Free schools 'not wanted' say teachers
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12099245
What a surprise, the NUT have done a survey showing that parents don't want the new Free Schools!
Fortunately, as we can be sure that the NUT has the best interests of the children and their parents at heart, we can discount any worries that fears for their jobs have slanted the survey in any way.
What a surprise, the NUT have done a survey showing that parents don't want the new Free Schools!
Fortunately, as we can be sure that the NUT has the best interests of the children and their parents at heart, we can discount any worries that fears for their jobs have slanted the survey in any way.
It IS difficult for Local Authorities to challenge Teaching Unions effectively because of the power they hold i.e. there is the risk that every school in a borough is affected if they decide to go on strike. This isn't the case in Free Schools / Academies ; the Headteachers/Principals tend to be quite strong and actively prepared to challenge the Unions. They are also able to move away from nationally negotiated pay & conditions which the Unions will hate.
On the other hand Free Schools / Academies are economically less efficient than LA schools. They have to set up their own Finance / HR / H&S systems, ensure they have legal representation, and insurance is more expensive.
Personally I would prefer the bringing back of grammar schools.
On the other hand Free Schools / Academies are economically less efficient than LA schools. They have to set up their own Finance / HR / H&S systems, ensure they have legal representation, and insurance is more expensive.
Personally I would prefer the bringing back of grammar schools.
Countdown said:
It IS difficult for Local Authorities to challenge Teaching Unions effectively because of the power they hold i.e. there is the risk that every school in a borough is affected if they decide to go on strike. This isn't the case in Free Schools / Academies ; the Headteachers/Principals tend to be quite strong and actively prepared to challenge the Unions. They are also able to move away from nationally negotiated pay & conditions which the Unions will hate.
On the other hand Free Schools / Academies are economically less efficient than LA schools. They have to set up their own Finance / HR / H&S systems, ensure they have legal representation, and insurance is more expensive.
Personally I would prefer the bringing back of grammar schools.
They never left some parts of the UKOn the other hand Free Schools / Academies are economically less efficient than LA schools. They have to set up their own Finance / HR / H&S systems, ensure they have legal representation, and insurance is more expensive.
Personally I would prefer the bringing back of grammar schools.
turbobloke said:
According to the charming young lady interviewed on BBC TV news this morning, the wording of questions asked doesn't quite match headline statements synthesised from the results.
She did have a certain "je ne sais quoi", didn't she?Anyway, the problem with surveys is that they preach tothe converted, any reasonably sensible person knows that you can get more or less any answer you want if you slant the questions suitably. I suppose the only thing the NUT has got from the exercise is some air time, perhaps there is an election coming up soon? Good to get the leader's face on TV if that is the case.
It's a great shame that this research was sponsored by the NUT, as that fact automatically discredits the findings in the eyes of most sane people. If you can temporarily put aside your natural (and correct) prejudice against that despicable bunch of leftist f
knuts then please do so, as on this occasion the point they are making is correct: Free schools in the format currently proposed make no sense at all for the vast majority of parents.
After all, if you're a parent in an area where a free school is being set up then you'll have two choices:
a) Move your child (with all the disruption and cost that entails) to an untested free school with limited facilities, no track record and an uncertain future.
b) Leave your child in their current school, which as a result of the free school will have its funding slashed and thus also have limited facilities and an uncertain future.
And just to rub your nose in it, enjoy the knowledge that your tax money is now being squandered on two sets of buildings, two sets of support staff and two sets of (expensive) leadership.
Don't get me wrong - the principles behind free schools (freedom from the national curriculum and freedom from union-negotiated pay and conditions) are entirely right and proper. But it is inequitable in the extreme to grant these privileges to a tiny number of institutions which will be funded at the direct expense of all the other 'normal' schools still expected to struggle on with one arm tied behind their backs.
The solution of course is simple - just make every school a 'free school'. But that would take courage and determination, both of which are in very short supply in the current Department for Education.
knuts then please do so, as on this occasion the point they are making is correct: Free schools in the format currently proposed make no sense at all for the vast majority of parents. After all, if you're a parent in an area where a free school is being set up then you'll have two choices:
a) Move your child (with all the disruption and cost that entails) to an untested free school with limited facilities, no track record and an uncertain future.
b) Leave your child in their current school, which as a result of the free school will have its funding slashed and thus also have limited facilities and an uncertain future.
