advertisement


Forced Academisation of Schools

Mescalito said:
And yet you cannot bring yourself to answer the question which either supports or undermines my hypothesis about where British society stands on the political spectrum.

Chris
Click to expand...

If I give the british public the choice of apple A or apple b , then we would of course live in an apple loving society .

Don't mean they wouldn't like a peach if it was offered to them . :D
 
paul auster said:
You have somewhat bastardised my point , if we cant come to an agreement as the function ,purpose and structure of a good school its time to give up .
Click to expand...
The devil is in the centrally planned detail.

Also , I disagree because of my previous point vis-à-vis the main purpose of schools being the socialisation of citizens in the making . Fragmentation disperses this role .
Click to expand...
I find your conformist ideology rather repugnant. Moulding citizens to fit into your vision of the future rather than giving children the tools to make their own futures.

For some children the main purpose of infant school might be socialisation, but for the majority is should be a side effect of being together in various diverse social groups.

Paul
 
paul auster said:
If I give the british public the choice of apple A or apple b , then we would of course live in an apple loving society .

Don't mean they wouldn't like a peach if it was offered to them . :D
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it rather looks as if the peach crop has failed:D

Chris
 
Mstone said:
My partner is a primary school teacher. The staff recently visited a school which has just switched to academy status. It is controlled by a USA owned company. They are teaching recent American history. Interesting given Gove's preference for the Kings and Queens of Britain
Click to expand...
Which school?

Paul
 
Paul R said:
The devil is in the centrally planned detail.


I find your conformist ideology rather repugnant. Moulding citizens to fit into your vision of the future rather than giving children the tools to make their own futures.

For some children the main purpose of infant school might be socialisation, but for the majority is should be a side effect of being together in various diverse social groups.

Paul
Click to expand...

I find your posts confusing and imprecise , whilst the content as **** all to do with anything I actually said .
 
psi310398 said:
It's quite complex. I'll try to describe things neutrally.

We are talking about what in the US are called public schools. In the UK public schools is a term for private schools. (Don't ask!)

Most schools are funded by the taxpayer (i.e. Central Government) and have been under the control of local authorities (roughly equal to a school district in US terms). Some are part funded by Churches and are semi-independent of this control.

The Academies policy is designed by Central Government to raise standards by removing local control and handing control to the governing body of the school direct with oversight by the central government Ministry instead. The assumption being that some local authorities do not add much value to the quality of education. This is the subject of furious debate as evidenced by the
discussion here.
Click to expand...

Thanks to you and to PaulA...

Let me see if I understand the issue:

School System:

A) State provides:

a. - Funding (from Tax Revenues)
b. - Curriculum (based on qualification standards)
c. - Qualification standards (for promotion to next class)
d. - Entry standards for primary, secondary and tertiary education

B) Local Authority provides:

a. - School management (in line with State guidelines)
b. - School monitoring
c. - School budget allocation
d. - School staff remuneration level setting
e. - School education policy/approach
f. - School staff selection criteria

C) Each School provides:

a. - Execution of education policy/approach
b. - Staff recruiting & employment
c. - Delivery of subject classes as defined in state curriculum
d. - Pupil assessment and marking in line with state qualification standards

Let me see if I've got this...

In this "model", the school would appear to be responsible primarily for "delivery/execution", while "management" is abstracted to local authority level (which adds consistency for those schools that would fall under any given local authority - but not necessarily across local authorities), while "policy and strategy" are set at state level.

Academisation, on the other hand, would appear to disintermediate the local authorities by devolving the "management" functions to each school's governing body and, effectively, excising the local authorities from the chain of command.

What is not clear in your responses is the level of autonomy to be granted to each school's governing body in terms of:

- Staff selection criteria and appointment
- Pupil admission/advancement criteria
- Sourcing of funding (state-only or partial/full privatization)
- Adherence to national curriculum structures (particularly between primary/secondary/tertiary levels)

At one level, cutting out a layer of management & control (particularly if ineffective), does make some sense but obviously opens up opportunities for inequalities for target pupil groups.

Some follow-on questions:

  1. What is the current competence level within local authorities?
  2. What is size of the pool of local authority staffing candidates?
  3. Is this pool shrinking in size and/or competence?

If this pool is small and/or shrinking and the level of competence of the pool is inadequate, then increasing the demand by devolving the function from local authorities to individual schools will compound the problem (more needed).

One other question looks at a bigger picture:

Do the current state responsibilities provide an adequate foundation for a cohesive and integrated education system across primary/secondary/tertiary levels wherein each level provides an adequate grounding for its graduates to enable them to cope with the next level's demands?

(A valid measure of grounding adequacy is the failure rate in the first year of each subsequent level - first year of secondary schooling and first year university.)

Obviously this matter has touched sensitive spots and this has resulted in an emotive set of reactions - understandably....
 
It's interesting to consider that Gove describes the National Curriculum as 'knowledge based.'

