed these changes. I was also pro change at first as they made it sound so appealing, I know nobody that is happy with these changes and an awful lot of teachers, reception staff, TA's and ground staff that have "moved on" as a result.
Sadiejane not denying your experiences, but just to put a half serious viewpoint from a school's perspective;
the teachers are set unrealistic targets as you would expect in an office environment - Im a teacher and shouldn't be subjected to the norms of working in a service industry. Might lose my job if I'm not up to scratch.
teachers are unknowingly taking a dislike to these children. - Working as a teacher would be fine if it wasn't for the bloody kids
teachers also work much longer hours - Teachers should be able to set their own working hours
only parents that can afford them and only high achievers and well behaved can go. - Someone else should pay for my children's holidays
they won't let you do a foreign language for GCSE unless you're excelling at English - Its not fair that children shouldn't be allowed to decide how subjects are taught
extracurricular activities struggle too as staff are often too over worked to manage them - Don't need the overtime
you would now have to email them first then attend a meeting with class ta, then teacher then deputy head and then head. - The Head should drop everything and be available at my convenience to explain the overcooked greens served to my child for lunch.
Parents also find themselves faced with a lot more regulations and restrictions. - Parents should only have to comply with school rules they agree with.
I know someone who has worked as a supply teacher, he could go on and on about the sheer indifference he sees towards pupils in many schools, accepting he probably doesn't get sent to well run schools and is used mainly as a child minder. There will be good and bad everywhere as under all systems.
Given the flak the NUT direct at the Local Authorities who are the employers of their members, and the imperfect way in which school places are currently allocated, I am surprised at the affection they are showering on Local Authorities. They are claimed to be the only proper bodies able to effectively manage school resources. They are also claimed to be accountable to the electorate - really?
Breaking the control of Local Authority and politicians over schools should be good in principle. Can't see how much more damage can be done than decades of education being a political football from both sides of the political fence. Must be easier to remove the failing board of an Academy than Local Authority councillors for whom education is but one responsibility among many.
Personally, I think the comprehensive system, whilst good in principle but was too preoccupied with demolishing the inherent class system that ran through education, than on improving on its defects. Grammar schools did mix different classes, I was a Charlton council estate kid my dad was a lorry driver, my best school mate came from the smart end of Chislehurst whose dad was a doctor. Excluding the poor is a red herring. How many children get free school meals is now either a badge of honour or an excuse for failing.
Its excluding the disruptive pupils (do we call them special needs now) which is the issue, they might be rich or poor. If children are disruptive it is a parenting and social problem, not a problem for schools to sort out on their own. All schools will play the system given the way pupils are assessed for measuring progress, whether maintained or Academies.
Teachers should have more responsibility and more autonomy, and that ought to be more easily achieved under Academies than Local Authorities. But that will mean weeding out those teachers who can't cut it, I may be wrong, but I sense this is what teachers and Unions are really concerned about.
'Its excluding the disruptive pupils (do we call them special needs now) which is the issue, they might be rich or poor. If children are disruptive it is a parenting and social problem, not a problem for schools to sort out on their own. All schools will play the system given the way pupils are assessed for measuring progress, whether maintained or Academies.'
If that was directed at my post about the academy my wife work's at, I was talking specifically about a special needs unit whose provision is being cut. A unit for children with autism, ADHD, and so on, many with statemented special needs. As the parent of an autistic teenager, I don't think children with special needs, statemented or otherwise, can be dismissed as either a societal or parental problem, no matter how disruptive their behaviour may seem to the uninitiated.
To take some of Dippenhall's points, I think they assume that teachers work something approximating a normal working week. I don't know any who do. They're contracted for 30 or 40 hours or so, a normal working week will be 60. The complaint they have is that under academies that increases to 70-80. I don't believe they get overtime. All that extra-curricular activity comes on top of the normal 60 hours. There is something seriously wrong there and I get the impression that most teacher's careers are now shorter than the years kids spend in school, at least from seeing what's gone on with my kids. Anyone who imagines this helps either kids or society as a whole is dreaming. Should the economy pick up, there will once again be a major shortage of teachers as loads leave to make more money doing anything else.
