Academies are working

Mike Ion Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Well I think they are and I justify my case here.

Let me know what you think.





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Academies are working | 33 comments (33 topical)

Re: Academies are working (#1)

by Wiseman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM GMT

Dear Mike

Academies don't work and the anti-acdemies alliance state this well.  I am an NUT member and secondary school teacher and believe me some of the companies involved are not just capitalists, they strive for business interference in education.  This could lead to end of socialist or democratic socialist values.  I believe that even the much vaunted co-op trust schools are evena step to far although I prefer the ethos.

John


Re: Academies are working (#3)

by TonyHannon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM GMT

Hi John - I'm afraid the anti-academies alliance doesn't make its case very well at all as far as I can see (www.antiacademies.org.uk).

It claims that £14bn of publicly owned resources will go into the hands of private sponsors - but doesn't say how or why and doesn't even (appear to) concede any benefits. Thoroughly unconvincing website on a cursory inspection.

I'm happy (and eager) to hear argument one way or the other, I've always found the education system here to be so convoluted and politically undermined. 

Can I ask - is there no quality or comfort in Mike's figures?  


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#6)

by Mike Ion on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:23:26 AM GMT

John, doctordunc et al

I do understand your reservations but I honestly believe that there are good reasons to be more optimistic about how the academy programme is developing since Brown took over. Many of the planned new academies will be sponsored not by private companies or wealthy philanthropists but by universities and local councils. Take University College London (UCL) that operates ‘Partnership for Excellence’ with City and Islington College. More recently UCL have developed plans for the promotion of an academy in Camden, specialising in science, mathematics and languages. It must surely be better for an educational initiative such as an academy to be promoted by an organisation that has education as its central function, rather than by a private benefactor, no matter how excellent their motives.


The new UCL academy will be a non-selective mixed school, applying admissions policies developed with <address>Camden LA.</address> The new academy will engage fully with the national curriculum and the forthcoming agenda for diplomas. The day-to-day management of the academy will be left to head, accountable to a governing body led by UCL, but with representation from parents, teachers and other stakeholders. The academy will be part of the family of schools in Camden; it will benefit from interaction with others, while providing a centre of educational excellence that will enhance the support it presently offers to other local schools.

Surely this is to be welcomed and could be considered as a step in the right direction for the academy programme?


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#9)

by doctordunc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:07:49 AM GMT

It is a step in the right direction (although I find this new language of 'family of schools' rather too vague).  I've no objection to Universities having partnerships with schools and helping to fund them (though I might say that if universities have lots of free cash they might charge lower tuition fees or pay their staff more!!) but I still don't see a non-dogmatic argument for the school being taken out of the hands of the education authority, and also I think more care has to be taken over the impact on other local schools than just promising that it will be 'part of the family'.

Could some of the new criteria be applied retrospectively to existing academies, which are still a major concern to many people.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#12)

by rwendland on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM GMT

I don't really see how University link-ups in general helps equality of opportunity or outcome. I presume Universities only link up with local schools (those that the staff use for their kids?), so does that mean schools distant from any University will forever have lower opportunity? I feel we should be looking at more general solutions.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#13)

by doctordunc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM GMT

I think it's part of a move that we will see more and more in the next few years (following on from trends in the US) towards 'one-site' education (or at least 'one organisation' organisation), where primary school, secondary school, college and university are all organisationally linked (and, very likely, geographically linked to).  As you say, they are never going to be the norm - there aren't enough universities for one thing! - but they are on the march and we'll have to think about them.  I've no theoretical objection - though I think the possibility of having the same Maths teacher for 17 years is terrifying! - but I've some concerns overall.  It is part of the same trend with the school/college link-ups and the new diplomas, etc. and does tie in with specialisms as well.  Schools with different specialisms have partnerships (and you might study Drama at one school, Languages at another), then if you go down the diploma route, from 14 you might be going to the college 3 or 4 days out of 5 and doing literacy/numeracy, etc. at school.  Part of the trend seems to be to make FE all about vocational study (14-19) and school all about academic study.  There's the potential to lose a lot of good educational practice in such a rigid model.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#2)

by e10rifles on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM GMT

What works is pumping money into schools in areas with severe economic problems and associated academic problems.

