General strike/protest

Status
Not open for further replies.
The costs are essentially legal costs, transfer of property, employees contracts etc. We have a diverse system now Bruce, this policy removes that. In my experience people in education, in schools, are not per se against academies. The issue is it is being forced upon them without any proof that this will benefit our children and in the process, removing a system that for some, is currently providing a better than good service.

That is a problem in my opinion, as a lot of policy (and opposition to policy) appears to be ideologically based. If those in education circles (from government, unions, academy suppliers etc.) could formulate an experiment whereby new approaches were tested, a benchmark result established beforehand, and then full support offered to whatever method worked best, then that would seem a more logical way of proceeding.

As it is, both sides of this argument seem to have hunches with little but anecdotal evidence to support them and neither shows any inclination to budge from their position. Hardly ideal.
 
That is a problem in my opinion, as a lot of policy (and opposition to policy) appears to be ideologically based. If those in education circles (from government, unions, academy suppliers etc.) could formulate an experiment whereby new approaches were tested, a benchmark result established beforehand, and then full support offered to whatever method worked best, then that would seem a more logical way of proceeding.

As it is, both sides of this argument seem to have hunches with little but anecdotal evidence to support them and neither shows any inclination to budge from their position. Hardly ideal.

That would be far too logical.......
 
I say this to point out that not all work carried out at Academies is worse than state run schools. What I have been told is that the Acadamy, having control of its own budget, can focus directly on correct recruitment, can focus on the core subjects to be taught (without local council interference and driving them in the wrong direction), and can strive towards better results overall. Whether this is 100% across the board of all Academies is another thing, but I believe it is incorrect to simply dismiss them with broad, sweeping, statements without any evidence to back up such statements...
May I ask how long they've been an academy for?
Having direct control of the budget does, on the face of it seem like a step in the right direction. However, when there isn't enough money there, and there generally isn't, and you are relying on decision making by those who are often not qualified to make decisions, the working environment suffers. So far, all the conversation has been about the education of kids, which is totally understandable. However, there is a hell of a lot more to running a school than classroom activity and obtaining results.

As someone who is on the support staff in an academy school rated as outstanding by Ofsted I have seen the negative side of not being supported by the LEA and more often than not the issues lie with being forced into making financial decisions where the SLT are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It would appear that the easiest way to obtain more funding is to take in more pupils. Easy enough when youre a good school. However, the extra intake comes at a loss to other schools in the area. When they lose kids, they lose funding. There is little doubt in my mind that academisation will be responsible for increasing social inequality.

Meanwhile as schools get bigger, pressure is on teachers to teach bigger class sizes, in less suitable sized classrooms. They lose invaluable non-contact time to cover retiring staff who no longer get replaced. Buildings take more hammer and cost more to maintain. You are on your own when it comes to Regulations compliance - Asbestos, Fixed Wire, PATs, Lifts, Gas, Buildings and Grounds Condition surveys. Where once the LEA provided support to ensure the school was a safe environment it all comes out of the ever diminishing pot and there is no longer the collective purchasing/tendering which helps to keep cost manageable.

Its probably worth pointing out that as it stands, shools which fail financially and many are, are forced to join MATs, which are effectively privatised LEAs. Jobs are lost at the LEA and then in schools. (The thinking of course being that a MAT can get by on less support staff than individual schools can). Again, the communities that are hit hardest are the poorest.
 
May I ask how long they've been an academy for?
Having direct control of the budget does, on the face of it seem like a step in the right direction. However, when there isn't enough money there, and there generally isn't, and you are relying on decision making by those who are often not qualified to make decisions, the working environment suffers. So far, all the conversation has been about the education of kids, which is totally understandable. However, there is a hell of a lot more to running a school than classroom activity and obtaining results.

As someone who is on the support staff in an academy school rated as outstanding by Ofsted I have seen the negative side of not being supported by the LEA and more often than not the issues lie with being forced into making financial decisions where the SLT are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It would appear that the easiest way to obtain more funding is to take in more pupils. Easy enough when youre a good school. However, the extra intake comes at a loss to other schools in the area. When they lose kids, they lose funding. There is little doubt in my mind that academisation will be responsible for increasing social inequality.

Meanwhile as schools get bigger, pressure is on teachers to teach bigger class sizes, in less suitable sized classrooms. They lose invaluable non-contact time to cover retiring staff who no longer get replaced. Buildings take more hammer and cost more to maintain. You are on your own when it comes to Regulations compliance - Asbestos, Fixed Wire, PATs, Lifts, Gas, Buildings and Grounds Condition surveys. Where once the LEA provided support to ensure the school was a safe environment it all comes out of the ever diminishing pot and there is no longer the collective purchasing/tendering which helps to keep cost manageable.

