The Primary School Little Leku goes to has registered its interest in becoming an Academy and the parents have been asked for their views. It feels like a railroading rather than a consultation (the Headmaster is very in favour).
I'm rather suspicious of the whole process. Surely it makes more sense that the LA controls local schools and gain the economics of scale for the services it provides. We are in affluent area and very middle class. I believe there are no free school meals. My concern is that if schools like ours leave, then the ones in worst of areas will suffer.
I am also concerned about the amount of power the headmaster would gain.
Anyone being through the process?
I've no experience directly.
My biggest concern with acadamies is that the governing body will set admission rulesand, to a certain extent, curriculum.
I know that a lot of fundamentalist Chirstian groups are targetting getting 'their people' onto governing bodies to give them exactly the sort of influence on who gets in and what is taught that I would expect LEA control to prevent.
It's not acadamies per se that worry me - it's the motivations behind the desire to create them and, in the future, a change in the culutre/ethos of these schools as their management changes.
tick
mmm Headmaster is a god botherer and quite a few of the governors.
My parents both work at schools going through the process and almost all the teachers are against it, but senior management and governors want it. Heads like the idea because they get to set their own pay (iirc) and they like the idea of more control. But it is a selfish move because of the LEA and other non-academies losing economies of scale.
Schools are given a sizeable chunk of money to pay lawyers and accountancy firms to help with the transfer to academy status - that says it all for me.
If you're against it threaten to move your child and encourage other parents to do the same. Fewer kids = lower funding.
my mum is governor of local primary I'll ask her when I see her later if you like?
Our local school is now an academy, new uniforms for the children, new longer hours for the children,more fancy cars blocking local roads, and the children seem to be a lot happier withall the new stuff theyve got to play with.
Any info would be gratefully received. Would like some solid points to go back with rather than 'I don't trust you'.
Moving kids wold not be an option as school is at bottom of road and we would be unlikely to get in any others locally.
Non-academy schools are already semi-autonomous - the LEA doesn't get involved on a day-to-day basis, other than through the services it provides.
On a practical note, leaving the LEA will mean that the school will become responsible for things like HR, payroll, building and grounds maintenance, supplies, catering, etc. It's likely that these services will cost more if they procure individually, than they would when supplied by the LEA. They will also need more staff/ hours dedicated to running the services.
The LEA is then left with contracts that are no longer viable - because they no longer have the volume necessary to get the best price. So they will have to renegotiate and charge the non-academy schools more. Those schools will then think that they're better off being academies. Fait accompli by the government...
Surely it makes more sense that the LA controls local schools and gain the economics of scale for the services it provides
My secondary went from grant maintained to whatever the next buzz word was, I guess the new equivelent is academy.
The way it was explained to me was if it was LA controlled the LA would pay for the pedestrian crossing/lolypop lady outside the gates, and take the money from the education budget. With GM/accademy status the LA still had to provide the crossing but it came from the highways/transport budget. Ditto busses etc, so the end result was 90% of the education budget gets spent elswhere.
The way it was explained to me was if it was LA controlled the LA would pay for the pedestrian crossing/lolypop lady outside the gates, and take the money from the education budget. With GM/accademy status the LA still had to provide the crossing but it came from the highways/transport budget. Ditto busses etc, so the end result was 90% of the education budget gets spent elswhere.
But its all funded by the taxpayer, so its just a con.
yes, but, no, but............
Ultimately the school gets more money, dpeends on your POV whether thats a good or bad thing.
The way it was explained to me was if it was LA controlled the LA would pay for the pedestrian crossing/lolypop lady outside the gates, and take the money from the education budget. With GM/accademy status the LA still had to provide the crossing but it came from the highways/transport budget. Ditto busses etc, so the end result was 90% of the education budget gets spent elswhere.
The first bit is right - the LEA "top slices" the education budget to pay for school services. But the new academies will receive their money directly from central government, and the LEA is not obliged to provide any services to the academy. Their may be some specific exceptions I'm not aware of, but that's the general rule.
It is smoke and mirrors finanically.
I suspect it's likely that where there are number of acadamies in an area they'll end up clubbing together to buy HR etc services at the best price and all that will happen is what was once an LEA provided service provided froma central point will become a private company one provided froma cetnral point.
The conservative agenda is to remove a layer of goverment as much as possible and to move the money from government run organisations to privately owned ones.
Additionally, and as I said above, it gives anyone with an idealogical axe to grind an ideal way to change the way that their schools are run.
There will be left a few, mostly failing, schools in local authority control that will be pointed at as eveidence that LEA control doesn't work. The reality will be that whereas now schools co-operate and share best practive the acadamies will see this as 'non-core' and will tend to only work with other schools oeprated in a simialr way.
It's a sad thing to see, imo, and it's likely that the NHS will be carved up in a similar way in time.
Interestingly if you are an Academy and our school floods/ burns down, there would be no one to help find alternative accommodation.
School in the back of an Asda anyone?
Pros - your school gets more money
Cons - everyone else gets less money
no way would i let my children go to any state funded brain washing centre, ill teach them my self i think.
Pros - your school gets more money
Cons - everyone else gets less money
Pros (?) - your school gets more money but has to do more things with it
Cons - everyone else gets less money
The government has confirmed that academy status should not give schools a financial advantage. The school will be allocated its share of the money that is currently held by the local authority to make provision across all schools for pupils with a whole range of special needs, pupil support, education welfare and school transport.Once the money is allocated to the school, it will have to make provision to replicate those important services previously provided by the local authority. It may find, if, for example, it has a significant number of pupils with special needs, that it has insufficient funds to match the provision previously provided by the local authority.
It is likely that your headteacher will say that the school will get extra funding by becoming an academy. You should treat statements like this with great caution. In the first case any apparent financial advantage will be for one year only as the government will be introducing a completely new funding formula for schools in 2012. Also, you should check the sums – what about the costs of all these support services that were previously provided by the local authority and for which the academy will now be liable?
And what about the safety net provided by the local authority, for example, in the event of a fire or a flood (as happens to too many schools each year). As things are, your local authority would find you new accommodation and sort things out – if your school is an academy you would be on your own in these circumstances.
Went to the annual "isn't the school great" open evening the other day. Head said they'd investigated academy status and that ultimately there wouldn't be much/any extra money and no real advantage for them. The whole thing is driven on the school side by religious zealots and heads with a CEO fetish.
intersting concept, how good are the LA services in your area, do they provide good value to the school(s) in the area for what it pays out of its budget. Is the LA full of highly motivated people or does it run along the lines of not a lot happening and it takes a lot of people to do it. interstingly little karnali started at the lcoal primary school, not an acadamy, but a C of E school, they sing christian songs in assembly, pray and have christian kids club on a lunchtime and a set of values are sent home that are very christian. 2 church goers/ christians on the governers, is that strange for a non academy?
[i]is that strange for a non academy? [/i]
CofE (and some catholic) schools are 'grant maintained' where the taxpayer pretty much 100% funds reliqious indoctrination of the next generation.
And then these same schools have entry qualifications which means the people who fund them can't get entry unless they pretend to be christians and go to church for 3 or 4 years until their kids are all safely un the system at which point attendance suddenly ceases.
Makes my blood boil that the state allows this to continue and the acadamies are really just taking this approach to its logical conclusion.
Went to the annual "isn't the school great" open evening the other day. Head said they'd investigated academy status and that ultimately there wouldn't be much/any extra money and no real advantage for them.
The whole thing is driven on the school side by religious zealots and heads with a CEO fetish.
Should make it clear that this last bit is my opinion not his.