What doesn't work is giving the private sector a say in the running of schools for a minimal contribution, pulling out of nationally-agreed pay, terms and conditions for teachers and support staff, removing schools from democratic local authority control and the farcical nature of school specialisations resulting from the nonsense 'choice agenda'.

See today's Guardian Comment is Free for that unelected toerag (and ex-Lib Dem) Adonis getting savaged by people who know what they're on about.

See here: http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/downloads/AAA_report.pdf for an in-depth examination of some of the rubbish trotted out in defence of academies. Aside from the Iraq fiasco, I think New Labour's gradual dismantling of the education system will prove in the long term to be its most damaging legacy.

PS your figures are meaningless unless you compare rates of free school meals etc against schools in the surrounding areas rather than against the national average


Re: Academies are working (#4)

by bishophill on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM GMT

You say in your piece that academies are acheiving rapidly rising results, but don't provide any evidence to support this assertion. Is there any?


Re: Academies are working (#7)

by Mike Ion on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM GMT

In academies the proportion of pupils gaining 5+ A*-C grades has increased by an average of 7% (2.1% for non-academy schools) and by 5% when English and mathematics are included (1% for non-academy schools).



[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#8)

by doctordunc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:00:59 AM GMT

Is that including taking a GNVQ Level 2 as being 4 GCSEs A*-C?


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#10)

by doctordunc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:10:17 AM GMT

incidentally, I don't ask that to in any way question the value of GNVQs, merely to check whether like is being compared with like (such qualifications may not have been available in the old schools, or the old statistics may not have included them).


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#5)

by doctordunc on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:36:46 PM GMT

Mike - I normally agree with you on education matters, but I really disagree with you on this one!  The money is very welcome (whether it be spent on improving existing schools or, indeed, in some cases on new schools) but - having looked in a lot of detail at this - I can't see any evidence that the way this money has been spent has had any benefits.  To a certain extent the government couldn't prove that it has helped because there is no control experiment - there aren't equivalent, well-funded local-authority-maintained schools.

I can't think of any reason why the Academies WOULD be better than schools with equivalent funding but with democratic accountability, commitment to national pay scales, accountable curricula, etc. (I realise there has been some progress on the last point).  It seems to be based on a) an ideological belief that private sector/non-local authority organisations are superior - which is just pure dogma - and b) a budget/EU-driven fondness for policies which, though they may be more expensive in the long-run inflict less short-term damage on the balance sheet.

I fear, far from working, Academies are a misappopriation of public funds, potentially damaging any number of people's education.


Re: Academies are working (#11)

by red flagger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM GMT

My usual question when told about how 'brilliant' academies are: why can't any of the achievements of academies be done in the public sector? Surely nothing is stopping it from happening other than ministers who have fallen in love with the whole idea of academies.  They should be giving more  resources to existing schools to help them improve.


Re: Academies are working (#14)

by NeilF on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:56:13 AM GMT

We all want to see the best opportunities for children and there are areas in the country where educational attainment is still desperately low. We know that more of the same isn't enough. Since then academies have been promoted with fervour and finance, but what is working and why? In the first term we focused on 'standards not structures' and I think that was a sound place to be.   

The key question is surely to what extent would non-academies in like-for-like circumstances improve with the same huge injection of resources? It seems to me that any school with such a financial boost would also improve considerably.

I'm keen to see any evaluations that indicate whether the actual concept of academies works, rather than simply whether results are rising in academies.  Mike and others - do you any you can post here?  It may be that the success of academies is simply down to the generation of additional finance and not what happens in the classroom. And then we could debate whether the trade offs are worth it.

