She has just released her quango's latest annual report. It's available for all to read should anyone want to on Ofsted's web site.
It contains damning evidence that Academies as a breed are actually either completely failing the children they serve or are not improving on the results of the state schools they used to attend. Her department has only inspected thirty and yet one in six are failing and she cannot avoid recording this fact even if Ed Balls would rather she didn't.
It contains damning evidence that Academies as a breed are actually either completely failing the children they serve or are not improving on the results of the state schools they used to attend. Her department has only inspected thirty and yet one in six are failing and she cannot avoid recording this fact even if Ed Balls would rather she didn't.
I have gone through the report and picked out all the detail it has on Academies. Frankly there isn't much but what there is is damning.
Here is the lady who wrote the report Christine Gilbert
and here is what she said;
Of the 30 academies inspected in 2008/09, more than half are good or outstanding. However, five were judged inadequate: three of these require significant improvement and two have been made subject to special measures.
There are now over 200 in existence so it will be interesting to see if this failure rate is maintained.
In the majority of cases, academies have taken advantage of their fresh start and additional resources; they have demonstrated flexibility in strengthening their provision and curricula and making a positive impact on raising standards.
As ever with government spin the numbers suddenly vanish when they don't support the rhetoric. A majority of cases is too vague. 30 inspections, 5 failing, at least fifteen good or outstanding so the actual number who have taken advantage is at least 16 which means 14 HAVEN'T taken advantage.
Where new academies have developed strong and effective links with other education providers, they have been able to use their combined resources and collective expertise to very good effect, particularly in strengthening 14 to 19 provision.
Again 'other education providers' means what exactly?
Who are they and why have they succeeded where others have failed?
Meat on the bones, good lady, meat on the bones!
However, inadequate academies have been unable to improve outcomes for pupils sufficiently in their first two or three years of operation. They have, or had, weaknesses in strategic leadership and they have not made good use of partnership arrangements to address the considerable challenges they face. They have been unable to establish a settled ethos and calm behaviour and there has been too much inconsistency in the quality of teaching to accelerate the pupils' progress.
The truth hidden away in this paragraph is that in five communities their children have been totally failed by these expensive schools. In a further nine communities their children's education has been put at risk. That's shocking.
Of the 30 inspections of academies in 2008/09, 10 were reinspections. Five of these 10 academies have improved their overall effectiveness, including one that was satisfactory at its previous inspection and is now outstanding.
More positive spin on what are clearly far from excellent results. Lets be clear here. 1 out of 10 moving from satisfactory to outstanding is not statistically valid. The other 9 didn't improve to the same degree and it's equally possible 5 of the 9 actually failed.
But this last paragraph is the one that really lets the cat out of the bag.
A considerable number of academies remain below the government GCSE floor target for at least 30% of pupils to achieve five or more higher-grade GCSE passes, including English and mathematics. However, the most successful academies have made notable improvements and are beginning to have a positive impact on their wider communities through working in partnership with other local schools, and making learning opportunities available to adults and young people in the area.
Sadly again no detail on the ACTUAL numbers as this would prove irrefutably that results for most kids DO NOT improve when local schools are put to the sword on the Blair/Brown/Balls Altar of ACADEMY.
They either stay the same or get worse and the schools themselves cost taxpayers an arm and a leg. The local community improvements she prattles on about is just whitewash that fools fewer and fewer people.
Here is the lady who wrote the report Christine Gilbert
and here is what she said;
Of the 30 academies inspected in 2008/09, more than half are good or outstanding. However, five were judged inadequate: three of these require significant improvement and two have been made subject to special measures.
There are now over 200 in existence so it will be interesting to see if this failure rate is maintained.
In the majority of cases, academies have taken advantage of their fresh start and additional resources; they have demonstrated flexibility in strengthening their provision and curricula and making a positive impact on raising standards.
As ever with government spin the numbers suddenly vanish when they don't support the rhetoric. A majority of cases is too vague. 30 inspections, 5 failing, at least fifteen good or outstanding so the actual number who have taken advantage is at least 16 which means 14 HAVEN'T taken advantage.
Where new academies have developed strong and effective links with other education providers, they have been able to use their combined resources and collective expertise to very good effect, particularly in strengthening 14 to 19 provision.
