The Student Room Group

Are academies turning out to be a failed experiment?

Poll

Are academies turning out to be a failed experiment?

Ofsted has slammed another academy trust, with one school being downgraded to 'Inadequate'.

Academies - schools are run by the state from central government rather than local authorities and can be sponsored and influenced privately - are a 21st century creation.

The Tories love it and it seems Labour have again warmed to the idea of academies, legislated by Tony Blair's government in 2000, since former TV historian Tristram Hunt became shadow education secretary.

What do you think the future holds for academies?
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Things very rarely change for schools. You have a school that's rubbish - it's often due to geography. Regardless of who runs the school, it's probably going to suck. The number of schools that close for being failures, then open again a few years later with a huge injection of cash? They do well for a while due to having a lot of money and all new pupils from Y7. Then slowly, it just reverts to the mean, and 15 years later you have the same rubbish school with a new name and a new uniform.

Case in point - UCL Academy. If anyone should be able to run a school, you'd think it would be UCL. Unfortunately, the school is right on the doorstep of St Johns Wood and Camden. The "local" children are almost certain to be very rich or very poor. The overwhelming majority of people round there from the "rich" areas have their children go to public school - so the school will be made up of those who aren't doing so well. It doesn't matter how good you are at running a university - if the pupils are disinterested and many don't speak English, you are on a hiding to nothing.
Reply 2
Academies (and free schools) were a big mistake. I think it would have been better to invest in "special schools" for the few pupils who for whatever reason can't (or are unwilling to) be educated in mainstream schools.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 3
My school is an academy and I would say that it has benefited from 'upgrading'.
There are a select few 'super' state schools that make academies/free schools look good. But in reality the majority of state schools aren't amazing. Most schools in london are actually quite good because there's a such a focus on it. When you go outside london there really is a number of terrible state schools.
Depends really. Some schools benefit for it, I guess.

But then you also get those godawful, insidious muslim schools ...
Original post by Numberwang
Ofsted has slammed another academy trust, with one school being downgraded to 'Inadequate'.



The article appears to be wrong insofar as it suggests that one school was downgraded to inadequate and one school remained inadequate.

Of the six schools, one one had risen to "good", two had risen to "requires improvement"; two remained steady at "requires improvement" (and so obviously hadn't received improvement) and one was steady at "inadequate" (but since there was no lower grade, it couldn't get any worse).

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/too-many-schools-underperforming-at-yorkshire-s-biggest-academy-chain-1-6755921

Read the report on the inadequate school and decide:-

(a) is this a crap school with crap teachers
(b) a school with exposed live electricity wires, unprotected manholes and wandering paedophiles; or
(c) a school that has failed to fill in all the forms that the health and safety nanny requires

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2405274/urn/138676.pdf
I went to an Academy and it was the worst excuse for a school I've ever seen.

Many of my friends agreed
Reply 8
Original post by Mubariz
I went to an Academy and it was the worst excuse for a school I've ever seen.

Many of my friends agreed


What aspects made the academy so bad?
Original post by 06shawm
What aspects made the academy so bad?


The school only focused on the kids that weren't smart, to get them C's

They forced everybody to do BTEC's

Teaching was terrible, most teachers were not good (some were great)

The teachers kept changing, I had like 5/6 maths teachers

The head teachers and the rules, some were so stupid
Original post by Mubariz
The school only focused on the kids that weren't smart, to get them C's

They forced everybody to do BTEC's

Teaching was terrible, most teachers were not good (some were great)

The teachers kept changing, I had like 5/6 maths teachers

The head teachers and the rules, some were so stupid


That sounds awful! WHY DO SCHOOLS MAKE KIDS ASPIRE TO GET A C GRADE!!! :rolleyes: BTEC's should be scrapped, now that would be a reform :biggrin:
Original post by 06shawm
That sounds awful! WHY DO SCHOOLS MAKE KIDS ASPIRE TO GET A C GRADE!!! :rolleyes: BTEC's should be scrapped, now that would be a reform :biggrin:


So what do you think schools should do with those for whom a D would be a magnificent achievement?
Original post by nulli tertius
So what do you think schools should do with those for whom a D would be a magnificent achievement?


The point I was making was that schools don't inspire kids to achieve the top grades anymore. It's all about getting the 5 A*-C for the league tables. If they get a C, they make a big deal about it but in the real world that is not a massive achievement in all fairness. From my experience in high school, because a majority of the kids were targeted a C, the one's who wanted higher grades had to basically self teach the higher content because there simply wasn't the time or the resources available for us. Our education was pushed to the side because the priority was given to the majority to make sure they get a C grade. I personally think that is an absolute joke.

If a kid was genuinely only capable of achieving a D, I can't exactly comment on that, well done to them.
Original post by 06shawm
The point I was making was that schools don't inspire kids to achieve the top grades anymore. It's all about getting the 5 A*-C for the league tables. If they get a C, they make a big deal about it but in the real world that is not a massive achievement in all fairness. From my experience in high school, because a majority of the kids were targeted a C, the one's who wanted higher grades had to basically self teach the higher content because there simply wasn't the time or the resources available for us. Our education was pushed to the side because the priority was given to the majority to make sure they get a C grade. I personally think that is an absolute joke.