Anyone familiar with education will be aware of Bloom's taxonomy. Knowing stuff is the lowest order skill as opposed to creating which is the highest order skill.

Gove knows nothing, and is doing unspeakable damage to the Arts and Creativity in schools.
 
Paul R said:
I think that point has some basis if you look at National Curricula, which is of course something that Academies can bend to their will, but perhaps less if you look at most of the metrics used to measure progress.

Paul
Click to expand...
so given the metrics used to measure progress, the point has some basis.

The reason for the contradiction is as follows: enable and incentivise schools to become more autonomous and to diversify with the broad political objective of breaking the uniformity of teachers' pay and conditions and thus the control and influence of the teaching unions.

Dictate greater uniformity in the definition of success to (instinctively as it isn't evidence-based) drive greater rigorousness and to satisfy the old blue rinse tories demands for education to be a bit like their private school was in the 1960s.
 
DevillEars said:
Thanks to you and to PaulA...

Let me see if I understand the issue:

School System:

A) State provides:

a. - Funding (from Tax Revenues)
b. - Curriculum (based on qualification standards)
c. - Qualification standards (for promotion to next class)
d. - Entry standards for primary, secondary and tertiary education

B) Local Authority provides:

a. - School management (in line with State guidelines)
b. - School monitoring
c. - School budget allocation
d. - School staff remuneration level setting
e. - School education policy/approach
f. - School staff selection criteria

C) Each School provides:

a. - Execution of education policy/approach
b. - Staff recruiting & employment
c. - Delivery of subject classes as defined in state curriculum
d. - Pupil assessment and marking in line with state qualification standards

Let me see if I've got this...

In this "model", the school would appear to be responsible primarily for "delivery/execution", while "management" is abstracted to local authority level (which adds consistency for those schools that would fall under any given local authority - but not necessarily across local authorities), while "policy and strategy" are set at state level.

Academisation, on the other hand, would appear to disintermediate the local authorities by devolving the "management" functions to each school's governing body and, effectively, excising the local authorities from the chain of command.

What is not clear in your responses is the level of autonomy to be granted to each school's governing body in terms of:

- Staff selection criteria and appointment
- Pupil admission/advancement criteria
- Sourcing of funding (state-only or partial/full privatization)
- Adherence to national curriculum structures (particularly between primary/secondary/tertiary levels)

At one level, cutting out a layer of management & control (particularly if ineffective), does make some sense but obviously opens up opportunities for inequalities for target pupil groups.

Some follow-on questions:

  1. What is the current competence level within local authorities?
  2. What is size of the pool of local authority staffing candidates?
  3. Is this pool shrinking in size and/or competence?

If this pool is small and/or shrinking and the level of competence of the pool is inadequate, then increasing the demand by devolving the function from local authorities to individual schools will compound the problem (more needed).

One other question looks at a bigger picture:

Do the current state responsibilities provide an adequate foundation for a cohesive and integrated education system across primary/secondary/tertiary levels wherein each level provides an adequate grounding for its graduates to enable them to cope with the next level's demands?

(A valid measure of grounding adequacy is the failure rate in the first year of each subsequent level - first year of secondary schooling and first year university.)

Obviously this matter has touched sensitive spots and this has resulted in an emotive set of reactions - understandably....
Click to expand...

Any answer to your questions would be long, complicated and political . So to paraphrase Depeche Mode =:

people are people so why should it be that right wingers say I will perform better if organised privately .
 
paul auster said:
academies are essentially run by a management team . they are required to teach national curriculum but variance exists and most of the decisions on how the school is run and who can teach is devolved to the school management and taken away from the local authority . They control the schools budjet and have various other financial freedoms .
Click to expand...

According to the DfE, "Academies must teach a broad and balanced curriculum, but do not have to follow the National Curriculum. "
 
When I pointed out this type of inspection realignment and indicated I had left the inspectorate as a result I was attacked by the likes of Paul R etc on a variety of levels. I was further told that because the reports had not changed on the web I must have been exaggerating

Now do you believe me?

For information - academies are not new. All tertiary technical colleges were forced along with all other colleges to do similar in the early 90's. Even the government quango responsible for the staffing contracts got on the bandwagon to make money, later causing the CEO to be sacked in disgrace. Most parents do not actually see the damage that can be done. I by no mean in all cases and some were successful but consider this. All were millions in the red by year five of the project unless there was an industry benefactor. Think even further on this... Lets say 10 schools are assisted by an LA. The back room functions are therefore divided by ten saving thousands and putting the funds where they need to be. Further the senior staff being educational professionals are focussing their skills and experience internally on the children. They are not suddenly dumped into a foreign world of business management.

Now overnight they have to develop business management skills, HR and finance skills along with set up structures and systems that they have no experience of and usually develop with business models of similar turnover over a number of years. They are now (although some already have) focused externally and competing. A complete change of mindset and requiring totally different skills. Further and this is a generalisation from memory (but i can find the actual statistics as i was involved at the time) the school will most probably go from a support staff of say 25 per 100 teachers to around 150 per 100 (these are rough figures) This will be the result in all of the schools therefore an increase of 10 times the costs. Born out by the same budget. Usually the lucky school is the one that recruits the ex LA staff first actually...