Again 'other education providers' means what exactly?
Who are they and why have they succeeded where others have failed?
Meat on the bones, good lady, meat on the bones!
However, inadequate academies have been unable to improve outcomes for pupils sufficiently in their first two or three years of operation. They have, or had, weaknesses in strategic leadership and they have not made good use of partnership arrangements to address the considerable challenges they face. They have been unable to establish a settled ethos and calm behaviour and there has been too much inconsistency in the quality of teaching to accelerate the pupils' progress.
The truth hidden away in this paragraph is that in five communities their children have been totally failed by these expensive schools. In a further nine communities their children's education has been put at risk. That's shocking.
Of the 30 inspections of academies in 2008/09, 10 were reinspections. Five of these 10 academies have improved their overall effectiveness, including one that was satisfactory at its previous inspection and is now outstanding.
More positive spin on what are clearly far from excellent results. Lets be clear here. 1 out of 10 moving from satisfactory to outstanding is not statistically valid. The other 9 didn't improve to the same degree and it's equally possible 5 of the 9 actually failed.
But this last paragraph is the one that really lets the cat out of the bag.
A considerable number of academies remain below the government GCSE floor target for at least 30% of pupils to achieve five or more higher-grade GCSE passes, including English and mathematics. However, the most successful academies have made notable improvements and are beginning to have a positive impact on their wider communities through working in partnership with other local schools, and making learning opportunities available to adults and young people in the area.
Sadly again no detail on the ACTUAL numbers as this would prove irrefutably that results for most kids DO NOT improve when local schools are put to the sword on the Blair/Brown/Balls Altar of ACADEMY.
They either stay the same or get worse and the schools themselves cost taxpayers an arm and a leg. The local community improvements she prattles on about is just whitewash that fools fewer and fewer people.
As so few actually 'make things better' it is incumbent on all involved with Furness Academy Limited to ensure it joins the ranks of the few and actually makes things better for the kids it is charged with educating.
The company itself can start by actually talking to parents and staff about what is required. If the company doesn't do this and the school gets anywhere near special measure then the sponsors, the County Council, the DCSF, John Hutton and the senior managements credibility is shot to pieces which is bad enough but even worse over 1500 children's chances have been put in jeopardy and that is really not acceptable.
Silence is no longer an option.
The company itself can start by actually talking to parents and staff about what is required. If the company doesn't do this and the school gets anywhere near special measure then the sponsors, the County Council, the DCSF, John Hutton and the senior managements credibility is shot to pieces which is bad enough but even worse over 1500 children's chances have been put in jeopardy and that is really not acceptable.
Silence is no longer an option.
Students, here is this evenings essay. Fa's alleged fixed term exclusion of over 500 pupils since the start of the academic year shows a positive approach to behaviour management. Discuss.
Rumours of over 500 fa exclusions this term are legion
If this is true it should be front page evening mail headlines all week. Also should have ofsted making a little new year visit
I bet these figures are not inclusive of permanent exclusions. Surely national press interest as highest exclusion rate in uk.
Many staff talking about it. Most of these are to do with minor things and should not be exclusions at all
Tony brookes warnings have come to pass.
Shows fa total lack of respect for working with parents,kids and the community.
Perhaps the exclusions are for visiting the candle factory during the school day and burning the wick at both ends!
Explains the multitudes i see each day in the centre of town.
The tough stance taken by doug et all shows he is willing to make a difference. The old schools were far too soft. Good on you doug and keep up maintaining high standards.
How odd 9 comments from different people in less than an hour.
What is going on?
People wait for others to make the news. Though im hardly surprised with such a story we have ten already.
I have been waiting for months for this to come out. It is big news and something must and should be done.
I was correct folks, on chatting to others the stats dont include the permanents. Can someone please provide us with more info?
In reply to the comment frot c potts, it is merely evidence of draconian measures not suited to the crimes. Such policy shows a lack off behaviour management skills.
Is this site the last court of appeal. Roger, nina, osanfs, anti academy councillors- where did you all go? Don't you care anymore.
I totally agree newboy. Why do the anti-academy councillors take the exclusion data to the county and demand answers about the issue of exclusion. Where is the accountability?