LeMarchand Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 All 'failing' schools to be academies under new Bill - BBC News Labour said the "divisive" bill missed the challenges faced by schools. Which seems to be complaining about the stable door they opened. Trusts and chains are not allowed to make a profit from running schools, which are inspected by Ofsted in the usual way. This confuses me. What's the incentive for a chain? I find it hard to believe that they're in it for the good of the kids! Or is it just that the people at the top can pay themselves big wages? Academy chain leaders welcomed the plan. In other news, foxes across the country are celebrating new legislation to leave the doors of chicken coops open to allow the birds to roam freely. 1
sted Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 isn't long term to make all schools academies anyway that way its always someone elses fault if a school goes bad? 2
seacider Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I wondered what exactly is a "Coasting" School"? Is it one that does not improve? Is this one of those "All schools must be better than average" load of political jargon rubbish they come out with.
Miscbrah Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 isn't long term to make all schools academies anyway that way its always someone elses fault if a school goes bad? Surely our Conservative overlords wouldn't shirk their responsibility and flog off our schools to large corporate chums hell-bent on outsourcing the world?
sted Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Surely our Conservative overlords wouldn't shirk their responsibility and flog off our schools to large corporate chums hell-bent on outsourcing the world? I don't think it would matter who was in power because this way they can set "standards" and just blame other people when daft ideas don't work
Miscbrah Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Tru dat, only said as current overlords of the blue persuasion.
abillybob Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I wondered what exactly is a "Coasting" School"? Is it one that does not improve? Is this one of those "All schools must be better than average" load of political jargon rubbish they come out with. Surely that's flawed... If all schools have to be above "Average" does that not mean that "Above Average" is now the Average...!?!?!
Dos_Box Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Surely our Conservative overlords wouldn't shirk their responsibility and flog off our schools to large corporate chums hell-bent on outsourcing the world? *cough* BSF *cough* It started long before this govt. 4
Miscbrah Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) *cough* BSF *cough* It started long before this govt. I knooow gawd everyone quit sweating me or I'll have to outsource my posts to a quasi-political post-making firm! Edited June 3, 2015 by Miscbrah cor blimey wossit
sonofsanta Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I'm really not sure what this is meant to achieve. Becoming an academy isn't a magic bullet, and you could change management in a failing school without academising. Just another angle to chip away at the LEAs, I guess. They obviously want education decentralised, for whatever reason.
Ephelyon Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I'll have to outsource my posts to a quasi-political post-making firm! ... like EduGeek? 1
LosOjos Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 This confuses me. What's the incentive for a chain? A cut of the education budget. Surely that's flawed... If all schools have to be above "Average" does that not mean that "Above Average" is now the Average...!?!?! Exactly. Wilshaw and Gove have proven in the past they're lacking basic statistical comprehension though, so this is no surprise.
Andrew_C Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 And once you've sold off this year's "failing schools", the cut off for the next year will move up, and a whole new lot will "fail", allowing you to sell them to your mates as well. Same as with pupils all having to be "above average".
X-13 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 What if the failing school is already an academy? The people in charge get massive payoffs and walk away laughing. 1
Diello Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Well, firstly an Academy Chain doesn't have to have a corporate sponsor, it can be an Outstanding School, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of private companies running Schools either, but let's remember it was Labour who started that - their original Academies program was all about corporate sponsors, and tried to do an extreme version of it with BSF (Side Bar: Why are the public so easily swayed by the idea that Labour are for public ownership, and the Tories are this nasty party that want to give everything to for-profit companies? Short memories? Labour tried to oversee the biggest privatisation of educational institutions I know of, plus all their outsourcing of the NHS... Both as bad as one another in one way or another.) All the talk of the LEAs... granted some are/where better than others, but in my experience, most of them seemed to be about non-educationalists dictating things to Schools that had nothing to do with local planning etc. I don't think private companies should be running schools, but academy chains lead by NLEs/NSSs that put education in the hands of experienced teachers and leadership personnel, with Government/Ofsted just overseeing the generalities, makes more sense to me that County Hall dictating everything. Edited June 3, 2015 by Diello
witch Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 My governor school went to academy after it failed to get out of "Satisfactory needs improvement". Said academy was initiated by the local First School next door as they are a teaching school for staff anyway. Seems to be working OK- the head of the First School is now exec head. There were NO local academy groups that wanted to take the school (the schools in an academy are supposed to be no more than a lunchtime's journey apart) which ended up with the LA "asking" the First School if they would do it! The school was going to go multi-academy trust where a group of schools got together and became a trust. I think that will happen anyway now but it seems silly that we couldn't do it because of our Ofsted result - at least that is what we were told. Multi-academy trusts seem the best way to go for me - basically it is really just a pyramid of schools pooling money and resources. Certainly no profit aspirations! We were told that most academies are non-profit making and it is only in big cities that companies sponsor school academies, for the advertising apparently. There are several academies around here - I had a look on the website of one, the Magna Academy, part of the Aspirations Academy Trust but couldn't see if it was private/profit making or not. As far as I know it has improved but whether that is to do with academy status I don't know. @Oaktech used to work in one, I know
LosOjos Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Well, firstly an Academy Chain doesn't have to have a corporate sponsor, it can be an Outstanding School True, but this particular news story is specifically about "requires improvement" schools being forced to become academies. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of private companies running Schools either, but let's remember it was Labour who started that - their original Academies program was all about corporate sponsors, and tried to do an extreme version of it with BSF (Side Bar: Why are the public so easily swayed by the idea that Labour are for public ownership, and the Tories are this nasty party that want to give everything to for-profit companies? Short memories? Labour tried to oversee the biggest privatisation of educational institutions I know of, plus all their outsourcing of the NHS... Both as bad as one another in one way or another.) The "Labour for the people, Tory for the corporation" attitude probably stems from Labour historically supporting unions and the working class and Tories privatising energy and transport. I'm not saying that's the right way to look at it; in fact I don't think it is, the Labour/Tory parties of today are barely indistinguishable, both watered down versions of their legacies and very little sets the two apart these days; but that's why the general public largely hold those views I think. To be fair, I think only one person mentioned the Tories in this thread, and that was tongue in cheek. More people have jumped up to say "Labour started it" than have said "it's the Tories fault" [in this thread].
