Free Schools - What scares the teaching profession so much?

[Fittster]

lockhart flawse said:

I would imagine that the head would be able to chuck out pupils who won't conform before they ruin it for the majority that would like to learn something. So I think free schools have a good chance of being very successful and would expect many more to open over the next few years.

L.F.

Will Free schools be able to avoid the managed move procedure that state schools are placed under (get expelled from one school and you get moved to another, it's a merry-go-round for disruptive kids, as fast a school gets shot of one, they get someone else's troublemaker)

[Deva Link]

Mark Benson said:

But I can choose my child's independent school, based on it's ethos. I'm stuck with the comprehensive system wherever I look.

You can try and choose, but the independent school you want your child to go to could be oversubscribed or the child may fail the entrance exam / interview. Or they just might not like the look of you.

[Mark Benson]

Deva Link said:

Mark Benson said:

But I can choose my child's independent school, based on it's ethos. I'm stuck with the comprehensive system wherever I look.

You can try and choose, but the independent school you want your child to go to could be oversubscribed or the child may fail the entrance exam / interview. Or they just might not like the look of you.

Of course. But that doesn't alter the fact that with state schooling, I get one 'choice' - mediocre, the only differentiation being what shade of mediocre my child is allowed to attend.

At least now with Free Schools I may get still more chances to get a place somewhere better.

[Deva Link]

Mark Benson said:

Of course. But that doesn't alter the fact that with state schooling, I get one 'choice' - mediocre, the only differentiation being what shade of mediocre my child is allowed to attend.

Dpends where you live, I suppose. I can't believe that there aren't some very goos state schools in N Yorks?

There are some exceptional County High (we don't use the term comprehensive in Cheshire) schools around where I live, but a few miles away there are some very, very poor schools. So I guess you have to choose where you live quite carefully. We did - as soon as we had kids we moved.

[Mark Benson]

Deva Link said:

Dpends where you live, I suppose. I can't believe that there aren't some very goos state schools in N Yorks?

There are some exceptional County High (we don't use the term comprehensive in Cheshire) schools around where I live, but a few miles away there are some very, very poor schools. So I guess you have to choose where you live quite carefully. We did - as soon as we had kids we moved.

There's Ripon Grammar, about 20 miles away. But we chose the village we're in because of it's primary school, which is exceptional. We'll take a decision on secondary schooling when she's older, but if we decide to pay (and I suspect we will) then it's less of an issue.

But that's my point, being rural, you're in one, maybe two state school's catchment areas and their intake is pretty fixed in terms of being the kids of white, middle & working class parents. Schools usually rank in the middle of the tables for exams, teachers don't come to the schools for any sense of challenge, it's very middle of the road. I was taken out of my state secondary here at the age of 12 as it was clear as one of the brighter ones, I was left to get on with work myself and I need pushing. My parent s coughed up and sent me to a fee paying school and I'm glad they did.

[Deva Link]

Mark Benson said:

Schools usually rank in the middle of the tables for exams, teachers don't come to the schools for any sense of challenge, it's very middle of the road.

The schools here are very high-end of middle-of-the-road, but I'm certainly aware that, despite one local school's extremely good results, there has been Ofsted criticism that the school wasn't pushing the pupils. The report said something the lines of: the kids were succeeding despite the teaching!

[thinfourth2]

turbobloke said:

thinfourth2 said:

I'm not sure I'd be rushing to send my kids to take part in the free school experiment instead of one with a proven track record.

Ironically one of the key reasons motivating groups to set up a new Free School, in reality rather than in the Guardian, is because there is no adequate local LA provision. Clearly this depends on what is viewed as 'adequate' but in any normal interpretation the situation is such that many parents consider that the choice they have is no choice.

The funny thing about this is I'm pretty certain i don't have any kids.

[turbobloke]

thinfourth2 said:

turbobloke said:

thinfourth2 said:

I'm not sure I'd be rushing to send my kids to take part in the free school experiment instead of one with a proven track record.

Ironically one of the key reasons motivating groups to set up a new Free School, in reality rather than in the Guardian, is because there is no adequate local LA provision. Clearly this depends on what is viewed as 'adequate' but in any normal interpretation the situation is such that many parents consider that the choice they have is no choice.