If a kid was genuinely only capable of achieving a D, I can't exactly comment on that, well done to them.


Your point is an entirely valid one but so is mine and that is a circle not easily squared.

In a sense it is easy when you have a school that has lower expectations of pupils than they are capable of. You just tell the management to buck its ideas up. The children aren't as stupid as it is convenient for the school to suggest.

The problem comes when the school hasn't underestimated what its pupils are capable of doing.
Original post by nulli tertius
Your point is an entirely valid one but so is mine and that is a circle not easily squared.

In a sense it is easy when you have a school that has lower expectations of pupils than they are capable of. You just tell the management to buck its ideas up. The children aren't as stupid as it is convenient for the school to suggest.

The problem comes when the school hasn't underestimated what its pupils are capable of doing.


Fair point. Just a shame certain kids are given a compromised education to benefit the masses.
You are ridiculous.

This criticism was always inevitable, because the point of academies was to give schools and teachers more freedom. Whilst most have used this freedom to excel, some were always going to make bad decisions which would result in, yes, failure. Unfortunately, that is life. But people are letting their ideological hatred of academies cloud out the facts, which are that academies, on average, perform significantly better than council-run schools.

Loads of council-run schools are rated inadequate. A far higher proportion, incidentally, than academies. Does this mean that council-run schools are a failed experiment? Well many would argue yes, which is why the academies were brought in in the first place.

You have chains like Harris with an outstanding record of taking over failing schools in poor areas and drastically improving their GCSE scores within just a couple of years. When was the last time a government initiative achieved anything like that success?

The problem is that you people are simply not rating the academies programme objectively, by the same benchmarks as other schools. For decades the unions have opposed reform to the education system, callously ignoring the plight of the millions of children stuck in failing schools that never improved. We accepted mediocrity and failure for too long, and it was only with the academies programme that meaningful change to bring that shameful situation to an end has progressed at all.
I went to an academy school and it was in every way excellent.
Original post by Numberwang
Ofsted has slammed another academy trust, with one school being downgraded to 'Inadequate'.

Academies - schools are run by the state from central government rather than local authorities and can be sponsored and influenced privately - are a 21st century creation.

The Tories love it and it seems Labour have again warmed to the idea of academies, legislated by Tony Blair's government in 2000, since former TV historian Tristram Hunt became shadow education secretary.

What do you think the future holds for academies?


The answer to this is simple in that one can compare the quality of the average state school to academies.

As i don't know those figures, i've opted not to click the poll.
Original post by Rinsed
You are ridiculous.

This criticism was always inevitable, because the point of academies was to give schools and teachers more freedom. Whilst most have used this freedom to excel, some were always going to make bad decisions which would result in, yes, failure. Unfortunately, that is life. But people are letting their ideological hatred of academies cloud out the facts, which are that academies, on average, perform significantly better than council-run schools.

Loads of council-run schools are rated inadequate. A far higher proportion, incidentally, than academies. Does this mean that council-run schools are a failed experiment? Well many would argue yes, which is why the academies were brought in in the first place.

You have chains like Harris with an outstanding record of taking over failing schools in poor areas and drastically improving their GCSE scores within just a couple of years. When was the last time a government initiative achieved anything like that success?

The problem is that you people are simply not rating the academies programme objectively, by the same benchmarks as other schools. For decades the unions have opposed reform to the education system, callously ignoring the plight of the millions of children stuck in failing schools that never improved. We accepted mediocrity and failure for too long, and it was only with the academies programme that meaningful change to bring that shameful situation to an end has progressed at all.


There are no 'council-run schools' - this is a media invention. You would expect academies to perform well given that the condition of applying to become one voluntarily was that their Ofsted rating had to be 'good' or 'outstanding' in the first place. In fact the jury is out on their effectiveness.

I hear a lot about the 'freedoms' conferred by academy status but I've never managed to figure out what this actually means. We can employ unqualified teachers but we could employ instructors previously. Pay and conditions are preserved under TUPE so that isn't an issue. We can decide not to follow the National Curriculum but it would be insane to do so given that Ofsted require a 'broad and balanced' curriculum and we ultimately need to enter students for the exams designed to meet the KS4 Programmes of Study. Every school that opted to convert did so for the same reason - there was a relatively small financial incentive and every penny counts when managing a school budget.

As for the Harris miracle I'll just leave this here.
Original post by 06shawm
The point I was making was that schools don't inspire kids to achieve the top grades anymore. It's all about getting the 5 A*-C for the league tables. If they get a C, they make a big deal about it but in the real world that is not a massive achievement in all fairness. From my experience in high school, because a majority of the kids were targeted a C, the one's who wanted higher grades had to basically self teach the higher content because there simply wasn't the time or the resources available for us. Our education was pushed to the side because the priority was given to the majority to make sure they get a C grade. I personally think that is an absolute joke.

If a kid was genuinely only capable of achieving a D, I can't exactly comment on that, well done to them.


This. In my school once you got a C in maths you were put in higher set and left without a teacher.

Quick Reply

Latest