Diello Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 True, but this particular news story is specifically about "requires improvement" schools being forced to become academies. True - I didn't word it too well; I more meant that the lead School can be an Outstanding School, taking over a "Requires Improvement" School, rather than the idea that Schools are being "sold off" to private companies... If a School is failing, and a local Outstanding School can be part of the solution, then I don't see where the issue is. Although the idea that every School has to be above average doesn't really work either as others have said. The "Labour for the people, Tory for the corporation" attitude probably stems from Labour historically supporting unions and the working class and Tories privatising energy and transport. I'm not saying that's the right way to look at it; in fact I don't think it is, the Labour/Tory parties of today are barely indistinguishable, both watered down versions of their legacies and very little sets the two apart these days; but that's why the general public largely hold those views I think. A good way of thinking of it... Not the right way of looking at it as you say, but it has become a view-point that is deeply embedded in many peoples' minds... but then that's a far larger conversation than this thread!
LeMarchand Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 A cut of the education budget. So if they pay themselves a huge salary it's OK. As long as you don't call it profit? I'm wondering how many people will get caught with their hands in the till... Well, firstly an Academy Chain doesn't have to have a corporate sponsor, it can be an Outstanding School, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of private companies running Schools either, but let's remember it was Labour who started that - their original Academies program was all about corporate sponsors, and tried to do an extreme version of it with BSF (Side Bar: Why are the public so easily swayed by the idea that Labour are for public ownership, and the Tories are this nasty party that want to give everything to for-profit companies? Short memories? Labour tried to oversee the biggest privatisation of educational institutions I know of, plus all their outsourcing of the NHS... Both as bad as one another in one way or another.) All the talk of the LEAs... granted some are/where better than others, but in my experience, most of them seemed to be about non-educationalists dictating things to Schools that had nothing to do with local planning etc. I don't think private companies should be running schools, but academy chains lead by NLEs/NSSs that put education in the hands of experienced teachers and leadership personnel, with Government/Ofsted just overseeing the generalities, makes more sense to me that County Hall dictating everything. I did point out in the first post that Labour started this idea. I agree with your theory about education peeps (hopefully) knowing what will work best. However, I'm not convinced that this is where things are heading. Surely as Academy chains grow they will end up as LEAs in all but name? We were told that most academies are non-profit making and it is only in big cities that companies sponsor school academies, for the advertising apparently. It's strange how this "sponsorship" mantra gets trotted out in these statements. Like you, I can't see the appeal for companies. Unless... Maths: Little Jimmy has £10. He wants to buy a Big Mac which costs £5.99 and a McDonald's Shake which costs £2.75. How much change will he have? English: Write a story about Ronald McDonald. Science: Using the values given on the separate sheet, calculate the nutritional value of a Big Mac.
witch Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I more meant that the lead School can be an Outstanding School, taking over a "Requires Improvement" School, rather than the idea that Schools are being "sold off" to private companies...! Which is exactly what happened in our case. I think this model can work quite well
Andrew_C Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Science: Using the values given on the separate sheet, calculate the nutritional value of a Big Mac.Sorry? That should come under "Creative writing". 1
rich_tech Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Seems quite apt on the thread I think We avoid it here being in Wales but it does make for a very strange system
Garacesh Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Surely that's flawed... If all schools have to be above "Average" does that not mean that "Above Average" is now the Average...!?!?! This is a particular gripe I've had with OFSTED since we got inspected this year.. I learned that, like the Windows Experience Index, a school can only get as high a score as its lowest value. So everything can be "Outstanding", but if one thing marks "Requires Improvement", that's the grade the school gets. And guess what'll get you "Requires Improvement?" Lower-than-average GCSE scores. Therefore, 50% schools in the UK will always be "Requires Improvement", because math. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now