We should certainly celebrate the progress made by the children and teachers at academy schools. But we should also praise those working in more trying circumstances too.  Let's see a decent bank of independent studies to see if the academy forumula is vital to this success. Could it be achieved in comprehensive schools that could innovatively raise and receive similar resources? What would the difference be between the private sponsorship from the Duke of Northumberland or academies backed by the Co-op or a university?  We ought to know.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#15)

by jljb2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:55 PM GMT

If we want to be sure that Academies are working, we need a control group of schools receiving the same increases in funding and independence for teaching staff (who disagrees with that?), but without the involvement of the private sector. Without that, we have no way of knowing which of these three key factors is responsible for any improvement in grades and (dare I say it) pupil wellbeing and learning (which is rather different to 5 A-C). It seems bizzare that a govt that supposedly believes in evidence-based policy should fail to provide this control, and worse, assume that private-sector involvement is inherently preferable to public sector control. There seems to be an ideology in New Labour that the private sector is innovative and efficient - that may be so, but maybe if the public sector was not hamstrung by diktats and targets, the people in it (who genuinely care about pupils' welfare and learning) would be similarly innovative. Until I see a study comparing Academies to similarly-funded controls, then I won't accept that we have to sell out to greedy businessmen in order to improve our children's lives. We also need measure other than the crude A-C/value added approach - what about behavioural outcomes, delinquency, future prospects, mental health?


Re: Academies are working (#16)

by HenryG on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:51:13 PM GMT

Yep, I agree with the last two points. There's too much rhetoric and blind new labour ideology behind academies to take an objective view. It's not just about exam results though - you've got evangelical businessmen like Vardy pushing their own agenda in the classroom too. The public realm is diminishing before our eyes.


Re: Academies are working (#17)

by jkitleft on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:57:46 PM GMT

Well, I think a way to improve the education system, would be to re-introduce grammer schools. Primarily as someone who does not try to adhere to any particular ideology, but would say his politics are leaning towards Democratic Socialist, I believe in selection by ability, not selection by wealth, as the current system of comprehensives and private schools sets. Or alternatively, you can have selection by ideology with 'faith schools'


Re: Academies are working (#18)

by jljb2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:05 AM GMT

Er...or how about reducing inequality so there's not selection by wealth anyway? I see no need for grammars - comprehensives were never supposed to give the same education to everyone, they were meant to cater to everyone's needs in the same location. Sadly, they have thus far only perpetuated the elitism of academics over vocational schools - but that's easily sorted within the present system. The notion that grammars would be less selective by wealth than comps is nonsense; also, some comps like my own old school are truly comprehensive - everyone goes there cos it's the only school - and that's got to be a good thing. It's only in big cities that middle class parents are a problem - but again, that's soluble by lotteries etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#19)

by jkitleft on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM GMT

Well, the system will never be perfect enough to eliminate wealth based selection anyway. I do not think an exam should decide the places of who goes to a grammar school, but the main inequality at grammers now, is middle-class parents shipping children off to them, in an attempt to avoid comps. If there were more, we would see less people at private schools who are from a middle-class background.

Many people from a poorer background benefited from the Tripartiate system, which by the way, was adopted by a government that was partly social-democratic, and is in place across countries which are more social-democratic than us. I think a work ethic is incredibly important in Democratic Socialism, I personally find many aspects of Liberalism soft, and fudge-like. The first rule of my Socialist inklings, is that nothing is ever going to be perfect, but we can make things better. People need to realise though, that they have to work HARD, so I personally believe that it is not an unfair idea to offer a more challenging standard of education, for those that are cleverer and have worked harder.

By the way, the applications for private schools from middle-class parents in the Brighton and Hove area, has shot up since the lottery system was announced. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#20)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:17:23 PM GMT

So the social apartheid which is already created by the absence of a true comprehensive system should be entrenched by punishing even more of those who "didn't work hard enough" at the age of 10/11?
 
It's certainly not socialism as I understand it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#21)

by jkitleft on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:29:38 PM GMT

Well, I'm not saying punish people, some would unfortunately get left behind with a grammar school system. But I believe, effectively, many intelligent children are deprived of a better education, by having to be in a noisy classroom, where they are not challenged by the work. Rather than playing to the average of children's results, I think it is fairer to play to the actual abilities, and streaming the system. I've heard from some, that when they went to grammar schools, kids from different 'classes', were at their school (when selective education was more common).

