Four New Academies in East Dulwich

[MichaelDavern]

Charter, Kingdale, and the two Dulwich Infant/Junior schools have expressed an interest in becoming an academy. Public Meeting the week after next DO WE NEED ANY MORE ACADEMIES IN EAST DULWICH?

[tiddles]

no!! I believe the two secondary schools do not actually want to become academies but are having to seek further clarification as to what is being proposed.

where is the public meeting?

[westof]

The Kingsdale website says Kingsdale rejects 'old style' Academy status but considers 'new style' academy proposals

"The school is committed to protecting the independence of the Governing Body and to maintaining high quality provision for students and staff. The proposals being investigated do not include a sponsor and the ultimate strategic authority would reside and remain with the Governing Body."

[????]

Kingsdale and Charter aren't in East Dulwich are they?

[citizenED]

No, but they serve a fair number of East Dulwich kids. East Dulwich doesn't have any secondary schools. The new Harris Boys will be the first in East Dulwich.

[PeckhamRose]

What does Academy mean? What's wrong with 'School'?

It's like "Foundation Trust", when we just want a 'Hospital'.

SOOO much money being wasted on branding and PR and advertising and meetings and - no wonder it's all going downhill!

(Note to self, do not post when depressed or ill.!)

[MichaelDavern]

Academies are state funded independent schools. So Charter and Kingsdale would run outside of local support networks and be on their own. The extra money is a bit of a misnomer since it is the share of the money held back for the school and held centrally to provided for services such as Educational Welfare Officers etc and since the schools would still have to spend some of this on some services that must be provided and some of the money would go on paying increased salaries to the principals and senior leaders (expecting to be paid on a par with other academy leaders). This extra money would not necessarily go to the pupils in terms of resources and support.

[citizenED]

But Academies don't have the right to select independently - isn't that done centrally?

[MichaelDavern]

You are right. They are bound by the same rules but can select up to 20% for their specialism which happens already as Foundation schools. They can't select as a private school would because they are state-funded.

[ladywotlunches]

Michael, is there a central place to find out this information? I'm on the Lewisham side of the border and would like to find out about schools here.

[Penguin68]

Academies I believe do their own selection - but cannot be selective (i.e. take only the most academic candidates). The idea behind this change is so that schools can be responsible for their own futures and so that school governing bodies can be (virtually) autonomous. They will not be obliged, I believe, to follow e.g. the National Curriculum, although they will be subject to inspection by Ofsted as before.

The schools lose economies of scale that central purchasing and support (i.e. Bursars departments) offer; however it is possible that third parties could set up such services for these new schools who could outsource to them. There is little evidence that councils have uniformly offered good value for money here anyway, and many council's own works departments (i.e. Lambeth's in the past) have been notoriously poor in this area. That is one reason why so much social housing has been moved efectively from Council to Housing Association care, because of the poor value for money from (some) Council work forces. It would be possible for the Dulwich academies to pool resource for such things as maintenance etc. if they chose. That is the one beauty of the change - they get to choose what is optimal for them, rather than having to dance to a more convoluted tune that reflects the local governance of an entire borough, with all the conflicting calls they have on resource and focus.

Academies escape the political ideology of councils, although of course they are not thus politics free.

[MichaelDavern]

www.antiacademies.org.uk

[PeckhamRose]

Do they still have to have religious worship every day?

[MichaelDavern]

Agreed Penguin, privatisation is also a political act, transferring what is public property paid for by local taxpayers(buildings/fields/school equipment) to an asset for a private company which an academy would be.

[MichaelDavern]

Hi Peckham Rose: I quote:

www.natsoc.org.uk/academies/academiesgovernanceandtransitionupdatedoct07.doc -

RE and Worship

The provisions relating to religious education and collective worship at an academy are part of the funding agreement for each academy. They are not imposed by the Education Acts and do not as such flow from designation. However, in the DfES model funding agreement, the optional clauses for denominational RE and collective worship are stated to be for use where it is intended that the academy will be designated as having a religious character. Therefore designation should be seen as part of the package that secures the religious character of a church academy along with appropriate provisions in the charitable objects and the funding agreement.

This means that it is up to the academy whether to have collective worship or not

[PeckhamRose]

Thank you for replying.

[MichaelDavern]

the anti academies site is a good source of info ladywotlunches, It also has links to what the pro-academy view is too

[BB100]

If you want to check if your school has applied for status:

http://www.education.gov.uk/academies/schools-registering-interest

[Penguin68]

MichaelDavern wrote:-

transferring what is public property paid for by local taxpayers(buildings/fields/school equipment) to an asset for a private company which an academy would be

I have not seen Michael Gove's detailed proposals but I would be surprised if a school which transferred out of the existing system (under his new proposals) would be able to alienate the capital (land and buildings) of the existing school away from state ownership - they would probably be held in some form of trust, only to be used for public (not public school!) educational purposes. The capitation fees to be paid on behalf of pupils cover current accounts costs and are assumed to be used up during the year (maintenance would probably be seen as current expenditure, maintaining but not adding value to the capital assets). New build schools would of course be a different issue. Academies so far have been been new build in the main, even when on the site of an existing school.

'Giving away' public assets would surely be open to judicial review (not that that stopped Westminster Council 'giving away' their cemetaries for a shilling a go). And not that that stops councils disposing of assets at knock down prices themselves on occasion, including school and playing field sites.

[DaveR]

Michael Davern, your post doesn't seem to follow logically from Penguin's, and also doesn't seem to make much sense.

True privatisation involves selling an asset held by the state to private buyers. When a school becomes an academy, my understanding is that the 'property' e.g. land and buildings are owned by a charitable trust, but management is devolved to the governing body. There is no prospect of a transfer into private hands.

I've looked at the anti-academies website - it's not terribly persuasive. It doesn't address the core issue i.e. who runs schools better, LEAs or the schools themselves. A bit of googling also seems to indicate that all of the officers of the 'Anti-Academy Alliance' are both members of the more left leaning teacher's unions and associated with SWP, WRP etc., which makes me suspect that this is an ideological crusade with a bit of self-interest thrown in rather than a campaign with parents and pupils' interests at its heart.

Local authorities haven't exactly covered themselves in glory over the last 20 years or so when it comes to running schools, so I'd like to see them making a strong positive case why they should retain control. If they can.

[taper]

Penguin68, DaveR

Good posts and entirely right.

The anti-academies site is very misleading on many levels: so requirement to have a sponsor, "privatisation" (academies are charitable trusts). Most telling as you point out is the membership of the "alliance". Anything with the whiff of the SWP about it should be ignored.

[DaveR]

Michael Davern, you wouldn't be secretary of the Southwark branch of the NUT, by any chance? I know this is only a local forum, but don't you think it would be best for you to declare your interest?

[Marmora Man]

DaveR - I was about to make exactly the same point. Michael Davern is not a concerned parent worried about schooling but a concerned trades union official concerned about the impact of greater local managerial freedom on his members and colleagues.

[citizenED]

But you say that as if it is a bad thing MM. Are you saying that official of a teaching union is not concerned with education?

[Pecanpie]

Michael Davern has put his name to his post, not exactly sneeky. Its good to open this debate on a public forum.