The funny thing about this is I'm pretty certain i don't have any kids.

That's fine as your original post was conditional - "...not sure I would be..." - meaning, surely, in relevant circumstances. Still, if you're only pretty sure rather than absolutely certain...this isn't like Arnie is it

[Countdown]

JagLover said:

Not the teaching profession but the teaching unions.

Whether it be here or in the US the teaching unions are opposed to such schools because of the threat to their power.

Exactly this. this is why the Unions are against Academies because it weakens their local and national Pay & Conditions bargaining muscle.

However there is another problem with Free Schools and Academies. They draw an unfair proportion of funding away from other LA schools (because of the way the funding formula is calculated). They are more expensive to run so its not as if anybody (apart from the Headteacher/Principal) benefits.

With Academies it was justifiable in that these were failing schools which needed radical action to change. With Free schools (from what I can see) its mainly well-off parents/students drawing money away from the LA (more than their fair share) so that Felix and Jacinta don't have to mix with the scrotes at the local comp.

Its perfectly understandable and I would probably do the same thing if it was my kids. But the fact is that "disadvantaged" kids will be disadvantaged even more as a result of Free Schools.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Apart from diseconomy funding as available to a new school opening without its full cohort of pupils, Free Schools receive the same per-pupil funding level as other schools in their area. What might be seen as 'extra' funding is merely the Local Authority topslice which is given to Academies and Free Schools direct, since they're outside of LA control...they will still need to use some of the money to obtain similar services, but are free to choose.

"The annual revenue funding for Free Schools in 2011-12 will be based on the average funding received by maintained schools and Academies in the same local authority using a simple and transparent formula."

As well as diseconomy funding they will also get Startup funding for the first few years. They will also get their share of the LACSEG (money retained by the LA to pay for central services such as Legal, HR, Finance, IT). But it will cost the Academy / Free School much more to source its own corporate services than if it was still under the LA umbrella.

When every other organisation is looking at shared services the Academy model is going the other way. So we've got a lot of HTs/principals with fat chequebooks and no idea of procurement procedures/ SLAs but lots of happy private sector firms trying to get their snouts in the trough

[Deva Link]

Countdown said:

With Academies it was justifiable in that these were failing schools which needed radical action to change.

That's not always true. One of the posh Cheshire top performing state schools near me has become an Academy.

I bet you can guess why.

[Countdown]

Deva Link said:

Countdown said:

With Academies it was justifiable in that these were failing schools which needed radical action to change.

That's not always true. One of the posh Cheshire top performing state schools near me has become an Academy.

I bet you can guess why.

Sorry yes - the original reason for Academies (aka CTCs) was to fix inner-city failing schools. Michale Gove changed all that when the Conservatives were elected.

[otolith]

This country seems to have a strange aversion to the middle classes getting anything nice back in return for their taxes.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Apart from diseconomy funding as available to a new school opening without its full cohort of pupils, Free Schools receive the same per-pupil funding level as other schools in their area. What might be seen as 'extra' funding is merely the Local Authority topslice which is given to Academies and Free Schools direct, since they're outside of LA control...they will still need to use some of the money to obtain similar services, but are free to choose.

"The annual revenue funding for Free Schools in 2011-12 will be based on the average funding received by maintained schools and Academies in the same local authority using a simple and transparent formula."

As well as diseconomy funding they will also get Startup funding for the first few years. They will also get their share of the LACSEG (money retained by the LA to pay for central services such as Legal, HR, Finance, IT).

LA topslice monies as part of Academy funding was already covered in my post. I didn't want to get into eduspeak with the Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant acronym.

Countdown said:

But it will cost the Academy / Free School much more to source its own corporate services than if it was still under the LA umbrella.

Price is far from the definitive indicator of quality, but what you describe isn't inevitable anyway.

Countdown said:

When every other organisation is looking at shared services the Academy model is going the other way. So we've got a lot of HTs/principals with fat chequebooks and no idea of procurement procedures/ SLAs but lots of happy private sector firms trying to get their snouts in the trough

That depends on who is appointed, if an Academy Principal has been through BSF hoops in a previous life as a Headteacher or Deputy they ought to have a grip on such things. Private sector firms have been preferred choices even for LA schools for some time, certainly when there were independent training providers around in any number - these were often used instead of the LA's cpd offer.

