King Edwards School - Ofsted Report Failures - Forced Academy Status

[S35_2o21]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Why is King Ted's being forced to become an academy? Why do people assume this will improve its performance? 

 

That has not been the case with any number of Academy schools which are failing badly.

 

Basically, this is part of the Tories, drive towards privatisation of all things by the back door, (see what's happening in the NHS) and IMO is not a good thing. It solves nothing. 

Yep, spot on. Get the private providers in. 

 

It means those pesky local authorities can't meddle anymore.. For example, by insisting on the admissions policy etc, and possibly reducing the oversight on the number of suspensions etc.

 

It must make it easier to sell off land and other assets. I went to school in the 80's, in a very Tory controlled heartland of West Sussex. As soon as the Government changed the rules on selling off land, my primary school did just that. In about a space of 10 years from when I left, the huge playing field and playgrounds which I benefitted from, disappeared to be replace by a beautiful new housing estate (probably full of fat children as there's no safe outdoor space for them to play out- there isn't much public space in the suburbs down there). 

[Anna B]

15 minutes ago, S35_2o21 said:

Yep, spot on. Get the private providers in. 

 

It means those pesky local authorities can't meddle anymore.. For example, by insisting on the admissions policy etc, and possibly reducing the oversight on the number of suspensions etc.

 

It must make it easier to sell off land and other assets. I went to school in the 80's, in a very Tory controlled heartland of West Sussex. As soon as the Government changed the rules on selling off land, my primary school did just that. In about a space of 10 years from when I left, the huge playing field and playgrounds which I benefitted from, disappeared to be replace by a beautiful new housing estate (probably full of fat children as there's no safe outdoor space for them to play out- there isn't much public space in the suburbs down there). 

Correct. 

People don't seem to realise business is there to make money /profit for their shareholders.

That means cutting corners and putting profit before people, in this case before children. 

They do not plough the profit back into the 'business,' as we see from our many declining services and infrastructure, the rich simply get richer as we see all the time.

 

How anybody can think this is OK is beyond me, especially with things like the NHS, carehomes, public transport, social services, etc. where profit before people has no place.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Anna B

[S35_2o21]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Correct. 

People don't seem to realise business is there to make money /profit for their shareholders.

That means cutting corners and putting profit before people, in this case before children. 

They do not plough the profit back into the 'business,' as we see from our many declining services and infrastructure, the rich simply get richer as we see all the time.

 

How anybody can think this is OK is beyond me, especially with things like the NHS, carehomes, public transport, social services, etc. where profit before people has no place.

 

 

Or they give nice fat contracts to their 'subsidiaries', so the money stays in their organisation/is used to offset tax liabilites. The phrase 'Academy Trust' sounds so benign, doesn't it? I use the term provider, or publicly funded school.

 

There's a pod cast on the scandal in the Academy trust in Birmingham a few years ago. The lack of oversight in the academy system is scary. 

 

Just another source of corruption. I don't now how local school provision is planned now & I think in some areas of the country, school places are like hens teeth. 

[Anna B]

34 minutes ago, S35_2o21 said:

Or they give nice fat contracts to their 'subsidiaries', so the money stays in their organisation/is used to offset tax liabilites. The phrase 'Academy Trust' sounds so benign, doesn't it? I use the term provider, oWhar publicly funded school.

 

There's a pod cast on the scandal in the Academy trust in Birmingham a few years ago. The lack of oversight in the academy system is scary. 

 

Just another source of corruption. I don't now how local school provision is planned now & I think in some areas of the country, school places are like hens teeth. 

Correct again.

What is worrying is that so many people, especially parents, don't know their kids school is now a business, because that little nugget of information has been left off the shiny school prospectus and everywhere else, IMO, to the point where this important fact has been deliberately suppressed. 

'Academy' gives no indication of it, althhough the sponsored money making snack machines selling chocolate bars etc that often appear in a schools' foyers (so much for healthy eating) should be a clue.  