I'm not saying that those who don't work hard enough at 10/11 would be punished. I'm saying that it is far fairer to judge people by ability, to give them oppertunity, rather than to let those who have more intelligence recieve an education that does not live up to their abilities. Nor is the cololary fair either, to have education at a higher standard for those who genuinally struggle.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#22)

by e10rifles on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:45:37 PM GMT

Of course you don't use the word 'punished' but that is what happens. Look at the career prospects for people who went to secondary moderns cf. grammar school up to the 1950s.

So you want streaming - what is wrong with internal streaming so that a child can be in top set for Maths but bottom set for German, and move between them if necessary? Rather than going to 'a clever school' or 'a thick school' at 11, having to be either clever or thick in ALL subjects, and having no prospect of moving?


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#23)

by jkitleft on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:01:52 PM GMT

There are many people now, who have got to the top, whether in politics or journalism etc. who didn't get into grammars. I acknowleged their flaws. Their method of selection was flawed. There was however social mobility within these schools.

The 60's was a time of revolution. Disgust at the European-style colonialism from the United States in Vietnam, that betrayed their Enlightenment values. Upheaving the conservative traditionalism of France, by university students. Defying the imperialists of Moscow, only for democracy in Prague to be crushed by Stalinists.
Women's rights, gay liberation. Martin Luther King. protesting nuclear proliferation.

But there was also the sign that the walls of social segregation, were (perhaps only slightly), beginning to crumble. This was felt in many grammar schools, in that people of different classes went to them. I think if Labour had let this tide of social mobility continue, then reform, not abolishment, of the grammar schools could have been accomplished.

I think if someone has not proved their potential by 10-11, but then shows a vast amount of potential, within the next few years, should be able to move schools. I think streaming in comprehensives, would still mean that there would be little class diversity in those schools.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#24)

by doctordunc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:18:41 AM GMT

How would you select then?

Far from bringing back grammar schools it's a source of great disappointment to me that we haven't swept away the ones that are left.

Selection by 'ability' is a myth.  Pigeon-holing and labelling pupils at 11 is an evil (I think it's completely wrong at 14 even, which is one reason why I'm a little concerned about some current policies). 

I don't just think selection is bad for those 'not selected' - I think it's bad for all pupils.  I think a grammar school education tends not to be very good for those who get it (other than in terms of pure attainment) and I say that as someone who had the misfortune to attend one for three unhappy years.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#25)

by jljb2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:31:48 AM GMT

I don't think selection itself is an evil: it can allow different types of intelligence (vocational and academic) to be pursued to their maximum extent. But it must be built on a bedrock of a more egalitarian society, or else it simply becomes class selection - as in Germany, with one of the world's most socially-segregated education systems. So once we take action on inequality, selection will once again become feasible, though personally I'd prefer comprehensives which offered vocational, academic, apprenticeship routes etc from 13+. Without specialisation in this way, it becomes a case of either getting GCSEs or little else of value - too many vocational subjects now are not about real skills, but box-ticking, 'evidence' and knowing about career progressions and suchlike - just look at the curricula for the new diplomas. This is utterly patronising - simply because someone isn't great at English and Maths doesn't mean they won't understand the complexities and intricacies of plumbing, electronics or mechanics; at the minute, too many of these people are being fobbed off with qualifications which don't cater to their needs. And yes, that's partly the fault of liberal-left faux-egalitarianism...but that's another debate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#26)

by doctordunc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:52 AM GMT

Except people stopped talking about different types of intelligence in about 1953.

I accept that there different preferred methods of learning, etc. and that people have different aptitudes.  But I don't think people should be pushed down either/or routes from an early age (13 is not much better than 11) whether its in one school or different schools.  I can debate about Foucault and Derrida but I can't wire a plug.  Skill segregation is ridiculous even independently of social segregation.