If any provider's price and quality aren't right then an Academy can always buy back into an LA's services, not forgetting that as an LA school that element of choice was absent, but where they do so the change in relationship when an Academy is a client not a captive School this can be used to make it a different service to the one they 'enjoyed' previously.

The essence of governance and leadership in an Academy or Free School is self-direction and autonomy. To criticise this on ideological grounds - or by extolling LA virtues as universal and unsurpassed - is hardly different from putting politics before pupils.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

But it will cost the Academy / Free School much more to source its own corporate services than if it was still under the LA umbrella.

Price is far from the definitive indicator of quality, but what you describe isn't inevitable anyway.

Well, in theory, if you or I spend enough time looking, we might be able to buy groceries from wholesalers cheaper than Asda can buy them. In practise its highly unlikely. With regards to Quality there is as much variation in private sector firms as there is in LA providers. Just because it is private sector doesn't mean its "better".

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

When every other organisation is looking at shared services the Academy model is going the other way. So we've got a lot of HTs/principals with fat chequebooks and no idea of procurement procedures/ SLAs but lots of happy private sector firms trying to get their snouts in the trough

That depends on who is appointed, if an Academy Principal has been through BSF hoops in a previous life as a Headteacher or Deputy they ought to have a grip on such things.

This is wrong on so many counts it deserves a

(a) BSF hasn't been around long enough for SMTs to have been "through the hoops"
(b) Input from HTs and SMTs will be limited to physical layout of schools and impact on teaching on Learning, absolutely nothing to do with Contract Mmanagement. Academies are having to appoint professionally qualified people to deal with stuff that would previously have been dealt with by the LA.
(c) BSF is involved primarily with the building (whether it is a D&B scheme or a PFI). It has nothing to do with the myriad of other back office services. Even with D&B schemes do you think a HT/Principal has the first idea about Asset management / Lifecycle planning / Facilities management ?

turbobloke said:

Private sector firms have been preferred choices even for LA schools for some time, certainly when there were independent training providers around in any number - these were often used instead of the LA's cpd offer.

Where its been more cost effective to outsource then LAs have done that. Equally where it makes more sens to deliver in-house then that is LAs have done. One of the problems however is that Academies have to incure costs that LAs didn't. For example an Academy school has to have an annual Accounts audit which costs IRO £10k, LA schools don't. LAs self-insure which works out cheaper.

turbobloke said:

If any provider's price and quality aren't right then an Academy can always buy back into an LA's services, not forgetting that as an LA school that element of choice was absent, but where they do so the change in relationship when an Academy is a client not a captive School this can be used to make it a different service to the one they 'enjoyed' previously.

In my experience where LAs are prepared to sell their services to Academies (and not all of them are) they will add on a profit margin. Usually they are still cheaper than the Private sector but again it means that Academies costs are greater than LA schools.

turbobloke said:

The essence of governance and leadership in an Academy or Free School is self-direction and autonomy. To criticise this on ideological grounds - or by extolling LA virtues as universal and unsurpassed - is hardly different from putting politics before pupils.

The self direction/autonomy is a myth. There is very little that Academies can do that LA schools cannot. For example Principals seemed to think that one of the benefits would be the ability to hire and fire teachers at will. They were shocked to learn that Employment law still applies.

turbobloke said:

To criticise this on ideological grounds - or by extolling LA virtues as universal and unsurpassed - is hardly different from putting politics before pupils.

I have no ideological preference one way or the other. I am looking at this mainly from a financial rather than a political point of view. Academies are more costly to run than a school under LA control, and as a result, take a higger proportion of resources away from the LA. This might have been justified where the Academy was previously a "failing" school. I would argue that it isn't justified where the school is a successful one.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Price is far from the definitive indicator of quality, but what you describe isn't inevitable anyway.

Well, in theory, if you or I spend enough time looking, we might be able to buy groceries from wholesalers cheaper than Asda can buy them.

