Apologies if this has been done before, I’ve tried a search but with no results, so please point me in the direction if there is a recent discussion on here, thanks.

Slack jr came home the other day with a letter from his high school informing parents/carers that the governors have reluctantly decided to pursue changing the nature of the school to an academy.

Their main reason cited to be because Cameron has said that all schools will be academies by 2020 and that the governors felt now will be better than later as this will enable them to find other schools in the county with the same ethos and values as this one has. As opposed to delaying the process and finding themselves grouped with others who do not share these values.

Historically and currently, the reputation of this school is very good, scores well with the various ofsted hoops and a higher than average GCSE results performance.

I’ve thus far paid little attention to this academy thing, my perception being that it’s a way to reduce government spending and financial liability for education and possibly eradicating LEA’s. Maybe it’s a bit like roundabouts, whereby McDonald’s, for example, will be sponsoring cooking classes, GSK likewise with science etc etc?

In order to find a balanced view of the pro’s, con’s and reality of a once highly regarded high school being forced into changing the nature of its funding, I would very much appreciate your views, opinions and experiences. Cheers.

Worked in academies and non academies hard to tell the difference apart from academies having ownn payroll staff and more mini buses

Okay, thanks. How about other teaching resources? Whilst a local main car dealership could sponsor additional mini buses( presuming this being the source of the increased fleet), did you find the school becoming better resourced in terms of equipment, books, computers etc? Or did the independence of a locally managed payroll attract higher caliber teaching staff?

According to the other half (head of department). Academies tend o have more pressure on teachers. In a failing schools they will sack everyone in snr leadership appoint a superhead spend load of money, results will go up, stats look good, super head leaves, funding reduces as no longer faiing, schools drop back to he point it I no different to schools which have not been acadamised but received a boost in funding and new head to get them out of special measures.

Academies seem like a philosophical political push by the government as the mindset is if a private body is involved it must be better. Hence its the only way access recourses to reboot a school.

More mini buses seemed to be down to not being able to borrow an LEA pool/hire one as easily so needing more. The first academy i taught in was much better resourced but it was one of the first ones designed to improve long term failing schools. The other later ones seemed no different to any other school.

I for a La dealing directly with Academies (and maintained schools). So, my perspective may not be representative of everyone’s.
In my particular patch, Schools who have academised and then age range changed – we have historically had primary, high, Upper, have struggled to attain the high Gcse results that happened previously. There are also schools that are really struggling with numbers and must be teetering on the brink of viability. A studio school has already closed. With the need for improved Gcse results schools are, let’s say, becoming selective over the children they would like to admit.
the Mat approach seems to work better, but in the main, it’s my experience that schools who turn into Academies are not doing better.

There’s an odd loophole (cheers gove) that means accedemies founded between 2010-2014 don’t have to adhere to the usual rules about healthy foods in the canteen and junk food vending machines, to protect their revenue !

Law was only changed after an outcry by Jamie Oliver etc, but I think it illustrates what accedemies are all about

The school will get an extra injection of cash once turned in to an academy, so for the first few years, they will probably be better resourced. However, by having a much bigger control over budgets and relying from outside funding, if mismanaged then it could spiral downwards very quickly. My old school has had this happen, poor budgeting, relied on Microsoft for funding. When they pulled out, the school was screwed.

The curriculum will probably change at key stage 3 as they have more control over it; but on the whole provision should remain similar, especially at GCSE.

The management of academies tends to be much more business orientated, so can be far more ruthless and have expectations that are crazy. A friend in London works at on the of large ones, and they pay for her clothes to be cleaned and delivered to school, as they appreciate the teachers will have little time to do this stuff!

That’s helpful, thanks. Given that in this instance the school is not failing or under achieving, my reading between the lines of the letter would now suggest that by moving to the inevitable now, will enable this school to find and work with other non-failing school’s, rather than be lumped with the other relatively local high school that was placed in special measures a year or so ago. Which, now I think of it, was put into academy status shortly afterwards.

Why don’t they say this? Instead of gushing forth about ethos and values? Just say, we’ve got to do something now, take our future into our own control, otherwise we’ll be forced to join up with the not very bright kids in the city?

Tongue in cheek btw, before someone gets all offended.

I’m of similar thought to you Brick, political point scoring for philosophical privatisation/ capitalism. Although who is scoring points from who is now very unclear.

That said, it does appear that there is some forward thinking governance going on here, for which I approve, despite the underlying reasons for it having to be.

Reading on from mrwhyte’s post, could an academy school choose to opt for baccalaureates rather than GCSEs? He asks, not really knowing if baccalaureates are any better or worse, but at least they’re more difficult to spell correctly and thus indicate a level of education higher than just using text speak…

BITD, when there were GCEs, IIRC there were a few different exam boards, London, Oxford, Cambridge etc. Whether there was any actual difference between them, I wouldn’t know, but some subjects may have been easier to pass with one board than another. If so, could an academy therefore choose differing exam boards ( assuming they also exist for the current GCSEs), for different subjects and thereby improving their all important performance stats?

Or is that being too hypothetical?