Where possible people should be taught together in the same school and the same class.  Some setting (and I stress setting not streaming) is inevitable, but it should be an evil to be tolerated where necessary, not an aspiration of the education system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#27)

by jljb2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:30:46 PM GMT

Well of course, it'd be nice if we could train as a carpenter whislt studying for A-levels - that'd be the best outcome, and I suppose it'd be do-able... As for setting, there are arguments on both sides; it much easier to teach the clever kids and ignore the others in a mixed-ability class - I'm sure we've all seen it. On the other hand, the stigma attached to being in bottom sets is a problem. On the whole, I think setting only in core subjects (as was the case at my school) is the best bet.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#28)

by doctordunc on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:07:54 PM GMT

I agree with you there.  Actually - while I hold my hands up as a teacher and say I'm not sure I'm skilled enough to do it effectively - the BEST method for both higher and lower ability pupils SHOULD be mixed ability teaching - pupils learn better from their peers than from old gets (generally) and deep learning is best cemented through having to explain an idea to somebody else.  That way mixed-ability groupwork within mixed ability classes has huge potential for both stretching the high-flyers, and breaking down walls for those who are struggling.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#29)

by jljb2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:47:35 PM GMT

I'm not sure - when I have time, I'll have a look at the empirical research in this area, as it's very important. But as you suggest, it's strongly related to the skills of the teacher: my mum was a specialist special needs teacher, and always felt that other teachers couldn't be bothered to cater to the needs of lower ability pupils, or felt that those with behavioural problems had no right to learn. In those circumstances, it may be better for these kids to be with specialists who care about them and know how to teach them. I'm not sure...But social justice doesn't dictate either way - there's nothing inherently more socialist about mixed ability teaching: this is an instance where it's the outcomes for the disadvantaged pupils that matter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#30)

by doctordunc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:31:13 AM GMT

Well there's plenty of statistical and educational evidence for the two ingredients I mentioned - that the deepest level of learning comes from having to explain a point to somebody else is pretty uncontroversial now, and there's a lot of evidence of pupils learning more from their peers or people closer to them in age and experience than across a gulf of age, class, attitude, etc.  I'm merely putting the two things together.

I agree, though, that teachers have to want to do it, believe it's possible and be skilled to manage it.  To argue for mixed ability teaching is, of course, not to argue against specialist support, whether that be in class, extra sessions or, indeed, setting for some key subjects, as discussed elsewhere. 

I think the arguments for selection by ability whether into different schools or into ability streams under one roof have been blown out of the water, and blown out of the water a long time ago.  There is no evidence that suggests that high ability pupils do better at grammar schools than at comprehensive schools (indeed there is a little evidence to suggest the opposite; don't have the stats to hand but will post them in a day or so) but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that lower ability students do better in comprehensive schools than they did in secondary modern schools.  As such, I see no sensible argument for selection or a revival of the old tripartite system other than a desire on the part of some middle-class parents to have a socially-exclusive education for their children without it costing them.

Of course there is a perception that grammar schools are excellent because of league tables and pass rates and the like.  But considering the degree of selection, that none of these schools reach 100% A*-Cs at GCSE is a disgrace.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#31)

by jljb2 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM GMT

I wasn't questioning the idea that pupils learn best from peers - that's just Vygotsky again isn't it? But your propositions mention nothing about the differences in ability between the pupils - i'm sure a high-ability pupil could be a lot more aloof, scornful and hurtful towards another pupil than a teacher ever would, and the fact is that some pupils require special help to learn. Untrained pupils simply don't have the skills to do that, surely? Of course I am also opposed to grammar schools and streaming. There must be longitudinal evidence for or against the use of setting in terms of low ability pupils' achievement - ultimately, it is this empirical evidence that should decide how we teach within a comprehensive system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#32)

by doctordunc on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM GMT

Obviously I'm not proposing peer learning as an ALTERNATIVE to teaching, nor to special educational needs specialist help.  There is a serious classroom management issue at the heart of the proposal.  But the theory is good!


[ Parent ]

Re: Academies are working (#33)

by treborc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:01:17 PM GMT

Sad to say my school is helped by Tesco, so the local college has set up a training area, with a counter and till, people who are picked to work at Tesco will have first hand training at using a till, £5.50 a hour highly skilled full trained, those Polish people will not get a chance, whoops they are also being sent to the college.

Good old Labour.


Academies are working | 33 comments (33 topical)