Weak analogy. Schools are not vegetarians and external service providers are not wholesale purveyors of perishable goods.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

When every other organisation is looking at shared services the Academy model is going the other way. So we've got a lot of HTs/principals with fat chequebooks and no idea of procurement procedures/ SLAs but lots of happy private sector firms trying to get their snouts in the trough

That depends on who is appointed, if an Academy Principal has been through BSF hoops in a previous life as a Headteacher or Deputy they ought to have a grip on such things.

This is wrong on so many counts it deserves a rofl

(a) BSF hasn't been around long enough for SMTs to have been "through the hoops"

(b) Input from HTs and SMTs will be limited to physical layout of schools and impact on teaching on Learning, absolutely nothing to do with Contract Mmanagement. Academies are having to appoint professionally qualified people to deal with stuff that would previously have been dealt with by the LA.

BSF has been around since 2005 so five or six years and about 100 out of between 300 and 400 LAs (lots ~30 metropolitan boroughs, and ~30 geographically small but dense London Boroughs) were active in BSF as of early 2010, so getting on for a third. If you want to dig out precise numbers, feel free, but these are about right and show that the secondary estate has had sufficient exposure.

You also refute your own position but coyly, by indicating that almost all secondary schools and Academies employ 'professionally qualified people' aka specialist School Business Managers or Business Directors, with precisely the expertise you claim to be missing from schools.

http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/leadership...

As a result of these two facts, your claim of inadequate expertise in school senior teams has no basis. Whether Academies and Free Schools recruit it in terms of Headteachers, that's another matter but SBMs and SBDs remain to counter your point.

Countdown said:

(c) BSF is involved primarily with the building (whether it is a D&B scheme or a PFI). It has nothing to do with the myriad of other back office services. Even with D&B schemes do you think a HT/Principal has the first idea about Asset management / Lifecycle planning / Facilities management ?

BSF has indeed got (or, had, in its previous life) a lot to do with back office services, since ICT was usually procured as a managed service in BSF, very few schools opted out. Also the National College work with pre-BSF Headteachers would include briefings on everything from BREEAM in the context of procuring the building (input through the school and LA Strategy for Change) to FM and other back office aspects.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Private sector firms have been preferred choices even for LA schools for some time, certainly when there were independent training providers around in any number - these were often used instead of the LA's cpd offer.

Where its been more cost effective to outsource then LAs have done that.

Schools' choice, not LA's choice, is the issue.

Countdown said:

For example an Academy school has to have an annual Accounts audit which costs IRO £10k, LA schools don't. LAs self-insure which works out cheaper.

That's chickenfeed, an Academy SBM worth their salt can make overall savings of 20% or more on non-pay costs, and with the larger % of salary costs under the microscope, more can be done. In addition SBMs in an Academy would be expected to exceed the average school SBM income generation figure of £30k which wipes out more than your illustrated additional costs in one go.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

If any provider's price and quality aren't right then an Academy can always buy back into an LA's services, not forgetting that as an LA school that element of choice was absent, but where they do so the change in relationship when an Academy is a client not a captive School this can be used to make it a different service to the one they 'enjoyed' previously.

In my experience where LAs are prepared to sell their services to Academies (and not all of them are) they will add on a profit margin. Usually they are still cheaper than the Private sector but again it means that Academies costs are greater than LA schools.

If an LA does that they will not have an operational commercial arm for much longer. Not least because price was never the sole arbiter of decisions on outsourced services, though I agree a major one. Past relations between schools and LAs, often appalling due to LA incompetence, take their toll.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The essence of governance and leadership in an Academy or Free School is self-direction and autonomy. To criticise this on ideological grounds - or by extolling LA virtues as universal and unsurpassed - is hardly different from putting politics before pupils.

The self direction/autonomy is a myth.

Absolutely not.

Countdown said:

There is very little that Academies can do that LA schools cannot. For example Principals seemed to think that one of the benefits would be the ability to hire and fire teachers at will. They were shocked to learn that Employment law still applies.