I don't think that teachers get more autonomy under Academies either, I get the impression it is even less. Crucially, I think managers do get a lot more autonomy, which may well be why they are keen.
The point about removing academy governors is a laugh as well; the only person likely to do that is the Secretary of State for Education, who is obviously only going to care when it makes the national press (as in some high profile cases recently). I can at least have an input into what the council does (it's small I know, but I have met local councillors). I cannot see how a govt that already is remote from Lewisham will be remotely interested.
'Its excluding the disruptive pupils (do we call them special needs now) which is the issue, they might be rich or poor. If children are disruptive it is a parenting and social problem, not a problem for schools to sort out on their own. All schools will play the system given the way pupils are assessed for measuring progress, whether maintained or Academies.'
If that was directed at my post about the academy my wife work's at, I was talking specifically about a special needs unit whose provision is being cut. A unit for children with autism, ADHD, and so on, many with statemented special needs. As the parent of an autistic teenager, I don't think children with special needs, statemented or otherwise, can be dismissed as either a societal or parental problem, no matter how disruptive their behaviour may seem to the uninitiated.
Not at all, I was genuinely questioning whether disruptive pupils are categorised alongside those with physical or mental impairment. If so it's outrageous.
Not at all, I was genuinely questioning whether disruptive pupils are categorised alongside those with physical or mental impairment. If so it's outrageous.
It depends on the cause for the disruptive behaviour. Essentially children will be put on an AEN/SEN register for a wide variety of reasons including behavioural.
I had a very middle class upbringing, I was tutored, passed my 11 plus and I went to my local grammar school before going to university. Now I work in a large financial organisation, wear a suit to work and have a nice watch.
Now you know a little bit about me could you tell me why it's my fault your schools becoming an academy?
I had a very middle class upbringing, I was tutored, passed my 11 plus and I went to my local grammar school before going to university. Now I work in a large financial organisation, wear a suit to work and have a nice watch.
Now you know a little bit about me could you tell me why it's my fault your schools becoming an academy?
You mention tutoring which is a pretty unquantifiable yet real factor when schools talk about 'their' improved standards. Each school usually has a number of students for whom another language to English is their mother tongue. Often this is a shoe in to an A* GCSE or A-level where the school doesn't even have to teach Farsi, or Mandarin or whatever to take credit for those grades. The same goes for private tutoring, the half-way house to full on private schooling. If high GCSE grades in mainstream subjects are achieved from families paying for intensive one on one teaching, the school will claim the credit for that. Academy leaders will benefit from recruiting children from wealthier families to cater for such an eventuality.
'Its excluding the disruptive pupils (do we call them special needs now) which is the issue, they might be rich or poor. If children are disruptive it is a parenting and social problem, not a problem for schools to sort out on their own. All schools will play the system given the way pupils are assessed for measuring progress, whether maintained or Academies.'
If that was directed at my post about the academy my wife work's at, I was talking specifically about a special needs unit whose provision is being cut. A unit for children with autism, ADHD, and so on, many with statemented special needs. As the parent of an autistic teenager, I don't think children with special needs, statemented or otherwise, can be dismissed as either a societal or parental problem, no matter how disruptive their behaviour may seem to the uninitiated.
Not at all, I was genuinely questioning whether disruptive pupils are categorised alongside those with physical or mental impairment. If so it's outrageous.
No. BESD is quite different. (Behavioural, emotional and social Difficulties) Selection though is, in many academies, based on the liklihood of achieving 5 GCSE's A-C. Statemented children are ususally unlikely to reach this standard and so, despite the government funding they attract, are not at the core of the academy philosophy. As a result there are independent fee-paying schools receiving SEN students from local authorities.
I work in a local authority controlled school. I wouldn't work in an academy.