Its probably worth pointing out that as it stands, shools which fail financially and many are, are forced to join MATs, which are effectively privatised LEAs. Jobs are lost at the LEA and then in schools. (The thinking of course being that a MAT can get by on less support staff than individual schools can). Again, the communities that are hit hardest are the poorest.

Excellent post. But why do you believe that academisation will be responsible for increasing social inequality and why will it be that the communities that are hit hardest are the poorest........
 
Excellent post. But why do you believe that academisation will be responsible for increasing social inequality and why will it be that the communities that are hit hardest are the poorest........
Because academisation is moving towards survival of the fittest.), where fittest is a precarious but dangerous balance of results and pupil numbers, where the pupils become not much more than a commodity. There is little doubt in my mind that the plans encourage the taking in of increased pupil numbers in a dog eat dog manner, with no regard whatsover to the effect one school may have on neighbouribg schools. The better ones will always come out on top in the fight for extra kids and therefore extra money for the coffers. Good schools attract money to an area. Housing costs are higher as the wealthier are prepared to pay more to fall into catchment. When a school increases its intake in order to accommodate more pupils, it widens the catchment, encroaching into the territory of others. Sure, it makes a widening area more desirable, but it leaves behind areas with worse schools, those who can't afford to move (or in rural areas transport their kids).
 
Because academisation is moving towards survival of the fittest.), where fittest is a precarious but dangerous balance of results and pupil numbers, where the pupils become not much more than a commodity. There is little doubt in my mind that the plans encourage the taking in of increased pupil numbers in a dog eat dog manner, with no regard whatsover to the effect one school may have on neighbouribg schools. The better ones will always come out on top in the fight for extra kids and therefore extra money for the coffers. Good schools attract money to an area. Housing costs are higher as the wealthier are prepared to pay more to fall into catchment. When a school increases its intake in order to accommodate more pupils, it widens the catchment, encroaching into the territory of others. Sure, it makes a widening area more desirable, but it leaves behind areas with worse schools, those who can't afford to move (or in rural areas transport their kids).

But, using your logic, if the schools in deprived areas became the best then that would help bring in wealthier people. I think you may have already thrown in the towel.........
 
But, using your logic, if the schools in deprived areas became the best then that would help bring in wealthier people. I think you may have already thrown in the towel.........

Probably, but I think we both know it doesn't work like that.
The question you should be asking, is why does it have to be a competition? Why should educational standards be about postcodes. Surely all kids should have their education provided, rather than parents have to chase it.
 
Probably, but I think we both know it doesn't work like that.
The question you should be asking, is why does it have to be a competition? Why should educational standards be about postcodes. Surely all kids should have their education provided, rather than parents have to chase it.

I agree with that, totally.......
 
I see that wiser voices are now getting involved with the Doctors dispute.....

"Doctors’ leaders have called on ministers and junior medics to “step back from the brink” and agree a peace deal to end their long-running dispute before next month’s planned all-out strike.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is warning that patients will suffer if junior doctors carry out their threat to withdraw cover – even from areas of emergency care – in a walkout at the end of April. That would only add to the NHS’s “unprecedented crisis”, it added.

The academy, which represents all Britain’s 250,000 doctors professionally, wants junior doctors to rescind that threat and the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to help facilitate new talks by dropping plans to force a new contract on them."........
 
The NUT really are a joke. They've decided to stop teaching "British values" for fear of offending minorities and celebrating colonialism. In addition, they then decided to abandon the new Prevent counter-extremism policy for stereotyping and upsetting innocent pupils (amongst other reasons), before ending with a Refugees Welcome plea. The next day, Christine Blower quotes Marx in her leaving speech and vows to join Corbyn's Labour Party. What a farce!
 
The NUT really are a joke. They've decided to stop teaching "British values" for fear of offending minorities and celebrating colonialism. In addition, they then decided to abandon the new Prevent counter-extremism policy for stereotyping and upsetting innocent pupils (amongst other reasons), before ending with a Refugees Welcome plea. The next day, Christine Blower quotes Marx in her leaving speech and vows to join Corbyn's Labour Party. What a farce!

Why is that a farce?

http://www.teachers.org.uk/news-events/conference-2016
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top