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 I also know that many retired teachers become governors, but with education moving so fast, their experience is often out of date before they've started.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.

Ofsted - clueless!

It's not just me who thinks that Ofsted are totally clueless when it comes to assessing schools. There was a letter from a teacher to Chris Woodhead (former Chief Inspector of Schools) in The Sunday Times this week bemoaning a glowing recent Ofsted on their school. The report had stated that the behaviour of the students at the school was "exemplary" whereas in reality the students ran the place with the headteacher being totally ineffective and using the Ofsted report as justification for doing essentially nothing.

The stories from this teacher, whose name is understandably withheld are truly shocking. Female staff are called "stupid bitches" to their face, students regularly "go on strike" and corridors are urinated in (by students rather than staff!). The place sounds like a candidate for academy status to me, but apart from one minor quote about behaviour in the corridors being occasionally "boisterous", the inspectors have clearly no idea what really goes on in the place, relying heavily on data to form an opinion.

You have to give credit to Woodhead who attempts to defend Ofsted, as he always does. He claims that maybe the troublemakers amongst the student body were "mysteriously disappeared" for the visit, which does happen regularly. When our school was last inspected the board listing those students on external exclusion was pretty jam-packed with the usual candidates. Woodhead does admit that due to the inspectors' reliance on data and the brevity of a visit, their judgement can be far removed from the reality of what's going on. Which would suggest that the entire inspection process is a bit of a waste of time, would it not?

The teacher is clearly exasperated with their head's totally ineffectiveness and Woodhead suggests writing, as a staff body, to the head explaining what the issues are. He then says that if the head does not accept the view from the staff then you should go to the school's governing body and/or the local authority.

This only goes to show how far removed from the reality of school life Mr Woodhead is. The member of staff would be committing career suicide by writing to the headteacher, and if they tried to drum up support from other members of staff, news would quickly get back to that headteacher about who was behind it. Bear in mind that the teacher requires a reference from that headteacher to move on, and if moving on isn't an option, they would almost certainly find that next year's (and all subsequent years) timetable would be shocking for them, and leadership drop-ins/observations would increase. On top of that teachers are very good at moaning about something, but not always so good at doing something about it.

Writing to the school's governing body would have the same result as writing to the headteacher in that essentially most of the governors don't want any grief and are doing the job either to further their career in the local community (mayor anyone?) or because their child is at the school and they want to know what's going on. A few might do something about it, but as it's not a paid position, can you blame them for wanting an easy time of things? The headteacher will often hoodwink the governors into believing that everything's going swimmingly, and they won't know any different, so won't realise that there's a problem.

The only possible action would be to write to the local authority, but that would almost certainly get tied up in red tape and take an eternity for anything to happen. Even then, when they visited, who would be the only person to have contact with the local authority employees? The headteacher. So ultimately, headteachers are untouchable. I suppose the new Chief Inspector of Schools' proposal to have local troubleshooters is an attempt to tackle this, although it remains to be seen if these troubleshooters will be effective.

The letter just highlights the fact that Ofsted are clueless, overpaid and of no use to parents, schools or children.

Governors - what do they do?

Every school has governors - they have to. Some governors are teachers, some are parents and others are just members of the local community. They don't get paid but ultimately they have a say over the who gets employed by the school, what the money gets spent on and whether to sack any member of staff from the headteacher down. It's a job with a huge amount of responsibility that takes up a lot of time for no financial reward, so why do people do it?

There are various different types of governor:

• The Teacher Governor. These are a legal requirement but few members of staff actually want to do it as it takes up a lot of time that could be spent planning "outstanding" lessons for Ofsted. You are there to offer the views of the staff but the danger is, certainly at my school and others I've been at, that if you say anything even remotely derogatory about the school, your life will be made a misery by the head, and so as a result most teacher governors sit there saying nothing because it's not worth their while.
• The Parent Governor. These are obviously parents of children at the school. By default they care about their children's education otherwise they wouldn't have got involved in the whole process. Their entire perception of the school is based upon their own child's experience of it, and since they care in the first place, their child is likely to be in the top set of every subject they take. Hence their children will rarely be subjected to the amoebic behaviour of some members of the school that soils plenty of other lessons. Therefore they have a tainted view of the school in general. Tainted in a good way I suppose, but invariably inaccurate as a whole.
• The "Random" Governor. These are people who have few ties to the school in general, although some maybe be former parents or pupils wanting to "give something back". They tend to be members of the local community who are either self- or unemployed, and so can take time off as and when required to do so. Most are self-employed and run their own business, normally relatively successfully. Some members of this group use the title of "school governor" as a stepping stone to greater things, for example, Mayor. We have a couple of those at our school. They have no idea what goes on in the school apart from what the headteacher tells them, despite the fact that they may wander the campus on occasion, but they are directed very efficiently in the the "right" parts of the school by the headteacher. Their view is ultimately meaningless.
• The Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher. These two are on the governing body whatever. They are there to tell the governors how the school is performing, or more precisely, to tell the governors what they want to hear in order that the governors won't sack them, as ultimately, they are the only people who can do so. The headteacher could inform the governors that the science department is planning a trip to Mars and the governors have little choice but to believe it, unless of course they have a conscience and actually find out what's really going on. Few do, but it does happen. Not at my school though.

When things go wrong at a school, for example a disastrous Ofsted or something actually important, firstly the headteacher gets it in the neck, but the governors also take the brunt of the criticism, so you'd think that they'd be a little more pro-active than most are. I have taught at schools where the governors are quite pro-active and actually do the job they are supposed to do. It is, sadly, rare that this actually happens though, but if a headteacher is found to have been using school funds for their own personal use (not that uncommon people), the governors will be asked a lot of searching questions. So maybe it's worth thinking quite carefully about becoming a governor, as serious repercussions could be coming your way.

Dear Jim'll,

Could you fix it for me to become headteacher because I want a iPad and Sky TV in my office,

Yours sincerely...