In terms of exam boards, any school has a choice in which ones they offer- I wouldn’t say one or another is easier, but they generally have different content. For example, I have chosen a geography GCSE for my kids with more physical stuff in, because we have a lot of kids with ASD needs, and they find physical geography much easier as they are solid concepts and process which they can see. Human geography blows their minds!

My current school has opted for the IB, and we are not an academy. So academies have the same choices in terms of qualifications to do as non-academies. The govt is scrapping lots of GCSEs and A-levels, so limiting choice anyway.

Some academies are doing a very bad job.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/not-good-enough-ofsted-attacks-academy-chain-9704784.html

The last one I worked for has had to hand back it’s five schools after continued falling grades, huge staff turn over, and pupils’ on roll are half what they were. The ‘managers’ did a very good job of feathering their own nest and have walked away rich, whilst thousands of childrens’ education has suffered.

I would look carefully into the track record of any organisation: drop in on other school they are running, before giving them the purse strings.

higher caliber teaching staff

Academies can employ people as teachers who haven’t got a PGCE. My brother is a “teacher” at an academy but he’s not actually a qualified teacher. It’s great for him (because he wouldn’t have the job otherwise) and he enjoys the work, but don’t think they’ll now be splashing the cash and getting Richard Branson-with-a-PGCE in to teach business studies.

The unqualified teachers pay scale is much lower too. Win win unless you’re a kid in the class

My kids school was successful and became an academy. No big deal as a parent.

As a teacher they seem to to be ideological driven toss. No idea when cash is short we give schools more money to make this change. Particularity when things are currently working well for a school.

There have been some total disasters. I work near the infamous Barnfield Federation. Man sets up huge federation of academies. Results look amazing but its mainly because don’t do actual gcse’s any more. Man gets knight hood and goverment say he is great. Man is found to be an idiot and have nealry bankrupted the whole federation and resigns but nicks his company car and a pile of cash he wasn’t entitled to. Man gets cushy goverment job as a thank you. Eventually he does have to resign this job as people realise he wasn’t all that

Man should give back knight hood

Sixth form colleges are now being pushed down this road. Its the crazy colleges pay vat but schools don’t rule. Initially the goverment said that they couldn’t afford to let us not pay VAT. Now they are saying we can afford it, provided we become Academies

Hmmm… Double whammy time.

Academy schools employ unqualified teachers at lower rates and reduce their costs/increase profits. Education of next generation becomes secondary consideration.

Government absolves itself from short term education liabilities to help their accounts look good so they can borrow more money for politician pay rises/old school chums contract awards.

Some may say Im being overly cynical.

I prefer the term, realist.

one near me was run by a local university and failed , head and deputy told to leave, new head brought in , staff sacked or told not to return, new school has now taken over running, same kids and daft staff trying to run people over escaping at night, lots of new signs and 3 new minibuses parked outside.Banners on the fences proclaiming what theyve done so far, and police not on gate anymore.

Looking at this entirely from the sidelines (Scotland) my inner cynic would be asking what the board of governors have to gain from this.

I know nothing about this “lumping together” process but surely if the school is doing that well other academies would be clamouring to get it on board?

Personally I smell shite, or rather a quick buck being pursued. Of course they could be looking to put together a transition plan over the next few years and do it properly but without the full facts its nothing more than speculation either way.

Academy schools employ unqualified teachers at lower rates and reduce their costs/increase profits.

On the other side of the same coin: Academy schools not bound by local authority pay scales, and offer well above local rates to attract teachers in areas of teacher shortage.

I’m not in favour of academies, but they are at a definite competitive advantage, at the expense of non-academy LA schools in my experience. Which is part of the reason decent LA schools are being forced to become Academies.

In my 10 years of teaching I saw 2 schools that I worked in convert to academies:

One used the sudden boost in funds to invest in replacing previously underfunded infrastructure- a new canteen building with presentation facilities for conferences that could be put to multiple uses, and repair of old and delapidated sports facilities- both projects that would be difficult to negotiate LA funding for because the older facility “will do”. This was a good school with good management that had been under supported by a LA due to its success.

The other school had similar issues but was in a “difficult” area and as such the Leadership team thought they were doing a difficult job. They appointed/promotes additional staff and ended up with approaching 14 assistant head teachers, and the head teacher increased his own pay to c. £100k after managing to persuade the governors that was what was required to get the job done. It is still a failing school, the head has now retired (final salary pension don’t you know) and the new head has had to figure out a way to undo all of the self serving influence the previous head had swayed over the governors.

As in any industry there are good and bad managers, if the school in question has good management with the students’ education at the root of their decision making then the move to academy status could be a great thing in the short term and allow further independent thought in the long term.

@squirrelking – I get where you’re coming from re doubts over the motives, however I am inclined to believe their stated reason of it being a necessary requirement as from 2020 and so do it now while they can manage and control the process.

Regarding ‘competitive advantage’, I get that too, so long as the raison d’être for the school is imparting knowledge and preparing the next generation for adult life. That has to be fundamental in any educational organisation, has it not?

I recall the inept headmaster of the then local secondary modern near to where I grew up, having to be promoted within the LEA as it was impossible to remove him from his post. Incompetence is rife, especially within management levels, one would like to think that a more competitive environment would deter this, however the world of business and commerce has yet to prove it.