Employment law still applies of course, that's a strawman. The point is that there is more freedom affecting employment, for example Free Schools and Academies don't automatically follow national Teachers' Pay and Conditions. The length of the school day and term/year structure are more easily modified. Also, Free Schools which as you know are Academies in legal terms, don't have to follow the National Curriculum. And so on.

Interesting

School FAQ document said:

It (Academy status) is an opportunity to develop new collaborations,
to procure services more effectively, and to manage new projects without being hindered by unreasonable bureaucracy.

The voice of the customer ^ ^ who is always right

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

To criticise this on ideological grounds - or by extolling LA virtues as universal and unsurpassed - is hardly different from putting politics before pupils.

I have no ideological preference one way or the other. I am looking at this mainly from a financial rather than a political point of view. Academies are more costly to run than a school under LA control, and as a result, take a higger proportion of resources away from the LA. This might have been justified where the Academy was previously a "failing" school. I would argue that it isn't justified where the school is a successful one.

There is a healthy dose of reasoning by assertion in there that's not too difficult to spot. For example on the finance side and in terms of secondary schools, LA schools with surplus places, as many have and will continue to have until at leats 2015, are very expensive to run. Academies tend to be popular with parents and have fewer if any surplus places.

It also seems that there's quite a lot in common between your remarks and the Anti Academies Alliance & PACS weblit, but I accept that's pure coincidence in terms of shared viewpoint.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 8th September 10:16

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Price is far from the definitive indicator of quality, but what you describe isn't inevitable anyway.

Well, in theory, if you or I spend enough time looking, we might be able to buy groceries from wholesalers cheaper than Asda can buy them.

Weak analogy. Schools are not vegetarians and external service providers are not wholesale purveyors of perishable goods.

I thought it was quite a good analogy . The LA can be seen as the equivalent of Asda. Academies can opt to buy from their local butcher/baker instead but it will probably be more expensive because the butcher doesn't have the same economies of scale.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

When every other organisation is looking at shared services the Academy model is going the other way. So we've got a lot of HTs/principals with fat chequebooks and no idea of procurement procedures/ SLAs but lots of happy private sector firms trying to get their snouts in the trough

That depends on who is appointed, if an Academy Principal has been through BSF hoops in a previous life as a Headteacher or Deputy they ought to have a grip on such things.

This is wrong on so many counts it deserves a rofl

(a) BSF hasn't been around long enough for SMTs to have been "through the hoops"

(b) Input from HTs and SMTs will be limited to physical layout of schools and impact on teaching on Learning, absolutely nothing to do with Contract Mmanagement. Academies are having to appoint professionally qualified people to deal with stuff that would previously have been dealt with by the LA.

BSF has been around since 2005 so five or six years and about 100 out of between 300 and 400 LAs (lots ~30 metropolitan boroughs, and ~30 geographically small but dense London Boroughs) were active in BSF as of early 2010, so getting on for a third. If you want to dig out precise numbers, feel free, but these are about right and show that the secondary estate has had sufficient exposure.

Five or six years is not a long enough period for a HT/Principal to have been involved in one whole scheme, to have gained the experience, and then for this experience to be transferred to another new scheme. It is rare for HTs to change jobs that often anyway so I don't agree that there is a pool of BSF-experienced teachers available to new Academies. That is why the Government uses Partnership for Schools (PfS).

turbobloke said:

You also refute your own position but coyly, by indicating that almost all secondary schools and Academies employ 'professionally qualified people' aka specialist School Business Managers or Business Directors, with precisely the expertise you claim to be missing from schools.

SBMs are NOT specialists - they are "jack of all trades" more akin to Office Managers. They have no idea about PAYE, VAT, Pensions. This is why originally it was a requirement for Academies to appoint qualified Accountants as Finance Directors. They also had to appoint CIPD-qualified HR Managers to deal with the numerous HR issues such as TUPE. The point I was trying to make is that all these issues increase the running cost of schools converting to Academies and have no direct impact on teaching and learning.

turbobloke said:

As a result of these two facts, your claim of inadequate expertise in school senior teams has no basis. Whether Academies and Free Schools recruit it in terms of Headteachers, that's another matter but SBMs and SBDs remain to counter your point.

