advertisement


Academies and Free Schools. Still a good idea?

Greg said:
I can't offer any causation for Academy status delivering improvements in educational outcomes. I would, though, say that being an Academy has forced Governors to take a more proactive, business-like role, in the governance of the school and the market-place for 3rd expertise - eg. Maths consultancy - seems more competitive and transparent. In our experience we are a much improved organisation with data to prove it (eventually).
Click to expand...

Don't the Tories want to get rid of parent governors?

Stephen
 
stephen bennett said:
Don't the Tories want to get rid of parent governors?

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well, it was a white paper from the now departed goggle-eyed loon Nicky Morgan.

However, whilst parent governors are part of governance they are only part of it and don't define it (each academy's scheme of delegation will define how many of the GB will need to be parent governors). It makes sense for schools to recruit associate/community governors and it makes sense that they will look for people with useful skillsets.

However, actually finding willing and skilled candidates is easier said than done.

MATs are a different matter - their GB will be more like a company board of directors in terms of skills and experience and member academies might have a GB more like LA schools of old - focused on pupil progress and parent and community relations, and not involved in finance, premises, etc.
 
Greg said:
In my experience, this has achieved the following outcomes:
1. Academies continue to procure some of the services from the LA, but the LA pricing has become more competitive - they have reduced head-count, and market the expertise of their remaining staff as commercial services with comptetitive pricing.
2. some of the services are procured in partnership with cluster schools
3. some of the services are procured directly.
4. 100% of the "top-slice" is available to the Academy, whereas before conversion the LA could aggregate the "top-slices" and spend more on some schools and less on others and there was a lack of transparency.
5. the major frustration I had with the LA before conversion was their attitude to applications for places. They were very political and unhelpful to the school. They didn't serve applicant parents fairly - eg. they held a waiting list of applicants for our school, but refused to tell parents when spare places became available. Ironically we have had little choice but to retain the LA for handling applications (for several reasons) and now they are more reasonable but due to cuts completely under-staffed.
Click to expand...

What is your the basis of your experience of or in management of Academies?
 
Greg said:
I think you're conflating Academies with Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs)

that is exactly what "top-slice" refers to - Academies are given all of the funding directly from the EFA and then need to arrange the supply of the various services which would have been supplied by the LA.

In my experience, this has achieved the following outcomes:
1. Academies continue to procure some of the services from the LA, but the LA pricing has become more competitive - they have reduced head-count, and market the expertise of their remaining staff as commercial services with comptetitive pricing.
2. some of the services are procured in partnership with cluster schools
3. some of the services are procured directly.
4. 100% of the "top-slice" is available to the Academy, whereas before conversion the LA could aggregate the "top-slices" and spend more on some schools and less on others and there was a lack of transparency.
5. the major frustration I had with the LA before conversion was their attitude to applications for places. They were very political and unhelpful to the school. They didn't serve applicant parents fairly - eg. they held a waiting list of applicants for our school, but refused to tell parents when spare places became available. Ironically we have had little choice but to retain the LA for handling applications (for several reasons) and now they are more reasonable but due to cuts completely under-staffed.

So here you are talking about MATs?

At an individual Academy level I can't see any way that I could profit from being a Director/Trustee without it being very apparent very quickly. Business interests have to be declared regardless whether they are relevant. Relationships with suppliers and staff have to be declared. Any direct billing for goods or services have to be declared. The scheme of delegation and the financial handbook in combination ensure appropriate division of roles and responsibilities (SOX stylee) - Orders cannot be receipted by the same person who placed the order. Purchases have to be formally quoted, purchases over a specified amount have to go out to tender.

Even if I wanted to there just isn't any spare money.

I can't offer any causation for Academy status delivering improvements in educational outcomes. I would, though, say that being an Academy has forced Governors to take a more proactive, business-like role, in the governance of the school and the market-place for 3rd expertise - eg. Maths consultancy - seems more competitive and transparent. In our experience we are a much improved organisation with data to prove it (eventually).
Click to expand...

Yes, I was lumping Academies and MATS together for the convenience of making a general point.

I am aware that individual academies and indeed some MATS are very well run and are managed by conscience Heads and executive heads. It seems to me that you are to be congratulated for being one of those conscientious people.

However, as the Dispatches programme reveals the system as a whole is open to abuse. A MAT is subject to the same disclosure of interest requirements as any other school, but that did not stop the abuse from happening. If you are a conscientious head you will not have been looking for ways to manipulate the system, others clearly have, and it seems, succeeded.

