[i]almost half of pupils at secondary schools run by the Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) are in schools that are "less than good"[/i]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35492433 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35492433[/url]
Don't blame the governance model, it's always about the local leaders.
With the current and recent past changes to education, I wouldn't be surprised if half of all pupils in the UK were below average.
With the current and recent past changes to education, I wouldn't be surprised if half of all pupils in the UK were below average.
Think about it...............................
Think about it.
🙂
^^I just did, took a while:(
Think about it...............................
Normal distribution assumption......(although a fair assunmption)
midlifecrashes - MemberDon't blame the governance model, it's always about the local leaders.
Isn't a big part of the governance model that it relaxes criteria for who can be the local leaders, and gives them more power?
Isn't it just all about making a profit for Tory donors ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10567498/Academies-paying-millions-to-businesses-linked-to-their-directors.html
You'd like to think education would be the priority but that's obviously not the case
The whole point was to take away control from Local Authorities, who could maintain standards by stepping in when things went awry, as this was considered practically Communism 😉
I think the point was known re average comment
Don't blame the governance model, it's always about the local leaders.
As noted its the governance* model that allows them to big these sort of leaders - ie ones with no actual experience of education. The results are as we would expect letting non experts deliver anything
* the whole point of academies was that the different governance - and additional funding and ability to "select" would lead to better outcomes so it is entirely fair to question the governance of them - removed from the LEA and given to to the dept for education. To put it bluntly they changed it and the results are not better. Politics and pride will mean the current lot will plow on regardless.
Normal distribution assumption......(although a fair assunmption)
Or Median average.
I think the point was known re average comment
Ohh, I dunno! I suspect he meant to say 50% are "less than good", which was the basis of the original statement about academies.
The rest of your post I agree with entirely, although the profit motive should incentivise these schools to do better and find a natural balance between paying for more/better teachers and getting results whereas LEA control will either be good or bad (although apparently better on average).
Although (again), weren't most Academies created out of failing schools, so the fact they're still less than good, is a tad unfair as a method to judge them? "Less than good" but no longer failing is still an improvement.
By local leaders I meant the head and the senior leadership team. A good head will (eventually) bring forward a good school regardless of whether the school is community/academy/grammar/free.
The academy is the default model now that so many have been established that LA departments have often been wound down that they can't support community schools in the way they did ten years ago.
Ohh, I dunno! I suspect he meant to say 50% are "less than good",
No, it was a joke, and a bloody obvious one at that.
Poe's law* at work MSP
Although (again), weren't most Academies created out of failing schools, so the fact they're still less than good, is a tad unfair as a method to judge them? "Less than good" but no longer failing is still an improvement.
Originally this was the plan - they would be failing -- the assumption being the private sector and non specialists would somehow transform the education sector- but as it has expanded the offer - its policy for all schools to be academies - this has become much less true of late.
As for judging them I suspect part of the point was to have so many and all be so different it becomes impossible to do a meaningful comparison between this sector and LEA - especially when one notes the different funding methods, alleged selection and greater exclusions of academies.
Almost every school in special measures will come out of it eventually, Are academies outperforming LEA's as intended. I personally dont think so and when they are worse they are much worse- what does one expect if they make the owner of eddie stobbart run a school for example? I do agree its hard to do meaningful comparisons between them .
*Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will be mistaken by some readers or viewers for sincere expressions of the parodied views.
I asked about academy schools here last weekend after receiving a letter from the school informing us that they were going down this route now, before being forced down it, as all schools will be required to be academy status (or whatever) by 2020, because DC says so.
I came away realising that there appeared to be no advantages to pupils, teachers or parents.
There appear to be many advantages to central government and their mates.
My feeling is that it will be happening to a school near you, so suck it up.
On that cheery note...
and its a buisness academy
Although (again), weren't most Academies created out of failing schools,
This was the case with the first few created and it was a worth while exercise to roll the dice with them maybe. Now the majority of secondary schools are academies. No idea how its supposed to help and I've worked in a few.
When MrsMC was researching academies she could not find a single teacher who could point to the benefits of being in one. It's all about handing over a big chunk of taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to the electorate.
...who are not accountable to the electorate.
Have you ever tried to complain to a local authority about one of its departments. Electing new councillors changes nothing
AFAICT the advantage is they aren't tied to LA payscales so the can pay good teachers more to attract the best.
Also it means they can attract experienced Teachers who are priced out of the market in LA schools because of time served, but are able to go to Academies on a lower salary than an LA school could pay.