There is a big difference between Bursars/SBMs and Business/Finance/Corporate Services/Resources Directors. The latter DO have the necessary skills but they are an extra cost for the Academy

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

(c) BSF is involved primarily with the building (whether it is a D&B scheme or a PFI). It has nothing to do with the myriad of other back office services. Even with D&B schemes do you think a HT/Principal has the first idea about Asset management / Lifecycle planning / Facilities management ?

BSF has indeed got (or, had, in its previous life) a lot to do with back office services, since ICT was usually procured as a managed service in BSF, very few schools opted out.

Two points : Firstly ICT was really only procured at the same time because it made sense that, if you were going to have a brand spanking new building, you may as well refresh your ICT at the same time. It made sense for the ICT infrastructure to be installed as part of the new-build process.

Secondly ICT was/is being procured by the LA for all its maintained schools. Academies are given the choice to sign up or sod off. And the reason the vast majority have signed up is because they haven't got the technical knowledge in-house to go through their own tendering process.

i.e. they do not have the technical knowledge or the buying power to be able to procure a managed ICT service. Much simpler all round if they buy through the LA. The performance monitoring of these new outsourced ICT services will also be via the LA.

turbobloke said:

Also the National College work with pre-BSF Headteachers would include briefings on everything from BREEAM in the context of procuring the building (input through the school and LA Strategy for Change) to FM and other back office aspects.

IME HTs/Principals know little and care less about BREEAM. The main issue was that they wanted wide open atria in their new schools with lots of windows and the architects would mutter something about non-compliance with BREEAM. With ragards to FM - again, not my experience of HT/Principals knowledge about FM.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

For example an Academy school has to have an annual Accounts audit which costs IRO £10k, LA schools don't. LAs self-insure which works out cheaper.

That's chickenfeed, an Academy SBM worth their salt can make overall savings of 20% or more on non-pay costs, and with the larger % of salary costs under the microscope, more can be done.

Well, insurance will cost IRO £50k so hardly chickenfeed. IME more than the LACSEG is spent on by Academies procuring services that were previously provided as part of LACSEG, thereby reducing the amount that is available for pupils. And it is highly debatable whether the service is any better.

Also I’m not sure why an SBM would be able to make 20% more savings in an Academy than in a maintained school? They (or more precisely the HT) have exactly the same control over pay and non-pay costs pre-conversion.

turbobloke said:

In addition SBMs in an Academy would be expected to exceed the average school SBM income generation figure of £30k which wipes out more than your illustrated additional costs in one go.

Again, why would an SBM in an Academy generate more income than the same SBM in the predecessor school? I’m struggling to understand what an Academy SBM will be able to do that an LA SBM can’t.. They have the same controls over lettings, income generation, procurement, the same budget management responsibilities, and yet for some reason converting to an Academy will somehow make them more efficient?

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

If any provider's price and quality aren't right then an Academy can always buy back into an LA's services, not forgetting that as an LA school that element of choice was absent, but where they do so the change in relationship when an Academy is a client not a captive School this can be used to make it a different service to the one they 'enjoyed' previously.

In my experience where LAs are prepared to sell their services to Academies (and not all of them are) they will add on a profit margin. Usually they are still cheaper than the Private sector but again it means that Academies costs are greater than LA schools.

If an LA does that they will not have an operational commercial arm for much longer. Not least because price was never the sole arbiter of decisions on outsourced services, though I agree a major one. Past relations between schools and LAs, often appalling due to LA incompetence, take their toll.

Our experiences differ. Mine is that LAs usually have to deal with the mess created by Schools staff and Headteachers.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The essence of governance and leadership in an Academy or Free School is self-direction and autonomy. To criticise this on ideological grounds - or by extolling LA virtues as universal and unsurpassed - is hardly different from putting politics before pupils.

The self direction/autonomy is a myth.

turbobloke said:

Absolutely not. The point is that there is more freedom affecting employment, for example Free Schools and Academies don't automatically follow national Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

And yet the vast majority HAVE signed up to the STPCD

turbobloke said:

The length of the school day and term/year structure are more easily modified.

Academies follow the SAME consultation process when modifying these. How is it easier?

turbobloke said:

Interesting

School FAQ document said:

It (Academy status) is an opportunity to develop new collaborations,
to procure services more effectively, and to manage new projects without being hindered by unreasonable bureaucracy.