It doesn’t even have to be open abuse, the perfectly legal practice of inflated salaries being paid to School Managers and their relatives does go on, and goes on at the same time as staff are made redundant. Yes, I know a school will have to give its budget run out at a time of redundancy, but getting hold of a breakdown of those figures when a school doesn’t want to reveal them is a devil of a job.

As I have already said, individual Academies and MATS can be very good, and dealing with an efficient HR dept of a MAT can sometimes be easier than dealing with LA Education Services, but that is not always the case. And the wider point that Academies and MATS are open to abuse, despite all the systems supposed to ensure they are not, is, if C4 and the BBC are to be believed, a valid one
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, I was lumping Academies and MATS together for the convenience of making a general point.

I am aware that individual academies and indeed some MATS are very well run and are managed by conscience Heads and executive heads. It seems to me that you are to be congratulated for being one of those conscientious people.

However, as the Dispatches programme reveals the system as a whole is open to abuse. A MAT is subject to the same disclosure of interest requirements as any other school, but that did not stop the abuse from happening. If you are a conscientious head you will not have been looking for ways to manipulate the system, others clearly have, and it seems, succeeded.

It doesn’t even have to be open abuse, the perfectly legal practice of inflated salaries being paid to School Managers and their relatives does go on, and goes on at the same time as staff are made redundant. Yes, I know a school will have to give its budget run out at a time of redundancy, but getting hold of a breakdown of those figures when a school doesn’t want to reveal them is a devil of a job.

As I have already said, individual Academies and MATS can be very good, and dealing with an efficient HR dept of a MAT can sometimes be easier than dealing with LA Education Services, but that is not always the case. And the wider point that Academies and MATS are open to abuse, despite all the systems supposed to ensure they are not, is, if C4 and the BBC are to be believed, a valid one
Click to expand...
I would agree there is cause for concern.

A pattern I have noticed myself amongst MATs is how many seem to have husband and wife working at the same MAT in positions of leadership, or one in a leadership role and the other as a consultant.

Though it's a recent change that we now have to declare relationships and their interests.

Having said all of the above - do you think Local Authorities were immune to nepotism and under-hand dealings regards award of contracts, etc.?

To my mind as long as scrutiny and transparency continue to be important these issues will reduce over time.
 
Then your commentary on your Academy is fine. I don't think you can extrapolate that to all academies, however.
 
Cav said:
Then your commentary on your Academy is fine. I don't think you can extrapolate that to all academies, however.
Click to expand...
I believe I wrote:
"In my experience" and then I listed outcomes based on my experience with one academy and lots of meetings/conferences where I have discussed these points with other directors/trustees of some other academies. At no point did I state or imply "all academies", just more than one academy.

I later stated "At an individual Academy level" where I referred to my experience and my experience alone.

Hopefully that's adequate clarification, but just let me know if you need more details.
 
Can we also remember that there are sponsored Acadamies/MAT and non sponsored which do not take a top slice.
 
Greg said:
I would agree there is cause for concern.

A pattern I have noticed myself amongst MATs is how many seem to have husband and wife working at the same MAT in positions of leadership, or one in a leadership role and the other as a consultant.

Though it's a recent change that we now have to declare relationships and their interests.

Having said all of the above - do you think Local Authorities were immune to nepotism and under-hand dealings regards award of contracts, etc.?

To my mind as long as scrutiny and transparency continue to be important these issues will reduce over time.
Click to expand...

I would not say that LA's are immune to anything. My experience of dealing with my LA has been mixed to say the least.

There are undoubtedly fundamental problems with our education system at the moment. Those problems didn't start with academies and are not confined to academies, they've been festering for years. And while I have worked with good heads in good academies, and less good heads in less good state schools, I do feel that academies are not the answer to the problems and while they're so open to abuse, are only likely to make things worse.

The problems (in the system as a whole) are too wide for discussion here, but are probably summed up by the feeling that education for ordinary teachers is not a happy place to be working at the moment. This is evidenced by teacher recruitment figures and the numbers of teachers seeking professional assistance. Surely we should be aiming for happy teachers? Happy teachers = happy kids.

The problem with our education system at the moment, is that we don't have an education system. We have a multiplicity of education systems. And it's a bit of a mess. Academies at best, just add to the mess.

