This Academy Business Is Not Fully Thought Through

As English education careers at towards privatization, because let's face it, that's what's happening, there's something I don't quite understand: how come the buck stops with a bunch of volunteers?

These unpaid, although mostly dedicated and hard-working people generally do a great job, don't get me wrong, but ultimately a load of people with little or no experience have the final say in what is essentially a multi-million pound business. School budgets would probably stagger most people, and it is generally money well spent, but if you went to Dragon's Den asking for £3 million per year so that you could run a private hospital with your medical experience being the dishing out of Calpol to your child you'd laughed out of the room. Ok, so I'm being a bit extreme, but essentially that's what's happening up and down the country to local schools.

Actually I have no real objection to academies or independent schools, who they can hire and how much they want to pay their staff. What I do object to is that the Gove/Wilshaw show keep telling us that academy will bring immediate results, which is frankly not true. What I also be a problem is the fact that the people running these academies need both business experience/acumen as well as school experience as an employee rather than student. The issue is that the people running academies either have one or the other but rarely both.

Essentially the DfE awarding academy status is a gamble in each and every case and some will fail due to lack of expertise, which generally will be no fault of their own. Governors, those unpaid volunteers, are supposed to hold the headteacher and therefore the staff to "account". What does that mean/entail? Does anybody really know? Do most governors know enough about education to be able to effectively hold headteachers to account? And even if they do spot that something is awry, what useful advice could they offer?

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I know that there are plenty of teachers who become governors of schools that their children attend, but they won't be able to walk around the school during the school day. I also know that many retired teachers become governors, but with education moving so fast, their experience is often out of date before they've started.

Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of Schools, has suggested that governors should get paid to make them more professional, or to encourage them to work harder. This has gone down like the proverbial fart in a lift with many current governors who suggest that it could encourage people to do it for the money rather than for the good of school. He may or may not have a point about paying governors but he has failed to mention where these payments are going to come from? School budgets are already stretched to breaking point, the DfE has overspent on academies by £1 billion in a year and the country is facing a "triple dip" recession, which adds up to the fact that there ain't no money out there.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure that Wilshaw's brain and mouth are connected as every time it opens he seems to annoy another portion of the educational world; or perhaps the annoying of everybody is all part of a grand plan and he's immensely intelligent, only time will tell. Those who have been subject, and I use that word intentionally, to the new Ofsted regime will tell you that Wilshaw pontificates from his ivory tower, making, on occasion, sensible noises about lessons/teaching that are seemingly ignored by his minions - I'm talking about there not being a "standard Ofsted lesson", but inspection evidence would suggest otherwise.

Anyway, I digress. Governors have a really important job, namely making sure that the staff are running the school to the best of their abilities. The problem is that there is a danger that the governing body will just believe what they are told by the headteacher, and due to the fact that governors hold down full time jobs as well, they may be all they have time to do. What many people don't realise is the time and effort that goes into being a governor until they become one.

As far as I can see the whole system could collapse at the drop of a hat, but Gove/Wilshaw will or should not be in post when that happens. Picking up the pieces will be an unenviable task for whoever is charged with doing so.

Secretary of State for Education Michael Mugabe-Gove

Ok, so people aren't being starved or murdered by our Right "Honourable" leader, but the way he deals with people who disagree with him is certainly similar.

Remember Downhills Primary School in Haringey? That's the one where everyone except for Ofsted, including parents, staff and pupils were quite happy with things, but because Orville, sorry Ofsted said that they were failing and ought to be an academy, Keith Harris, I mean Michael Gove insisted they become an academy. I'm being harsh of course, as Gove did allow the school to be reinspected in the name of "fairness", and surprise of all surprises, Ofsted backed their original assessment. The headteacher resigned, against many people actually involved with the school's wishes, but still the governors resisted.

So now Gove has sacked the governors and put in place an interim governing body who will decide on whether the school will become an academy. The new Chair of Governors is a certain Les Walton. Heard of him? Didn't think so, but guess what, he's in charge of the Young People's Learning Agency - the academies' funding body. He's going to be dead impartial, what a wise choice Mr Gove. The school will become an academy as soon as is humanly possible one suspects, and with it educational choice in the UK essentially dies.