For me it is a moral issue. An example: a starting salary for a newly qualified teacher is around 23k. This is what we tend to offer. We recently interviewed a candidate for a maths teacher who loved the school, enjoyed the children we have and was attracted by the ethos and leadership.
We offered her the job but despite this 'attraction' to the school she accepted a job at a local academy. They offered her 35k plus a golden handshake of 5k. We cannot compete.
By the way this is a school that has an executive head (probably on 150k) a secondary head (c. 115k) a primary head (95k). Any ideas where that money could be better spent?
Teaching used to be about bettering children. It was relatively poorly paid so attracted people whose desire to teach outweighed their yearning to be rich. Not any more.
I work in a local authority controlled school. I wouldn't work in an academy.
For me it is a moral issue. An example: a starting salary for a newly qualified teacher is around 23k. This is what we tend to offer. We recently interviewed a candidate for a maths teacher who loved the school, enjoyed the children we have and was attracted by the ethos and leadership.
We offered her the job but despite this 'attraction' to the school she accepted a job at a local academy. They offered her 35k plus a golden handshake of 5k. We cannot compete.
By the way this is a school that has an executive head (probably on 150k) a secondary head (c. 115k) a primary head (95k). Any ideas where that money could be better spent?
Teaching used to be about bettering children. It was relatively poorly paid so attracted people whose desire to teach outweighed their yearning to be rich. Not any more.
I dunno, paying teachers just starting out a bit more?
I work in a local authority controlled school. I wouldn't work in an academy.
For me it is a moral issue. An example: a starting salary for a newly qualified teacher is around 23k. This is what we tend to offer. We recently interviewed a candidate for a maths teacher who loved the school, enjoyed the children we have and was attracted by the ethos and leadership.
We offered her the job but despite this 'attraction' to the school she accepted a job at a local academy. They offered her 35k plus a golden handshake of 5k. We cannot compete.
By the way this is a school that has an executive head (probably on 150k) a secondary head (c. 115k) a primary head (95k). Any ideas where that money could be better spent?
Teaching used to be about bettering children. It was relatively poorly paid so attracted people whose desire to teach outweighed their yearning to be rich. Not any more.
I dunno, paying teachers just starting out a bit more?
With what? We receive less money than we did in the recent past. We are having to lose staff or not replace like for like when others leave. Next year we may go into deficit budget for the first time.
Teaching used to be about bettering children. It was relatively poorly paid so attracted people whose desire to teach outweighed their yearning to be rich. Not any more.
Are you sure, seems more like the reverse is true from these figures?
MALE COLLEGE-EDUCATED NON-TEACHER PAY COMPARED TO MALE TEACHER PAY
Year % Non-Teachers Earn More (or Less) than Teachers 1940 -3.6% 1950 2.1% 1960 19.7% 1970 33.1% 1980 36.1% 1990 37.5% 2000 60.4%
Something that reverses the decline in the status of teachers, improves pay and attracts the best students can't be all bad. The decline in relative pay happens to coincide with the start of political interference in education - coincidence?
If Academies take away at least some capacity for interference by bodies with too much of a political agenda; gives more control to the education establishments themselves, as used to be the case, I would have thought teachers would welcome this.
Concern is being raised about children who are directly or indirectly screened out by Academies to improve their chances of a higher rating. Isn't the solution to change the grading system?
I would have a system where parents and teachers had input into what level of attainment was good bad or indifferent, to recognise all the factors that can affect a child's progress. They could publish their own figures and discredit the current system. Could not Academies take these sort of initiatives more easily than Local Authority controlled schools?
It seems to me too early to pass judgement on whether a new system will do any better or any worse, but it's here and I think there should be more focus on how the system could be used to improve education for children and the benefits of taking some of the politics out of education.
Just to be clear here, for those that don't realise it, the "big rich city boys" being questioned in this case are the educational foundation formed by the Leathersellers Company - a not for profit company - who have been involved in education in Lewisham since 1634 (http://www.leathersellers-federation.com/193/chairmans-welcome).