Or of course as also happened when faced with the realities they could go back and purchase the support from the LA at a later date however now, assuming five do so, its twice as expensive as before and perhaps the LA shut those doors. Therefore perhaps they go and talk to specialists in back room and supply agencies like Capita and quickly learn what real costs are.

I have held senior positions on both sides of this fence - the truth is that if Academies are unavoidable then parents need to ensure that the senior staff of the schools have either experienced running a fairly large business or at least have some qualification for doing so... It may be dressed up but these skills will be essential and in many years of studying and auditing such I can assure you very few skills in these two sectors are truly transferable (there is stacks of research on this - look up Leicester University)

I could go on for hours on this but usually I am accused of being a left winger which I am most certainly not and those that are right wing start demanding names and statistics...

Sound familiar?
 
ciderglider said:
According to the DfE, "Academies must teach a broad and balanced curriculum, but do not have to follow the National Curriculum. "
Click to expand...

Yes and each government will define what is broad and balanced and do they not have to pass the exams everyone else passes . IE - its the NC with modifications .
 
DevillEars said:
Thanks to you and to PaulA...

Let me see if I understand the issue:

School System:

A) State provides:

a. - Funding (from Tax Revenues)
b. - Curriculum (based on qualification standards)
c. - Qualification standards (for promotion to next class)
d. - Entry standards for primary, secondary and tertiary education

B) Local Authority provides:

a. - School management (in line with State guidelines) - Not really - it provides some policies but management is largely devolved, except for pay and rations and hiring and firing in some cases - the teaching and support staff are local authority employees.
b. - School monitoring
c. - School budget allocation - Again, only at the margins, most funding follows the pupil and capital spend is largely devolved straight to the school. There is a communal pot controlled by the LA but it is not large
d. - School staff remuneration level setting In principle, but pay bargaining is done nationally
e. - School education policy/approach
f. - School staff selection criteria

C) Each School provides:

a. - Execution of education policy/approach
b. - Staff recruiting & employment
c. - Delivery of subject classes as defined in state curriculum
d. - Pupil assessment and marking in line with state qualification standards

Let me see if I've got this...

In this "model", the school would appear to be responsible primarily for "delivery/execution", while "management" is abstracted to local authority level (which adds consistency for those schools that would fall under any given local authority - but not necessarily across local authorities), while "policy and strategy" are set at state level.

Nowadays, management is largely with the schools with the local authority providing common services (all the dreck most schools heads don't want to bother with) and the occasional intervention where a Governing Body and/or Head is failing. It is also the last point of appeal for expulsions/exclusions, and needs to provide education services for those excluded from school etc.

Academisation, on the other hand, would appear to disintermediate the local authorities by devolving the "management" functions to each school's governing body and, effectively, excising the local authorities from the chain of command.

What is not clear in your responses is the level of autonomy to be granted to each school's governing body in terms of:

- Staff selection criteria and appointment
- Pupil admission/advancement criteria
- Sourcing of funding (state-only or partial/full privatization)
- Adherence to national curriculum structures (particularly between primary/secondary/tertiary levels)

At one level, cutting out a layer of management & control (particularly if ineffective), does make some sense but obviously opens up opportunities for inequalities for target pupil groups.

Bang on - which is why the Ministry has to keep those powers in case things go wrong

Some follow-on questions:

  1. What is the current competence level within local authorities? It varies.
  2. What is size of the pool of local authority staffing candidates? Not sure I understand the question. If education administrators, shrinking or being displaced to schools.
  3. Is this pool shrinking in size and/or competence? Probably

If this pool is small and/or shrinking and the level of competence of the pool is inadequate, then increasing the demand by devolving the function from local authorities to individual schools will compound the problem (more needed).

One other question looks at a bigger picture:

Do the current state responsibilities provide an adequate foundation for a cohesive and integrated education system across primary/secondary/tertiary levels wherein each level provides an adequate grounding for its graduates to enable them to cope with the next level's demands?

Teaching standards/training are dealt with by central government agencies and the aim is to set outcomes rather than inputs or outputs. Time will tell.


(A valid measure of grounding adequacy is the failure rate in the first year of each subsequent level - first year of secondary schooling and first year university.)

The problem is the unwillingness to use terms like "fail" anywhere in the system...Historically, children who are falling behind (for whatever reason) have been promoted to the next year whatever their attainment level until they leave at sixteen

Obviously this matter has touched sensitive spots and this has resulted in an emotive set of reactions - understandably....
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
paul auster said:
I find your posts confusing and imprecise , whilst the content as **** all to do with anything I actually said .
Click to expand...
I find your limitations in abstract thought unsurprising.

You really think the prime purpose of schooling should be the 'socialisation' of children?

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top