The voice of the customer ^ ^ who is always right

Love it.

All Academies have done is replace one set of bureaucracy with another more complicated set. Academies have to report to Companies House, the Charities Commission, the YPLA, and the DfE. I have seen the budgets for several Academies for 2011/12 and 2012/13. 90% are in deficit because it costs more to run an Academy than an LA school

turbobloke said:

For example on the finance side and in terms of secondary schools, LA schools with surplus places, as many have and will continue to have until at leats 2015, are very expensive to run. Academies tend to be popular with parents and have fewer if any surplus places.

In Greater Manchester the vast majority of Academies were undersubscribed. Popularity with parents relates directly to results. If the school/Academy is successful it will attract parents and vice-versa. Just making a school into an Academy will not affect student numbers at all.

turbobloke said:

It also seems that there's quite a lot in common between your remarks and the Anti Academies Alliance & PACS weblit, but I accept that's pure coincidence in terms of shared viewpoint.

I consider myself to be a well-balanced Socialist. Seriously though, there is some truth in both pro- and anti-Academy “camps”. If we say that one group is completely wrong or completely right we are not being honest.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

They (or more precisely the HT) have exactly the same control over pay and non-pay costs pre-conversion.

No they don't, you're forgetting pay and conditions - Free Schools can operate beyond these when they open their doors from day one, and for schools converting to Academies contractual changes are allowed by TUPE where the change is not solely due to the transfer.

In spite of what the implications of this may seem to be, often Academies and Free Schools will pay more for key posts, but not bother with excessive layers of management or convoluted support team structures and so make significant efficiency savings alongside quality improvement.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Past relations between schools and LAs, often appalling due to LA incompetence, take their toll.

Our experiences differ. Mine is that LAs usually have to deal with the mess created by Schools staff and Headteachers.

You are of course joking at this point funny stories about teachers and spelling are one thing, LA incompetence is legendary.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The length of the school day and term/year structure are more easily modified.

Academies follow the SAME consultation process when modifying these. How is it easier?

Because Free Schools, as new Academies, are starting from scratch, and set out their stall at the outset, changing nothing - parents buy in (or not) to the ethos and arrangements of the new school.

Countdown said:

I have seen the budgets for several Academies for 2011/12 and 2012/13. 90% are in deficit because it costs more to run an Academy than an LA school

90% of what? All UK Academies? Or the several you saw budgets for? Or were these in reality first year academy transfers with deficits that arose because the predecessor school had a deficit budget?

Most odd, that one. How so? Academies cannot run a deficit budget. Those few you've apparently seen will be keeping the YPLA honest...

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typ...

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

It also seems that there's quite a lot in common between your remarks and the Anti Academies Alliance & PACS weblit, but I accept that's pure coincidence in terms of shared viewpoint.

I consider myself to be a well-balanced Socialist. Seriously though, there is some truth in both pro- and anti-Academy “camps”. If we say that one group is completely wrong or completely right we are not being honest.

We appear to disagree on this issue

The dead hand of the LA needs removing, Academies and Free Schools go some way to this end.

There will only be room for a judgement either way on success or otherwise, in terms of the Free Schools in the thread title, after they have seen an entire cohort or two through their gates. Meanwhile for reasons clearly elaborated in your responses, the 'establishment' including the unions remain worried. They are arguing from their own vested interests under the guise of arguing for pupils. When pupils and parents are given real choice we both know what happens.

[Deva Link]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

They (or more precisely the HT) have exactly the same control over pay and non-pay costs pre-conversion.

No they don't, you're forgetting pay and conditions - Free Schools can operate beyond these when they open their doors from day one, and for schools converting to Academies contractual changes are allowed by TUPE where the change is not solely due to the transfer.

In spite of what the implications of this may seem to be, often Academies and Free Schools will pay more for key posts, but not bother with excessive layers of management or convoluted support team structures and so make significant efficiency savings alongside quality improvement.

I bet we'll fairly quickly see Free schools running into financial trouble if they try to scale up and they'll either need to be rescued or they'll merge if the opportunity exists.