So the question here is around how you think education should be delivered, NOT one of "profit" in the same way that a profit making company may, for example, take over a train operating contract, take the government subsidy then channel a proportion of that as dividends back to shareholders.
Just to be clear here, for those that don't realise it, the "big rich city boys" being questioned in this case are the educational foundation formed by the Leathersellers Company - a not for profit company - who have been involved in education in Lewisham since 1634 (http://www.leathersellers-federation.com/193/chairmans-welcome).
So the question here is around how you think education should be delivered, NOT one of "profit" in the same way that a profit making company may, for example, take over a train operating contract, take the government subsidy then channel a proportion of that as dividends back to shareholders.
Politics and ideology have used education as a football for years. Cannot see that changing in a hurry. Surely there is a place for both state and academy run education? After all, the only thing society wants is a well educated stream of talent emerging into the workplace and society. If you asked any University admission officer what they thought of the general standard of state educated young adults knocking at their door, then you find the system failing anyway.
Just to be clear here, for those that don't realise it, the "big rich city boys" being questioned in this case are the educational foundation formed by the Leathersellers Company - a not for profit company - who have been involved in education in Lewisham since 1634 (http://www.leathersellers-federation.com/193/chairmans-welcome).
So the question here is around how you think education should be delivered, NOT one of "profit" in the same way that a profit making company may, for example, take over a train operating contract, take the government subsidy then channel a proportion of that as dividends back to shareholders.
Politics and ideology have used education as a football for years. Cannot see that changing in a hurry. Surely there is a place for both state and academy run education? After all, the only thing society wants is a well educated stream of talent emerging into the workplace and society. If you asked any University admission officer what they thought of the general standard of state educated young adults knocking at their door, then you find the system failing anyway.
True but I think you are missing a point here. University level education improves under an academy. (from all income groups) It's those well below average (who frankly should be undertaking job specific apprentice style education) who suffer the most. (of all income groups)
Comments
lewyaddick 8th March - 'Kentaddick replied 3 times, did i hit a nerve mate?'
This one kind of got away from you a bit, didn't it lewy?
Without knowing too much, i just assumed from the soundbytes that the move to Academies had been a widely seen successful venture, but very interested on the views added to this thread from those with a better insight.
I had been under the impression they were ... primarily ... a good thing but it does appear that there is a less-appealing aspect to it.
Lewisham has a local authority based system where some school services can be shared across the borough. Prendergast will have to buy in those services from elsewhere, or as I said skew their intake to avoid spending money on the more tricky areas of educational provision.
If anybody can tell me how academies can make the actual teaching in the classroom any better for all the students I would be interested to know.
Saw some data on a local borough from 2 years ago. That borough is having to fund the very expensive sending of well in excess of 100+ pupils to 33 schools outside the borough, because their needs (mainly Autism and Behavioural, Social and Emotional Difficulties) can't be adequately met within the borough.
With Academies more focused on delivering results as opposed to delivering eduction, i can see the squeeze on things like this becoming greater and greater and having a bigger impact on local authorities budgets
There is also an argument about Education being of benefit to the individual as the primary function, and that benefit may not always be measured in results and tests, much like you don't make a plant grow by measuring it, it needs tending to as well.
Of course there is also a constituency out there that regard schooling as a form of child care which is cheaper than independent child care.
I really don't believe society has ever tackled the question of why send our children to school at all, and come to any great conclusion, and this is in the context where everybody thinks they're an expert because everybody has attended school at some time.
http://www.purposeofschool.com/philosophical/
Advantages - better budget control.
Disadvantage - any student who doesnt look like making 5 grade C's. Loss of vocational courses. Students have to move to non academies which become diluted.
Overall?
Good for the more able (of all income groups), probably good for the average (who in an Academy, dont have the disruption of the least able in the lower sets), a disaster for the lowest ability groups.