And just to rub your nose in it, enjoy the knowledge that your tax money is now being squandered on two sets of buildings, two sets of support staff and two sets of (expensive) leadership.
Don't get me wrong - the principles behind free schools (freedom from the national curriculum and freedom from union-negotiated pay and conditions) are entirely right and proper. But it is inequitable in the extreme to grant these privileges to a tiny number of institutions which will be funded at the direct expense of all the other 'normal' schools still expected to struggle on with one arm tied behind their backs.
The solution of course is simple - just make every school a 'free school'. But that would take courage and determination, both of which are in very short supply in the current Department for Education.
Ten Ninety said:
But it is inequitable in the extreme to grant these privileges to a tiny number of institutions which will be funded at the direct expense of all the other 'normal' schools still expected to struggle on with one arm tied behind their backs.
Smacks of 'Grant Maintained' status...singlecoil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12099245
What a surprise, the NUT have done a survey showing that parents don't want the new Free Schools!
Fortunately, as we can be sure that the NUT has the best interests of the children and their parents at heart, we can discount any worries that fears for their jobs have slanted the survey in any way.
What the NUT doesn't want is any teachers being outside their commie regime. If the teachers actually have to work in a free school they'll probably earn more and have a better job and not subscribe to their lefty politics... socialist scum don't believe in work or freedom for the workers, they want a hand-out policy and being paid for being present!What a surprise, the NUT have done a survey showing that parents don't want the new Free Schools!
Fortunately, as we can be sure that the NUT has the best interests of the children and their parents at heart, we can discount any worries that fears for their jobs have slanted the survey in any way.
(no offence to the few good hardworking teachers that there are!)
Ferg said:
Ten Ninety said:
But it is inequitable in the extreme to grant these privileges to a tiny number of institutions which will be funded at the direct expense of all the other 'normal' schools still expected to struggle on with one arm tied behind their backs.
Smacks of 'Grant Maintained' status...The thing Ten Ninety mentions about funding - is it right to say that for the first tranchce? From what I've read, quite a few of the 25 Free Schools proposed to open in 2011 are primary schools in boroughs and LAs where there is an acute shortage of Reception places, there were reports last year that some London borougs were outside of their statutory duty to offer a place to all 4-5 year olds. If new primary Free Schools open in these areas they are just meeting growing demographic demand that their LA can't meet even with the temporary accommodation they bought from Labour's emergency basic need funding a year and a bit ago.
When hundreds of Free Schools are up and running in future years the funding grab may become reality but that seems to me to be at the heart of the policy in that competition is intended to drive up standards (they said on BBC News this morning) and for competition to work efficiently it needs a number of spare places otherwise there will be nothing to move into. At that point if pupils are moved to a more successful school of any type then their 'competitor' will gain per-pupil funding and the 'donor' school will lose it, this works both ways and is what the policy is about whatever our positive or negative view of it may be. Successful schools grow and offer education to more pupils, failing schools close. To be clinical and avoid a protracted downward spiral, a swift take-over would seem to be the best option but such things may be fought. If so, would that fight be fought in the pupils' interest or their teachers' interests?
This isn't attacking or defending the Free School policy it's asking questions
My understanding is that funding for LA-maintained and Independent schools (i.e. Academies, "Free schools") is mainly on the same basis.
However LAs top-slice school funding for central support services (finance /HR/Legal/Insurance). This is the most efficient way of doing it because of economies of scale. When a school moves out of LA control it gets to keep this money,andbecause it doesnt have the buying power of the LA the school will have to pay more for these services.
What I'm trying to say is that independent schools are less efficient, financially, than LA maintained schools. Its like each part of town setting up its own Police Force, Health Service etc.
IMO what we need instead of independent schools is better performance management of teachers. At the same time there should be recognition of what an incredibly hard job teaching is.
However LAs top-slice school funding for central support services (finance /HR/Legal/Insurance). This is the most efficient way of doing it because of economies of scale. When a school moves out of LA control it gets to keep this money,andbecause it doesnt have the buying power of the LA the school will have to pay more for these services.
What I'm trying to say is that independent schools are less efficient, financially, than LA maintained schools. Its like each part of town setting up its own Police Force, Health Service etc.
IMO what we need instead of independent schools is better performance management of teachers. At the same time there should be recognition of what an incredibly hard job teaching is.
That economy of scale aspect is perhaps overplayed, in that there are examples where LA schools wanted to leave LA control as Trust Schools since they could, individually or collectively depending on what the project make-up was, and subject at times to wider collaboration, get better value for some services outside the LA. For other services they bought back into the LA's offer. This suggests that the picture is nowhere near clear cut does it not?