Schools who aren't yet academies are essentially being forced into becoming them as funding is squeezed. The only schools that can generate extra funding from government are academies. Guess what my headteacher is currently investigating in that case, although you could be excused for thinking that it's an albino elephant that has gripped their attention. Very recent data suggests that academy status makes little or no difference to school performance, which is hardly surprising since the same failing students are still wandering through the gates with their ties at half-mast and their trousers arguably lower whilst rolling their next cigarette. Some academies have even gone into special measures - those academies don't tend to be championed by the current regime in Whitehall.

Also in the news is the fact that literacy progress has stalled meaning that we are falling behind other, similar countries - naughty, lazy teachers, resting on their laurels; goalposts have moved you know, onto the next fad or target.

Maths needs to be taught in more contextual ways apparently - unimaginative, lazy teachers, still teaching the stuff that has seen society through perfectly well for the previous 200 years or so, you really ought to spend lots of time and money reinventing the wheel only to be told by 30 spotty teenagers that they won't ever use this stuff when they leave; they already know exactly what every jobs entails of course, and will walk into their number one choice.

Language teachers required urgently, loads of people want to take your subject now, which is almost as quick a U-turn as many a front-bencher in Westminster will undertake as only a few years ago language teachers were being told that they were no longer required and to seek employment elsewhere; please return to a grotty, smelly classroom from your better paid and relatively hassle-free jobs outside of teaching, all is forgiven.

Could it be that the last paragraph is the key to all this - perhaps it's not all teachers' fault. Maybe, and I'm throwing this one out there, it's the constant interference from people in Whitehall that is part of the problem, as they try desperately to make their mark before moving up the government pecking order. And maybe, careful now, it's the general public's opinion of teachers, schools and education in general, fuelled by a corrosive British media (on the whole) that means that school children and their parents have little/no respect for teachers, education or learning, choosing to question the word of a school and argue their child's innocence until they are blue in the face, even though they know that the school is right; it's a point of principal for them to prove that schools and their staff are below them.

Ok, so I'm ranting a bit, but the constant criticism by ministers and their puppets (that's you Wilshaw) is not helpful. Yes, there are some rubbish teachers and headteachers out there, but not all are below standard. If you want people to listen to what you want them to do then you need a smattering of praise in there occasionally, and not being politically caned at every given opportunity.

I was talking to my father the other day and he said "do you think education is the UK is perfect?". I replied that I didn't think it was, and he came back with something that made me think "Gove is trying to change something that you say needs change", which I suppose is a fair point. I'm not saying that he's doing things right, but education is the UK does need a change. Academies aren't the answer however, despite what Gove seems to think.

Governors Beware

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools, has set his sights on governors of schools now. In a sense I welcome this, in that governors should be held to account for weak governing bodies who allow poor leadership to continue without challenge. Governors after all are the only people who can "sack" a headteacher.

The trouble is that governors are unpaid - Wilshaw's solution is to pay them. With what? At the expense of teaching staff? Budgets are dwindling Sir Michael - where's the money going to come from?

The job of school governor is an important one, of course, but due to its voluntary nature, not one many want to get their hands dirty performing. Some governors are only there to make themselves look better within the community, say before running for Mayor, council, parliament etc. Now I know that this sounds fairly cynical on my part, but it is true I'm afraid.

Many governors are parents of children who have done well at the school, perhaps dare I say, despite the school and will have a rose tinted view of the school and its leadership. You won't get many parents of kids in the bottom sets volunteering to sit on the governing body, which is partly why their kids are in the bottom sets - little interest in education in many cases.

Will Wilshaw's plan ever see the light of day?

In my view the answer's "No", for these reasons:

1. There won't be enough money to do it - each school requires around 5 governors, if not more. It depends on the size of the school.
2. If governors become a target of Ofsted, no-one will want to do it as they can live without the grief.

The only way schools will ever be governed properly is if local authorities or academy organisations employ "professional" governors who govern a group of schools. This will eat into the budget as far as the local authority are concerned, and eat into the academy organisations' profit. It therefore won't happen.

Nice try Michael, but once again your judgement is clouded by your buttocks.