 

If a school is failing you find out why, and address the problems.

 

Calling it an 'Academy' and parachuting in a business person as head is no substitute.

As long as the headteachers play the game they go on to manage more than one school, reap a ridiculously high 'executive' salary and do very little for it. (my old school is now managed by a 'head' who has 3 in her portfolio, and she was rubbish when she had just one, but she knows how to talk the talk, network and shmooze.)

 

This is not satisfactory and parents need to take notice of what's happening. My old school has also sold off its playing fields and now has very cramped facilities.  All the previous excellent and experienced teachers I worked with have left, and been replaced by young newly qualified teachers because they come cheap.  They usually don't last long, (over 50% of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within 5 years,) and are then replaced with more newly qualified. 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Anna B

[harvey19]

Why do things have to change.?

The grammar school system encouraged social mobility  for children from the whole of Sheffield.

Technical schools encourages practical skills for children from the whole of Sheffield.

Secondary schools provided good all round education for those in its catchment area.

 

[S35_2o21]

11 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Why do things have to change.?

The grammar school system encouraged social mobility  for children from the whole of Sheffield.

Technical schools encourages practical skills for children from the whole of Sheffield.

Secondary schools provided good all round education for those in its catchment area.

 

Similar to the NHS and any public sector provision, it's used as a ideological football.

 

Education has to changed and evolve over time, but unforutnately, there is a lack of a long term view on what that should be. 

[Delbow]

On 23/01/2023 at 19:17, Janet24 said:

It means the school is no longer under the auspices of the Local Authority - it is run more like a business, academies offer different salaries etc.to staff and have control of their own finances.

And often treat children appallingly, for example Astrea Sheffield

[XPertByExperien]

On 09/02/2023 at 11:50, harvey19 said:

Why do things have to change.?

The grammar school system encouraged social mobility  for children from the whole of Sheffield.

Technical schools encourages practical skills for children from the whole of Sheffield.

Secondary schools provided good all round education for those in its catchment area.

 

Yep, grammar schools teach "posh" kids spelling and grammar, and leave us commoners behind.

 

That's why a lot of today's kids, and quite a few adults. couldn't spell their way out of a damp Tesco carrier bag unfortunately.

 

[harvey19]

31 minutes ago, XPertByExperien said:

Yep, grammar schools teach "posh" kids spelling and grammar, and leave us commoners behind.

 

That's why a lot of today's kids, and quite a few adults. couldn't spell their way out of a damp Tesco carrier bag unfortunately.

 

When I went to grammar school it was not full of posh kids.

The pupils came from all areas of Sheffield and social classes, the only criteria was that we had passed our 11plus exam.

Whatever type of school a child went to they were taught spelling before taking the 11plus exam.

 

[Anna B]

The main problem was the segregation at 11, when one exam could take you to Grammar school, O' level examinations at 16, and the possibility of A' levels and a University education. Then a subsequent professional career. A great opportunity for clever working class kids.

 

But failing the 11 plus meant all these things were denied you, as Secondary schools didn't do O'levels or have sixth forms. So those kids were at a distinct disadvantage and generally destined for lower paid or factory jobs.

 

Trouble is kids develop at different rates, and some simply aren't ready at 11 but flourish at 12 or 13, so eventually a second chance was introduced later to transfer talented kids into the Grammar school system. But it was too late for some.

 

All this changed with Comprehensives. They were designed to offer all kids the chance to do GCE's or CSE's and move up into a sixth form and University. They also provided more vocational courses in practical subjects for those not academically inclined. So far so good.

 

But not all Comprehensives were 'created equal', and those in poor catchment areas with a disadvantaged intake of pupils , poor peer pressure and social problems fell by the wayside and failed to thrive. This has been endlessly tinkered with attempting to resolve the problem, but still exists to some extent today.  

Edited February 15, 2023 by Anna B