'Big Society' Aide Turns On Cameron Over Children's 'Appalling Experience'

[Neil_F]

The evidence we have from Sweden(a far more socially homogeneous country than the UK)where this experiment has already been deemed a failure and state support has been withdrawn, would indicate that something similar is likely to happen in the UK.What we do know already is that such schools, because they attract the children of middle class parents, tend to dilute the mix of children going to existing comprehensives.

Perhaps you'd like to share this evidence?

The LSE recently conducted a study into the existing academy provision in the English secondary system. It found that pupil performance increased significantly in academies. The key quote is:

Our results suggest that moving to a more autonomous school structure through academy conversion generates a significant improvement in pupil performance…These results are strongest for the schools that have been academies for longer and for those who experienced the largest increase in their school autonomy

Now, some of this may well be due to the different pupil composition that an academy attracts. The same report found the following:

Our results suggest that (on average) schools respond to being granted increased autonomy (through the academy conversion) by sharply increasing the ‘quality’ of their pupil intake at year 7 [while] neighbouring schools experience a sharp and significant decrease in the ‘quality’ of their pupil intake at year 7.
​

So does that mean that performance drops in other local schools as the academy creams off the strongest pupils? Well, the report finds the following:

In addition to this, we also find that it is possible for neighbouring schools to experience significant improvements in their pupil performance despite the reduction in the ‘quality’ of their pupil intake. This seems to occur (mainly) in the neighbours of academy schools that experience large significant improvements in their pupil performance. We do not believe that this is a coincidence: it suggests that it is possible for performance improvements in an academy to generate significant beneficial external effects on their neighbouring schools

So let's get this straight: academies not only increase pupil performance but also raise standards in neighbouring schools. The presence of an acadrmy has been shown to raise standards for the whole area. Surely a good thing?

As for free schools, the most comprehensive report looked at 250 council areas providing education to 28,000 pupils. The report was compiled by a current member of the government (I don't think he was at the time). It found that free schools were setup where the quality of schools was poorest. Looking at it another way as Swedish schools were allowed to make a profit, where demand was highest.

If that trend were replicated in the UK then it would mean new schools opening in inner cities where the current provision is poor. That is exactly what is happening with the free schools planned tom open this year or next.

The other key finding of the report was the finding that supply side reform (increasing competition through free schools) increased standards in the entire local area. The report found that increasing the proportion of children in free schools by 1% increased the performance of all pupils in the area by the equivalent of a 5% increase in funding.

Another major study found that Swedish free schools favoured areas of high (in Swedish terms) immigration because this was where existing provision was poorest.

The Swedish system isn't perfect but it would be an improvement on what we have now. Right now the poorest in this country have absolutely no chance of getting their kids into a good school outside of a grammar school area. The introduction of free schools and academies, once a critical mass is reached, will go some way to correcting that.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Academies are the new favourite plaything of the DCSF, I've had to find out quite a lot about them because a lot of KS1 and 2 schools are also following this route. They see the carrot of a £25k incentive and think what a wonderful idea it is to be given that lump sum AND to then have the autonomy to run their schools independently of the LEA. To some extent I agree with that, Heads (and Governing Bodies) will be able to find the most cost effective people to do their maintenance and repair work instead of taking LEA approved companies (who are often more expensive than, say, the father of a pupil's firm); they will have responsibility for their own premises and staff; catchment areas will effectively cease to exist and numbers to admit will disappear, with schools taking on however many they want. Where I have issues though, is that as part of this autonomy, the staff pay structures will also disappear, meaning that good teachers can be rewarded (which I don't have a problem with), but there is no safeguard for a teacher who may be struggling with a difficult class, and who will likely be penalised when results aren't good. I've seen teachers bullied unnecessarily over their performance through job observations. It also begs the question as to what happens if one of your Senior Management Team becomes ill and has to have a lengthy period off work. How will the schools manage to pay sick pay for this Head and a salary for an "Acting" or temporary Head? The existing pay structure is there for a reason, and I think breaking away from it is a dangerous path.

High performing schools will become even higher performing Academies, they will attract the better performing children, and also best quality teachers. This is fine if it happens to be the school your children go to, but what about those others who are refused a place or don't have any choice but to go to the nearest school, however poorly it performs? So much for Every Child Matters.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You're entirely wrong however to think I might support the academy and free school system.The evidence we have from Sweden(a far more socially homogeneous country than the UK)where this experiment has already been deemed a failure and state support has been withdrawn, would indicate that something similar is likely to happen in the UK.What we do know already is that such schools, because they attract the children of middle class parents, tend to dilute the mix of children going to existing comprehensives.

Perhaps you'd like to share this evidence?

By all means:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2010/05/30/flagship-tory-free-schools-doomed-115875-22296075/
Not a quotation from The Guardian for once!:winking:
Here's Owen Simpson's take on the DM article:-
As right-wing Swedish Education Minister Bertil Ostberg admitted:
"We have actually seen a fall in the quality of Swedish schools since the free schools were introduced."All they achieved was more segregation."The free schools are generally attended by children of better educated and wealthy families,making things even more difficult for children attending ordinary schools in poor areas.....Most of our free schools have ended up being run by companies for profit."
Instead,he urged politicians to focus on improving teaching quality across the board."

 

[OldBlueLady]

As right-wing Swedish Education Minister Bertil Ostberg admitted:
"We have actually seen a fall in the quality of Swedish schools since the free schools were introduced."All they achieved was more segregation."The free schools are generally attended by children of better educated and wealthy families,making things even more difficult for children attending ordinary schools in poor areas.....Most of our free schools have ended up being run by companies for profit."
Instead,he urged politicians to focus on improving teaching quality across the board."

Which is almost exactly what I said. The Chelsea tractor brigades will attend the best schools because they can afford to take their children more distance AND to provide supplementary tutoring outside of school. Children from lower income families and children with pre-existing conditions like ADHD etc will be left to the remaining schools to teach. To my mind, those intelligent children from less well off backgrounds will be discriminated against, as they are left to be taught amongst difficult and unruly peer groups.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Which is almost exactly what I said. The Chelsea tractor brigades will attend the best schools because they can afford to take their children more distance AND to provide supplementary tutoring outside of school. Children from lower income families and children with pre-existing conditions like ADHD etc will be left to the remaining schools to teach. To my mind, those intelligent children from less well off backgrounds will be discriminated against, as they are left to be taught amongst difficult and unruly peer groups.

Actually, I thought you said it a whole lot better Kay,speaking with highly relevant first hand knowlege and providing some useful insights as to the FSM criteria.:thumbsup:

 

[OldBlueLady]

Actually, I thought you said it a whole lot better Kay,speaking with highly relevant first hand knowlege and providing some useful insights as to the FSM criteria.:thumbsup:

Thanks, the whole academy thing is right at the forefront now for us, as our consortium cluster of local schools are all looking to independently follow the academy route. We had the GMB reps in last week to talk to support staff about what it means for us, and it's actually quite a daunting prospect. Like I said above, the Every Child Matters mandate seems to have well and truly been cast aside, and it now seems to be more Every School for Itself, regardless of whose toes you trample on.

 

[pickledseal]

ECM has gone completely - it's now "Helping Children Achieve More" I believe.

I'll be working at an academy from September, ironically after fighting to keep my current school not an academy! The Catholic school issue adds a whole other dynamic to it (another story for another time!).

Schools have little choice in being forced into academies over the next few years I'd imagine, just another part of Gove's 'plan'. Not sure what you've heard Kay, but figures for funding only seem to to go about two years ahead... then after a bit of a lump sum schools could be finacially worse off...?!?

 

[OldBlueLady]

ECM has gone completely - it's now "Helping Children Achieve More" I believe.

I'll be working at an academy from September, ironically after fighting to keep my current school not an academy! The Catholic school issue adds a whole other dynamic to it (another story for another time!).

Schools have little choice in being forced into academies over the next few years I'd imagine, just another part of Gove's 'plan'. Not sure what you've heard Kay, but figures for funding only seem to to go about two years ahead... then after a bit of a lump sum schools could be finacially worse off...?!?

Yes, I saw you'd got a new job, well done! I believe the financial carrot incentive is there on time restricted condition which is why so many are rushing into it right now, I also reckon that ultimately schools may well be worse off, certainly those who don't have the kind of results to put them in the top percentage of performers. That is my concern, a two tier education system - ones that are heavily oversubscribed and keep growing as a result and those with poor results and decline - and that's without bringing private schools into the equation. Helping Children Achieve More is fine in theory but in practice I don't think it will work in all schools, the funding simply won't be there at the lower end.

 

[Neil_F]

Helping Children Achieve More is fine in theory but in practice I don't think it will work in all schools, the funding simply won't be there at the lower end.

So here is a genuine question: what is the "lower end" and how much funding would it take per pupil to move them into 5 A-C GCSEs including english and maths?

 

[pickledseal]

We roughly worked out it would cost £110,000 to buy back all the services we need at current levels, and at current costs.
Estimated academy funding, after £25k, worked out at for our current school as:

• 2011-2012 - £250k extra
• 2012-2013 - £125k extra
• 2013-2014 - £75k extra

It doesn't take a maths genius to work out the problem there.

Now my banker friends tell me, that introducing a capitalist system to school provision (HR, finance, admissions, insurance etc) would mean that services will improve and get cheaper from current LA system so that figure of £110k would go down over time and schools would get better service overall.

My new school is going into a consortium with some other schools which will make costing potentially cheaper... and it is also a high achieving academic school - which means it will probably just continue to high achieve!

I agree we are going to create an even bigger divide between the good schools and the struggling schools.... I really don't like how Gove thinks 'Academy' will solve everything!

The Daily Mash made me laugh too - <link>


Thanks for the congrats, very excited but a bit nervous too!

 

[MK Shrimper]

My missus works in MK Academy and it's probably worse than the failing school it supposedly took over. Drugs are rife, the "alternative" school holidays cause nothing but problems.

 

[Cricko]

So here is a genuine question: what is the "lower end" and how much funding would it take per pupil to move them into 5 A-C GCSEs including english and maths?

I know this is slightly off topic here so I apologise for that, but a question for you Neil..where, after these children have wonderful academic qualifications and no doubt a fair majority will go on to obtain degrees, do they actually get a job? I seem to recall at the last count some 1 million or a very high percentage of all graduates cannot find employment at all.

 

[pickledseal]

So here is a genuine question: what is the "lower end" and how much funding would it take per pupil to move them into 5 A-C GCSEs including english and maths?

We've been trying to work on this is my school... there are a lot of factors, but ultimately the highest cost is of teacher's wages. We have had a process of identifying students and giving them extra sessions in English and Maths during registration/assemblies etc. Now in my school it is only a group of around 30 students - this would be very different in other schools. You need to keep classes sizes small too - especially in the core subjects and if you look at basic models such as:

180 kids - 6 x Maths classes of 30 = 6 teachers
180 kids - 9 x Maths classes of 20 = 9 teachers
180 kids - 12 x Maths classes of 15 = 15 teachers

The average salary for a teacher is supposed to £35k, and this is just for one subject...

Now that is never going to happen and I don't live in a dream world, I know our country is essentially screwed financially and we need a way out.

Personally, the biggest change that was happening in schools was BSF which was making a really positive change in some of the most under-performing schools - which was desperately needed due to lack of investment through the 70's, 80's and 90's. Maybe it wasn't totally sustainable for all schools, but i think many of you would be shocked at the state in which many school buildings are in.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I know this is slightly off topic here so I apologise for that, but a question for you Neil..where, after these children have wonderful academic qualifications and no doubt a fair majority will go on to obtain degrees, do they actually get a job? I seem to recall at the last count some 1 million or a very high percentage of all graduates cannot find employment at all.

(Sorry to butt in)but as Owen Jones affirms, many of them,especially in the post industrial North,Wales and the former mining villages are being advised to take up entry level positions in retail (ie on the checkouts at Lidl,Tesco etc).

 

[pickledseal]

I know this is slightly off topic here so I apologise for that, but a question for you Neil..where, after these children have wonderful academic qualifications and no doubt a fair majority will go on to obtain degrees, do they actually get a job? I seem to recall at the last count some 1 million or a very high percentage of all graduates cannot find employment at all.

We can't actually predict the jobs market. Essentially the world today is very different from 10 years ago... my current Y7 students, aged 11/12 will not finish their degrees until 2021.

 

[Neil_F]

Cricko - it's a good question (it wouldn't let me quote in reply for some reason).

There is no answer to the question because labour markets don't work on that timescale.

My approach here is twofold: there are thousands of pupils left behind in the current system who have no realistic prospects of obtaining gainful employment in a service economy (especially with a minimum wage); and to get the best jobs in the UK you now have to be better than every global applicant not just every UK applicant.

Like it or not, we will never do mass manufacturing again in this country. The UK economy is built on services and high spec manufacturing, but even low level services are being offshored now. How then are those without basic skills supposed to find work in a service economy? They won't, so I think it is right to focus on raising skill levels at the lower levels.

At the top, the best graduate jobs in the UK are now competed for by global applicants, not just UK graduates. To get those positions graduates really do have to demonstrate excellence, often in a technical field. Currently in my office the room adjacent to mine has 25 engineers and mathematicians from India. They are here for a year working on a UK project because they have the technical ability and expertise to do the job. Why aren't there any english graduates there? I don't know (I'm not involved with the project), but I do know it is increasingly common.

There are two responses to this: stop people coming to the UK or make sure we have a system that competes. I favour the latter.