I *think* that's the benefit.
I came away realising that there appeared to be no advantages to pupils, teachers or parents.
There *are* advantages to Teachers - I've stated them above. The second one is a big advantage for an experienced teacher who wants to move or is looking for a job. LA schools seem to employ exclusively NQTs and a big part of the reason for that is they're not required to pay them as much.
AFAICT the advantage is they aren't tied to LA payscales so the can pay good teachers more to attract the best
And that they don't have to employ actual teachers to do the teaching, because an unqualified bloke who likes books is cheaper than a PGCE qualified English teacher.
so the can pay good teachers more to attract the best.
And where does this extra money come from? If they pay the "best" ones more then they have to pay the rest less which damages the majority. It also leads to favouritism and cliques, which are damaging in any work environment.
Son is at one of the academies created under the original scheme. Fresh start and investment for a struggling school, now has paid off and it's the better secondary in town, but still not amazing results due to the catchment.
The other school went downhill, and has now just been reinvented as an academy. I don't care about names and finance, I want kids to get an opportunity for a good education.
The other school went downhill, and has now just been reinvented as an academy. I don't care about names and finance, I want kids to get an opportunity for a good education.
So does everyone.
But, there is still no evidence that Academy status is any guarantee of this nor performs any better than schools run by the LEA.
And where does this a money come from?
From paying less to long time served average teachers.
But long time served average teachers get the advantage that if they want to move they are not priced out of the market.
The only Teachers who win under the LA system are people who are senior managers and good enough to get another senior management job or who want to stay in one school their whole lives.
Well councillors dont run the departments so no surprise there.Have you ever tried to complain to a local authority about one of its departments. Electing new councillors changes nothing
No idea what your point is
LA schools seem to employ exclusively NQTs
It would literally be impossible to run a school like this - an entire new intake of teachers each year - all newly qualified. It also means a teacher leaves the job at the end of each year. No offence but why would you claim this? Have you any evidence base for this claim as it is so obviously false I am not sure why you are claiming this - no offence meant but just think about it for a minute.
the very same teachers who could leave and get more money elsewhere? The very same teachers who are now teaching in your school that is meant to raise standards?From paying less to long time served average teachers.
Nothing you are saying makes sense or is true
If you have to pay more to attract the best then ALL your teachers will be on more. If you save money by having crap teachers they are still teaching and harm results.
EDIT: CHrist even your edit was wrong
The only Teachers who win under the LA system
Under a system where one is not paid on results and we have national agreements for wages then the worst teachers gain as the best teachers cannot be paid more than them. Jesus this was an integral point of the academies being set up [paying more to great teachers] and has been mentioned on here EVEN BY YOU! 😯
And that they don't have to employ actual teachers to do the teaching, because an unqualified bloke who likes books is cheaper than a PGCE qualified English teacher.
This thread was asking about the advantages of academies, not disadvantages.
Sarcasm/comprehension fail
This thread was asking about the advantages of academies, not disadvantages.
It would be a very short thread then.
LA schools seem to employ exclusively NQTs
It would literally be impossible to run a school like this - an entire new intake of teachers each year - all newly qualified. It also means a teacher leaves the job at the end of each year. No offence but why would you claim this? Have you any evidence base for this claim as it is so obviously false I am not sure why you are claiming this - no offence meant but just think about it for a minute.
When I wrote employ I meant "recruit". It was obvious from the context.
If you have to pay more to attract the best then ALL your teachers will be on more. If you save money by having crap teachers they are still teaching and harm results.
Nope, academies have the option of employing capable experienced teachers who are not outstanding. Capable quality people who an LA couldn't afford to employ because they've served so much time.
The only Teachers who win under the LA system
Under a system where one is not paid on results and we have national agreements for wages then the worst teachers gain as the best teachers cannot be paid more than them. Jesus this was an integral point of the academies being set up [paying more to great teachers] and has been mentioned on here EVEN BY YOU!
Indeed, it was stated by me in this thread as one of the two advantages I was aware of. So what's your point?
[i]Capable quality people who an LA couldn't afford to employ[/i]
you know it's individual school heads who decide recruitment policies and run their budgets don't you. Even those under LA 'control'.
The only way Academies would be able to have a higher overall staff bill than an LA school with the same pupil numbers would be if the funding models were skewed to favour Academies and free schools. And no politician would do that to further their own ideological goals, would they?
You know it's individual school heads who decide recruitment policies and run their budgets don't you. Even those under LA 'control'.