The heavily religious group supported schools will be OK.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

They (or more precisely the HT) have exactly the same control over pay and non-pay costs pre-conversion.

No they don't, you're forgetting pay and conditions - Free Schools can operate beyond these when they open their doors from day one, and for schools converting to Academies contractual changes are allowed by TUPE where the change is not solely due to the transfer.

I'll be honest -my experience was with Academies, I’m not sure about the Governance arrangments for Frees Schools so apologies if that differs. In relation to Academies I have not come across a single one which does not follow STPCD. The reason for this is that these used to be challenging/difficult schools and it would have been impossible to attract staff to these schools if you are paying less than LA-maintained schools. I can’t see how this is going to change with Free Schools

turbobloke said:

In spite of what the implications of this may seem to be, often Academies and Free Schools will pay more for key posts, but not bother with excessive layers of management or convoluted support team structures and so make significant efficiency savings alongside quality improvement.

This was the structure at one Academy I worked with.

Curriculum Leads
Department Heads
Heads of Year
Heads of KS3/KS4
Extended Leadership Team
Senior Leadership Team
Executive Leadership Team
Principal

Other Academies had different levels with different amounts of convolutedness. I’m not saying that schools don’t have equally complicated bureaucracies – they do. But I think there’s a misinformed view that Academies are beacons of efficiency.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Past relations between schools and LAs, often appalling due to LA incompetence, take their toll.

Our experiences differ. Mine is that LAs usually have to deal with the mess created by Schools staff and Headteachers.

You are of course joking at this point funny stories about teachers and spelling are one thing, LA incompetence is legendary.

I’ll give you some examples;

• Headteachers appointing their girlfriends to senior posts
• Headteachers (and friends) going on fact finding missions to New York
• Staff going on school trips without valid insurance
• The school minibus being stopped for having no MOT

The number of grievances that have to be settled out of court because the Ht didn’t follow the correct procedure are numerous.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The length of the school day and term/year structure are more easily modified.

Academies follow the SAME consultation process when modifying these. How is it easier?

Because Free Schools, as new Academies, are starting from scratch, and set out their stall at the outset, changing nothing - parents buy in (or not) to the ethos and arrangements of the new school.

I could be wrong but I think they will have to follow similar procedures to LA schools because these are statutory. So yes, the new Governing Body will be able to set up its own policy but these will need to be compliant with the relevant laws.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

I have seen the budgets for several Academies for 2011/12 and 2012/13. 90% are in deficit because it costs more to run an Academy than an LA school

90% of what? All UK Academies? Or the several you saw budgets for?

The several that I’ve seen. Given that Academies generally tend to have similar cost structures I am fairly confident this applies across the country.

turbobloke said:

Or were these in reality first year academy transfers with deficits that arose because the predecessor school had a deficit budget?

For the first few years Academies tend to have big surpluses because of the start-up grants. However if they cant get their results up they cant get their student numbers up. If they cant get their numbers up they lose out on funding…vicious circle.

All predecessor surpluses and deficits transfer back to the LA. Academies start with a clean sheet (they might have some self generated funds which the LA could let them keep)

turbobloke said:

Most odd, that one. How so? Academies cannot run a deficit budget. Those few you've apparently seen will be keeping the YPLA honest...

Deficit budgets but using drawdown from reserves to break even. Will only work in the short term.

turbobloke said:

We appear to disagree on this issue

The dead hand of the LA needs removing, Academies and Free Schools go some way to this end.

There will only be room for a judgement either way on success or otherwise, in terms of the Free Schools in the thread title, after they have seen an entire cohort or two through their gates. Meanwhile for reasons clearly elaborated in your responses, the 'establishment' including the unions remain worried. They are arguing from their own vested interests under the guise of arguing for pupils. When pupils and parents are given real choice we both know what happens.

I am fortunate in that there are 2/3 good schools available to my children. Had this not been the case I am sure I would be doing something similar to those parents demanding free schools. For me it boils down to 1 things

Academies cost more than normal schools and divert money away from LA schools. Where its an underperforming school I can see the justification for this. Where its not an under-performing school I can’t.