"Academies are all failing schools". is this true?

sunshine_shell

the school i worked at was failing and an academy came in and took over the school, they are now part of a family of schools and i still can't believe the change when i think about it. They were out of special measures within the a year of being taken over.

cheeswright

"It was mentioned that academies are able to employ unqualified teachers -is this true?.............."
(sorry cant quote)...
All schools are going to end up employing unqualified teachers
a teaching degree takes 4 years...thats going mean being around £80,000 in debt to be a teacher
oh and new teachers will have much worse terms and conditions too, so really If you want to complain about poor teaching now...wait 5 years

anguk

It seems to be different in different areas. In my area there are 3 comprehensive schools for local kids, last year they became a joint academy, at the moment the kids are all still going to the 3 seperate schools but they all have the same academy name (they just call them different campuses). From next year the 3 schools will be closed and all kids will go to one big new building and the older schools knocked down (and no doubt the land sold off to have houses built on them).

In our area it seemed to purely boil down to money. Why run 3 schools when they could just run one. Very few people wanted the new Academy but the council/lea went ahead anyway.

snowdrop1967

I work at a high school which was set to become an academy from September but their exam results werent good enough and so they will have to wait. Caused so many problems as they had already changed finance systems etc.

asparagus1968

Gingerjar wrote: »

Nope, don't agree with the above regarding our area. Our two local outstanding and one good school have all recently become academies. It's so they can manage their own finances and staffing. ALso they can't employ unqualified teachers but free schools can.

yes,this is how it is in our area too.

thegirlintheattic

Not true for converter academies i.e. those who are not forced to become one. Two main reasons for choosing to be an academy are control of the curriculum and control of finances.

The school I teach at is a converter academy; our exam results (including English and Maths) have gone up (most schools have gone down because of English), about a quarter of our students get's straight As/A*s and our most vulnerable children get almost identical results to non-vulnerable children. We are certainly not a failing school.

One correction though, someone said an academy cannot employ unqualified staff, the rules have now changed and they can. Also teaching degrees (BEd) are three years and PGCEs are one year.

maman

anguk wrote: »

In our area it seemed to purely boil down to money. Why run 3 schools when they could just run one. Very few people wanted the new Academy but the council/lea went ahead anyway.

I wouldn't blame the council or Local Authority. Schools are going Academy because they want to leave the council as they think they can manage finances better themselves. Councils often try to oppose this as it leaves them less money to support the remaining schools and it's like just giving the Academies the buildings (and land) as a free gift!! (courtesy of the taxpayer)

seven-day-weekend

poet123 wrote: »

Not sure if that is universally true, but in the area where I live it is the failing schools which are going down that route.

And in my area too.

goggler

With regards to the unqualified teachers aspect. Schools have always been able to employ 'unqualified' teachers, they are then called instructors and placed on the instructors payscale. I have been an 'instructor' for several years. I teach English, and I am consistently good/outstanding in my OTLs - so unqualified does not mean rubbish or incapable. I do however have a PGCE, though it is in a different sector. My school employed me both before and after becoming an academy.

There are plenty of crap qualified teachers and great unqualified ones - it doesn't automatically follow that qualifications = capability.

One reason schools are becoming academies so that they have more control over their finances. But, it also allows them to access pots of money they they were previously unable to and enable them to generate a greater income per head for the school, and therefore for the pupils.

On the other hands, they can become mini fiefdoms, with the head now having supreme rule (with the governers in tow). I Have seen phenomenal amounts of cash wasted on new signage, embroidered mats for the porch, wrap around signaged for the school vehicles etc....

I would consider a school how I always have done, Ofsted, results and the feeling/response you get when you visit it.

maman

I was reading an article today that said academies are exempt from the rules that say state schools must serve a balanced diet to pupils in school meals. The potential for abuse is amazing, not just serving c*ap but also making a fortune selling it from vending machines. What possible reason could government have for exempting academies from this?