They can decide policy within the framework of the rules. And the rules make a teacher with 20 years served unaffordable to an LA school unless they're in a management role.
The only way Academies would be able to have a higher overall staff bill than an LA school with the same pupil numbers would be if the funding models were skewed to favour Academies and free schools. And no politician would do that to further their own ideological goals, would they?
In the early years before the Academy is running at full capacity a higher budget per pupil is *exactly* what happens. But yes, once established, Academies don't have a higher overall staff bill. *But* they can use that same staff bill to pay experienced teachers a lower wage than the LA would have to which makes experienced teachers affordable again.
Perhaps rather than telling me why the two advantages I've stated are "wrong", perhaps people can say what the *real* advantages are.
It's a topic that's discussed a lot in our house, a new insight would be useful.
😯
You misuse words and its my fault - sums your logic at work- again have you any proof of your NEW claim.
Any evidence for this? Either way its irrelevant as your point was about how they could [b]save money[/b] by paying less and this point is about how they can pay more.Capable quality people who an LA couldn't afford to employ because they've served so much time.
this was your original point
So they save money by employing the expensive teachers the LA cannot afford. Ok got it now they spend more to save money.From paying less to long time served average teachers
Your point - about the only ones who win- is wrong as the winners under the non academy system are the poor average teachers who stay in LEA as they are not paid on results and will get the same as great teachers Unlike you I was able to use the words i meant what shame they were too difficult for you to grasp. I doubt repeating them helped.So what's your point?
they can use that same staff bill to pay experienced teachers a lower wage than the LA would have to which makes experienced teachers affordable again.
This makes the assumption that the teacher will work for less. DO you really think this is likely? any evidence to suggest teachers leave higher paid LEA jobs for lower paid Academy ones or stay in lower paid academy jobs? Its seems unlikely teachers wont use the market and the lower paid jobs will end up being occupied by the least capable teachers.
Perhaps rather than telling me why the two advantages I've stated are "wrong", perhaps people can say what the *real* advantages are.
Here are a couple.
1. Academies don't have to comply with nutritional standards so they can supply cheaper, poorer quality meals to pupils.
2. Academies can directly employ local trades to do building work, safe in the knowledge that they can fall back on the LA when it all goes wrong.
[i]pay experienced teachers a lower wage than the LA would have to which makes experienced teachers affordable again.[/i]
Oh right so Academies main advantage is to bring the pay of experienced staff down.
And this pay cut motivates Academy teachers to work harder and deliver excellence too, I expect?
3. they allow people with no experience to run schools the owner of eddie stobart opened one for example
I would no more want them to do this than i would want the head of a school to run their transport division. the results are predictable
adding to ransos list
3) Academies and Free Schools seem to get given huge capital budgets to ensure they have modern, efficient, premesis that need significantly less ongoing expenditure on maintenance and running than the typical LA school.
From paying less to long time served average teachers.
But long time served average teachers get the advantage that if they want to move they are not priced out of the market.
The only Teachers who win under the LA system are people who are senior managers and good enough to get another senior management job or who want to stay in one school their whole lives.
This is not my experience. Been given more money to stay in a LA school. In academies I've taught in the pay scales are the same. All schools can be extra to recruit or retain if they want to
3) Academies and Free Schools seem to get given huge capital budgets to ensure they have modern, efficient, premesis that need significantly less ongoing expenditure on maintenance and running than the typical LA school.
What seems to happen round here is that the school is modernised or rebuilt by the LA, then it converts to an academy straight afterwards.
This is not my experience
Interesting, so what percentage of newly recruited (non-management) teachers have more than (say) 15 years experience in your school as opposed to new recruits with less than 3 years?
And just to be clear you're saying that in your opinion negotiable salary is not an advantage of Academy Schools? If not what do you think the most important advantage is?
[i]If not what do you think the most important advantage is? [/i]
I think the tone of this thread is that people can't see an advantage beyond the ideological one of them not being accountable to Local Authorities and elected councillors [edit] and for a lot of people that's not an 'advantage' more a 'difference'?
Damn as you were telling us that the LA [ sic][s] employed [/s] sorry you meant recruit NQT's and i asked for prove i was rather hoping you had actual figures to hand rather than you were just saying things that you had no evidence nor statistics to base the opinion onInteresting, so what percentage of newly recruited (non-management) teachers have more than (say) 15 years experience in your school?
Surprising considering how logical and consistent your post are 😉
FWIW his point was that your point about getting lower pay in the LEA was wrong. Not sure why you had to ask.