What is Britain good at? Lots of "soft" stuff like film, TV, theatre, music. What are the subjects most likely to be dropped by Academies? Yes, the same, as none of them count towards the endless league tables.
I remain suspicious as to why the governors of the most successful school in the borough of Lewisham (and as I said before that includes ones that cost parents £10000s a year) want to become an academy? I don't get the impression that Lewisham Council are holding them back in any way. The underhand way this has been done has got all sort s of rumours flying. I heard one the other day that they want to turn the upper site on Hilly Fields into flats and that's how they are going to profit (I think this is absurd BTW, but we all know on here what happens in the absence of credible communications).
The other Prendergast schools are both different, and I've no idea if any case has been made there for turning them into academies, but I suspect from conversations with people with kids there they haven't.
Whenever something bad happens abroad, it's always contrasted with how things are done here, as we are a democracy. But when it comes to decisions that actually have a big effect on our lives, such as changing the status of my child's school, I appear to have no say at all.
All this is based on experience both as a parent and as a school worker. I have had first hand experience with 5 different schools, 2 secondary and 3 primary which were all converted to academies and I have witnessed these changes. I was also pro change at first as they made it sound so appealing, I know nobody that is happy with these changes and an awful lot of teachers, reception staff, TA's and ground staff that have "moved on" as a result.
the teachers are set unrealistic targets as you would expect in an office environment - Im a teacher and shouldn't be subjected to the norms of working in a service industry. Might lose my job if I'm not up to scratch.
teachers are unknowingly taking a dislike to these children. - Working as a teacher would be fine if it wasn't for the bloody kids
teachers also work much longer hours - Teachers should be able to set their own working hours
only parents that can afford them and only high achievers and well behaved can go. - Someone else should pay for my children's holidays
they won't let you do a foreign language for GCSE unless you're excelling at English - Its not fair that children shouldn't be allowed to decide how subjects are taught
extracurricular activities struggle too as staff are often too over worked to manage them - Don't need the overtime
you would now have to email them first then attend a meeting with class ta, then teacher then deputy head and then head. - The Head should drop everything and be available at my convenience to explain the overcooked greens served to my child for lunch.
Parents also find themselves faced with a lot more regulations and restrictions. - Parents should only have to comply with school rules they agree with.
I know someone who has worked as a supply teacher, he could go on and on about the sheer indifference he sees towards pupils in many schools, accepting he probably doesn't get sent to well run schools and is used mainly as a child minder. There will be good and bad everywhere as under all systems.
Given the flak the NUT direct at the Local Authorities who are the employers of their members, and the imperfect way in which school places are currently allocated, I am surprised at the affection they are showering on Local Authorities. They are claimed to be the only proper bodies able to effectively manage school resources. They are also claimed to be accountable to the electorate - really?
Breaking the control of Local Authority and politicians over schools should be good in principle. Can't see how much more damage can be done than decades of education being a political football from both sides of the political fence. Must be easier to remove the failing board of an Academy than Local Authority councillors for whom education is but one responsibility among many.
Personally, I think the comprehensive system, whilst good in principle but was too preoccupied with demolishing the inherent class system that ran through education, than on improving on its defects. Grammar schools did mix different classes, I was a Charlton council estate kid my dad was a lorry driver, my best school mate came from the smart end of Chislehurst whose dad was a doctor. Excluding the poor is a red herring. How many children get free school meals is now either a badge of honour or an excuse for failing.
Its excluding the disruptive pupils (do we call them special needs now) which is the issue, they might be rich or poor. If children are disruptive it is a parenting and social problem, not a problem for schools to sort out on their own. All schools will play the system given the way pupils are assessed for measuring progress, whether maintained or Academies.
Teachers should have more responsibility and more autonomy, and that ought to be more easily achieved under Academies than Local Authorities. But that will mean weeding out those teachers who can't cut it, I may be wrong, but I sense this is what teachers and Unions are really concerned about.