I agree with you that 100% that scrutiny and transparency, over the whole damned system, are the key. Let's start there!

Finally, any PFMer's who are thinking of making a musical joke out of LA or LA's...please don't.
 
Academies perform no better than state schools but cost more. Many waste money buying in services, previously provided by LEAs, either discretely or in consortia which are more expensive but no more effective.

It is analogous with the NHS - a plethora of "Trusts" with a proliferation of highly paid management resulting in declining standards, morale and hospitals with huge debt.

There will be many academies in real financial trouble in the not too distant future.
 
Cav said:
Academies perform no better than state schools but cost more. Many waste money buying in services, previously provided by LEAs, either discretely or in consortia which are more expensive but no more effective.

It is analogous with the NHS - a plethora of "Trusts" with a proliferation of highly paid management resulting in declining standards, morale and hospitals with huge debt.

There will be many academies in real financial trouble in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't think it's possible to demonstrate Academies perform better than state schools I'm not convinced the statement in bold is true. Do you have any meaningful evidence to support it?
 
Cav said:
Academies perform no better than state schools but cost more. Many waste money buying in services, previously provided by LEAs, either discretely or in consortia which are more expensive but no more effective.

It is analogous with the NHS - a plethora of "Trusts" with a proliferation of highly paid management resulting in declining standards, morale and hospitals with huge debt.

There will be many academies in real financial trouble in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...

According to one of the leading teaching unions, half of the overall education budget goes to setting up Free Schools, half of what's left goes to setting up academies, and state schools get what's left over.
 
52749053904_00f0dff146_b.jpg
 
Enfield boy said:
Ofsted, Ofcom, Ofwat, Ofgen. All clearly presiding over corruption and a scorched earth policy.
Click to expand...
I remember spending hours in Keble College library reading about privatisation and how natural monopolies might be regulated, or coaxed into behaving quasi-competitively.

This was the dawn of the brave new world of free enterprise, under Thatcher, and the powers-that-were at Oxford seemed keen to ensure that their economics (PPE) graduates got a slice of the action.

What a pile of shit it's all turned out to be.
 
droodzilla said:
I remember spending hours in Keble College library reading about privatisation and how natural monopolies might be regulated, or coaxed into behaving quasi-competitively.

This was the dawn of the brave new world of free enterprise, under Thatcher, and the powers-that-were at Oxford seemed keen to ensure that their economics (PPE) graduates got a slice of the action.

What a pile of shit it's all turned out to be.
Click to expand...
Until I listened to the programme below, about the privatisation of British Gas, I hadn't appreciated how much of a role John Redwood had in dreaming up these ineffective markets with ineffective regulators.

In 1980 he wrote a book: 'Public enterprise in crisis: the future of nationalised industries'.

By 1983, he was working for Thatcher, privatising British Gas. "I didn't have any particular criticisms of British Gas. I just felt that competing forces might introduce innovations that would be worthwhile...' Innovations? Oh wait, I think he means dividends. ;)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0f4r3kv
 
Looks like Redwood has been awful forever! Wasn't the first "Innovation" selling state assets ridiculously undervalued so that they and their rich pals could make a fast buck? Maggie said it was to encourage a property and share owning democracy but, then as now, most live pretty much hand-to-mouth and she knew those shares would soon end up in the usual portfolios.
Of course Redwood moved on to become a disaster capitalist making money out of crashing the economy.
 
Enfield boy said:
Looks like Redwood has been awful forever! Wasn't the first "Innovation" selling state assets ridiculously undervalued so that they and their rich pals could make a fast buck? Maggie said it was to encourage a property and share owning democracy but, then as now, most live pretty much hand-to-mouth and she knew those shares would soon end up in the usual portfolios.
Of course Redwood moved on to become a disaster capitalist making money out of crashing the economy.
Click to expand...
The way Redwood tells it in the programme I linked above, when he arrived in Conservative Policy in 1983, he proposed a much wider set of privatisations than they had in mind. He says that Thatcher was sold on the idea of a wider ownership culture. She liked the idea of the little man having a stake. Of course, the irony is that nationalisation meant that - indirectly - everyone already had a stake; so any privatisation by definition would concentrate wealth and dispossess the little man who couldn't afford to subscribe for shares. A share-owning democracy, where the demos is restricted to the 1.5 million individuals (2.7% of the population) who bought shares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top