Showing posts with label Inadequate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inadequate. Show all posts

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.



Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.
And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”
Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 
A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).
The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:
Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate
For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.
Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate
For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy
Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding
For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy
These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.
This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.
There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.
Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.

Friday, 3 May 2013

Battle likely at Copland following critical Ofsted report

Following Ofsted's designation of Copland High School as Grade 4 Inadequate and requiring special measures battle lines are being drawn over the possibility that the DfE will attempt to force the school to become an academy.

Unions representing teaching staff are overwhelming in favour of industrial action against any such move. School support  staff have still to reach a decision but they are the group of workers most likely to suffer a deterioration in conditions of service on academisation.

There are reports that Ark Schools, already running the Ark Academy in Wembley and negotiating to take over Kensal Rise Primary, have their eyes on Copland which is the last remaining secondary school in Brent which is neither an academy or faith school. 

Copland governors are unlikely to favour Ark as a sponsor.

The views of parents are mentioned but only 11 parents completed the on-line Parent View and there are 1,487 pupils in the school.

The report LINK gives an Inadequate grade to achievement of pupils, quality of teaching and leadership  and management and a Requires Improvement grade to behaviour and safety of pupils. In summary it states:
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that this school requires special measures because it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.
Ofsted acknowledge the difficulties the school has been through following the allegations of financial mismanagement against the previous headteacher, deputy head and other staff and terms it 'an extraordinary turbulence in leadership.'
Significant weaknesses in the quality of senior and middle management remain. A number of senior staff, subject leaders and pastoral managers are currently absent or subject to capability.
Other background factors have not helped the school including the scandal of its poor buildings:
The building remains in very poor condition. This was also reported in the 2006, 2009 and 2010 inspection reports. Some classrooms provide a completely unacceptable environment in which to teach and learn. The budget deficit has been reduced significantly over the past two years, but still stands at around £1 million. The reduction in student numbers has meant that further budget cuts are necessary. The building and the budget are adversely affecting the school’s capacity to provide an adequate education for students.
Significantly, apart from eliminating the budget deficit and action on the  building, the role of the local authority is scarcely mentioned.The local authority's response to the Ofsted report and any support and improvement plan it puts into place will be of vital importance in resisting forced academy status