If that was directed at my post about the academy my wife work's at, I was talking specifically about a special needs unit whose provision is being cut. A unit for children with autism, ADHD, and so on, many with statemented special needs. As the parent of an autistic teenager, I don't think children with special needs, statemented or otherwise, can be dismissed as either a societal or parental problem, no matter how disruptive their behaviour may seem to the uninitiated.
I don't think that teachers get more autonomy under Academies either, I get the impression it is even less. Crucially, I think managers do get a lot more autonomy, which may well be why they are keen.
The point about removing academy governors is a laugh as well; the only person likely to do that is the Secretary of State for Education, who is obviously only going to care when it makes the national press (as in some high profile cases recently). I can at least have an input into what the council does (it's small I know, but I have met local councillors). I cannot see how a govt that already is remote from Lewisham will be remotely interested.
Now you know a little bit about me could you tell me why it's my fault your schools becoming an academy?
Each school usually has a number of students for whom another language to English is their mother tongue. Often this is a shoe in to an A* GCSE or A-level where the school doesn't even have to teach Farsi, or Mandarin or whatever to take credit for those grades.
The same goes for private tutoring, the half-way house to full on private schooling. If high GCSE grades in mainstream subjects are achieved from families paying for intensive one on one teaching, the school will claim the credit for that. Academy leaders will benefit from recruiting children from wealthier families to cater for such an eventuality.
BESD is quite different. (Behavioural, emotional and social Difficulties)
Selection though is, in many academies, based on the liklihood of achieving 5 GCSE's A-C. Statemented children are ususally unlikely to reach this standard and so, despite the government funding they attract, are not at the core of the academy philosophy.
As a result there are independent fee-paying schools receiving SEN students from local authorities.
For me it is a moral issue. An example: a starting salary for a newly qualified teacher is around 23k. This is what we tend to offer. We recently interviewed a candidate for a maths teacher who loved the school, enjoyed the children we have and was attracted by the ethos and leadership.
We offered her the job but despite this 'attraction' to the school she accepted a job at a local academy. They offered her 35k plus a golden handshake of 5k. We cannot compete.
By the way this is a school that has an executive head (probably on 150k) a secondary head (c. 115k) a primary head (95k). Any ideas where that money could be better spent?
Teaching used to be about bettering children. It was relatively poorly paid so attracted people whose desire to teach outweighed their yearning to be rich. Not any more.
Academies and Free Schools won't.
MALE COLLEGE-EDUCATED NON-TEACHER PAY COMPARED TO MALE TEACHER PAY
Year % Non-Teachers Earn More (or Less) than Teachers
1940 -3.6%
1950 2.1%
1960 19.7%
1970 33.1%
1980 36.1%
1990 37.5%
2000 60.4%
Something that reverses the decline in the status of teachers, improves pay and attracts the best students can't be all bad. The decline in relative pay happens to coincide with the start of political interference in education - coincidence?
If Academies take away at least some capacity for interference by bodies with too much of a political agenda; gives more control to the education establishments themselves, as used to be the case, I would have thought teachers would welcome this.
Concern is being raised about children who are directly or indirectly screened out by Academies to improve their chances of a higher rating. Isn't the solution to change the grading system?
I would have a system where parents and teachers had input into what level of attainment was good bad or indifferent, to recognise all the factors that can affect a child's progress. They could publish their own figures and discredit the current system. Could not Academies take these sort of initiatives more easily than Local Authority controlled schools?
It seems to me too early to pass judgement on whether a new system will do any better or any worse, but it's here and I think there should be more focus on how the system could be used to improve education for children and the benefits of taking some of the politics out of education.
So the question here is around how you think education should be delivered, NOT one of "profit" in the same way that a profit making company may, for example, take over a train operating contract, take the government subsidy then channel a proportion of that as dividends back to shareholders.
University level education improves under an academy. (from all income groups)
It's those well below average (who frankly should be undertaking job specific apprentice style education) who suffer the most. (of all income groups)