Turbobloke
The "driving up standards" happens via manipulation of exam entries and targetting resources at certain student groups. Two of the main criteria in the league tables are
5 A-C grades
5 A-C grades (incl Eng & Maths)
So what a lot of Headteachers do is concentrate resources on students on the C/D borderline at the expense of students who are forecast to get A's, B's, C's or E's. In my view this is unfair and would pee off a lot of parents if they knew about it.
Other tricks are putting in students for topics like media studies or hairdressing which are easier to get high grades in, rather than the more difficult sciences.
The "driving up standards" happens via manipulation of exam entries and targetting resources at certain student groups. Two of the main criteria in the league tables are
5 A-C grades
5 A-C grades (incl Eng & Maths)
So what a lot of Headteachers do is concentrate resources on students on the C/D borderline at the expense of students who are forecast to get A's, B's, C's or E's. In my view this is unfair and would pee off a lot of parents if they knew about it.
Other tricks are putting in students for topics like media studies or hairdressing which are easier to get high grades in, rather than the more difficult sciences.
turbobloke said:
Successful schools grow and offer education to more pupils, failing schools close.
This is fine provided there is some rhyme or reason to how schools are assessed. Many schools are in a position where they may well be showing low on the 'league tables', but are actually achieving quite well on 'value added' simply because of the starting point of the particular children. Parents, sadly, are led by league tables in my experience, largely because they are given such weight in local press etc,and seem unwilling to look at any other aspect of a primary school.
Countdown said:
At the same time there should be recognition of what an incredibly hard job teaching is.
It's going to be difficult to get that recognised, due mainly to the problem that most people have encountered teachers and know that they really aren't the sort of people to do "incredibly hard jobs". I'd rate teaching as "not particularly easy", but then most jobs are like that.turbobloke said:
That economy of scale aspect is perhaps overplayed, in that there are examples where LA schools wanted to leave LA control as Trust Schools since they could, individually or collectively depending on what the project make-up was, and subject at times to wider collaboration, get better value for some services outside the LA. For other services they bought back into the LA's offer. This suggests that the picture is nowhere near clear cut does it not?
I can only speak from experience. Having worked in two LAs the "non-teaching" overheads of independent schools are always higher than those still inside the LA system. i.e. it cost the Independent schools more to provide the services previously provided by the LA than the extra funding they received (by not having their funding topsliced). Even when they asked the LA to continue to provide the services, the LA would charge a mark-up (mainly because they were annoyed at the school going independent).However it could be argued that the independent schools get a better, more responsive service (grounds maintenance, buildings repairs etc) than LA schools. In my experience its debatable.
singlecoil said:
Countdown said:
At the same time there should be recognition of what an incredibly hard job teaching is.
It's going to be difficult to get that recognised, due mainly to the problem that most people have encountered teachers and know that they really aren't the sort of people to do "incredibly hard jobs". I'd rate teaching as "not particularly easy", but then most jobs are like that.turbobloke said:
Agreed but can existing schools and new Free Schools not do the same if they wish? How is playing the League Table Game different for Academies and Free Schools?
Much more financial incentives for Academy Heads to manipulate results. Salaries for LA secondary school Headteachers range between £70k and £90k. Salaries for Academy Headteachers range from £100k to £150k. For this they will be responsible for a budget of £10m and 200-250 staff. However on top of this they will negotiate PRP linked to exam results. (This cannot happen in LA schools).
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed but can existing schools and new Free Schools not do the same if they wish? How is playing the League Table Game different for Academies and Free Schools?
Much more financial incentives for Academy Heads to manipulate results. Salaries for LA secondary school Headteachers range between £70k and £90k. Salaries for Academy Headteachers range from £100k to £150k. For this they will be responsible for a budget of £10m and 200-250 staff. However on top of this they will negotiate PRP linked to exam results. (This cannot happen in LA schools).
London primary school headteacher Mark Elms received nearly £250,000 in 2009 including a payment of £26,413 for 'appointment and retention' reasons and not forgetting the £10,000 for 'out of hours' work whatever that is
Sure, a big slice of his income was for London Challenge consultancy but what's that £26k for, it's PRP in effect (governors pay £26k for retention of a bad headteacher?!) and if his pupils' SATs results were appalling would he have received it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff