Gove's favourites

Let’s face it, Michael Gove did a huge amount of damage to state education - I worked in secondary education for more than 30 years and found he earned/deserved no respect, treating teachers as though we were all idiots (heard him speak BADLY at my education union conference) - and secondary schools will take a long time to recover from his influence...

hha! I was the Head who had to take the school through its first OFSTED!

She knew the hoops to jump through to please OFSTED.

I took on a primary headship from a HT that was highly thought of. She was asked to go to a "struggling" school to improve it and then was offered a job with the then quite new National College for School Leadership. When I took on the school it was chaos because her style of leadership was about her controlling and promoting her favourite staff. The place looked good and "did interesting things" but it failed to do sufficient teaching or develop good behaviour. It took 3+ years to get the kids to see that school was a place to learn!

PS. And, yes, I've come across all the other types too!

I know this anecdotal, but the best head I've ever known was a mathematician turned accountant turned teacher. He was very understated in his approach, but let good people get on with what they did best. He was never going to be a 'superhead' but it was a happy school, which did loads for the community, achieved good results and has been rated as outstanding by Ofsted almost since Ofsted started. So it looks as though there's something in the report.

That's a really interesting study daphnedill.

Amazing that the "surgeons" (studied PE/RE) get the most accolades and honours, as well as the highest salaries, yet appear to be the least effective heads. As many educationalists have suspected, low performing children are "weeded out" of these schools, thus elevating exam results - and it was found that the improvement could not be sustained when the heads left.

How interesting that the "architects" (studied History/Economics - 86% had worked outside of education before becoming teachers) who place great emphasis on visionary leadership which encourages the involvement of the community and which involves re-designing and transforming schools, achieve gradual but sustained improvement which continues after they leave.

A bit worrying that the bulk of the heads, the "philosophers" (studied English/Languages)are characterised as being good at "talking the talk" but not "walking the walk" and were recorded as presiding over a "gradual decline" in the schools.

This certainly does seem to support the idea that an effective head of any organisation is instrumental in creating the conditions that enable an organisation to achieve sustained improvement.

Quite an interesting study in 'Schoolsweek' about school leadership styles...

schoolsweek.co.uk/pe-and-re-teachers-make-least-effective-superheads-new-study-reveals/

Schools are now commercial enterprises. Education is a commodity. Unfortunately it is the future of children they are trading with.

typo alert...and semblance = any semblance

@trisher

I agree about the number of admin staff in schools. I worked in a medium-sized comp, where four office staff did everything. Now the school has had an extension built for the army of administrators. Most secondary schools now have almost as many office staff, TAs and cover supervisors, etc as they have teachers, doing the jobs which used to be done centrally.

Not only do schools now have staffroom politics, but they also have admin staff politics and SEN politics. My experience is that the hierarchies have destroyed and semblance of teamwork. Separate hierarchies even fight against each other and it's not uncommon for teachers to feel bullied by admin staff.

I am sooooooooooo glad I no longer work in schools.

PS. Academies are no better or worse than LA schools. The first academies were introduced by Labour as a last resort to try and turn round failing schools. The next batch were so-called outstanding schools, which were given greater autonomy. The latest ones tend to be part of chains and are a mixed bag and the ones I would personally avoid as a parent or teacher.

Let's face it, governments only do things for their own ends. So they create academies to make money for their chums. They are going to build HS2 to line the pockets of themselves/their friends. They are now going to hive off a big part of the NHS to .. yes you've guessed it. Even more scarily they are now trying to get a bill through Parliament which will scrap some of the safeguards put in place to protect children. It seems to have passed through the House of Commons already - did anyone see that on TV?! - and so many social services will be privatised. Now I wonder why?!!!

Schools never had bursars or finance managers they had headteachers, heads of departments and teachers, they had secretarial staff and office staff who were very low paid, the LEA set the budget and everyone coped.

There is no financial inducement any more! Money now given covers legal costs of transfering property lease/owmership from LA to Academy Trust. Sometimes it might cover cost of staff redundancies ..often 2/3 schhols come together and employ 1 bursar rather than 3 finance managers.

I desperately want my DGD to get into the academy close to where she lives as the next alternative school is miles away and has a terrible Ofsted report. I can't see why local schools can't be for local children. Mind you reading the list of governors at the school is like reading a who's who in the financial world. Their list of "interests" is very long winded.

The thing to remember about academies is that their introduction has been largely about privatizing education and taking teachers out of their pay and conditions. Academies can employ unqualified staff to teach, they can require their staff to work whatever hours they like to impose at whatever rate of pay they choose. Currently there is a huge problem with recruitment and retention of teachers in all types of school with about half of all newly qualified teachers not getting beyond 3 years before leaving the profession. On the other hand, older, more experienced teachers are being 'urged' on because they are expensive. Yet academy chain executive heads are receiving huge salaries, exploiting nepotism and are largely protected from scrutiny until something major happens because the local authority has no control over academy schools - all control comes from the Secretary of State.
Please, if you are a governor, ensure you vote AGAINST any measures to turn your school into an academy, the short term financial inducement is just that - short term - and it brings so much more with it!

If you give headteachers too much power, as academies do, there will always be some who are unable to cope, some who take advantage and commit fraud, some who fail completely and a few who will do well. The big problem is that even the few who do well eventually retire or move on and then a successful school begins to fail. Schools should go back to providing an education and leave the finances to Local authorities. Teachers should teach not meddle with finance and money.

These 5 are only the tip of the iceberg. There are lots of examples where the executives of these academy trusts employ their relatives in unadvertised positions, set up companies or as consultants, siphoning off taxpayers money which should be spent on the children. Huge 6 figure salaries are commonplace.

I think that larger Academy Trusts have more chance to use funding 'creatively' to line the pockets of their senior staff/Trust board members. Some of course do not and are successful schools serving local communities well. Many academies do have selection criteria /test which may disadvantage certain children from gaining a place at what may be their nearest school. I know that when a well known academy chain took over a troubled school a significant number of pupils were excluded. They had to go somewhere! So it is not always a sign of better teaching that results go up just that they refused to work with the "difficult" students who end up as non attenders or at a community school. Still part of our society...

It is probably a lot easier to be a good school if you only ever cream off the "best" pupils from the nicest areas foxie . The school very close to where my DGC live is almost impossible to get into unless you come from one of the feeders all of which are placed in/around upmarket villages making it impossible for anyone (even those on the doorstep) to get into.

Having taught in and had my children educated by faith schools I totally agree that all faith schools should be scrapped.

At the time it seemed OK but now I'm outside of that cocoon I realise how destructive it was. If a parent wants to indoctrinate their child then it's up to them. Taxpayers money shouldn't be used to help with that indoctrination.

There must be priority areas in some LEAs. My GS wanted to go to a school just outside his family's area - 'because it has a better academic record!' - but was allocated a place at his local school where his older sister was already happily ensconced and where he is now doing nicely in year 8.

I will second all that Luckygirl says on this.

Good schools don't happen by accident, they are made by good teachers no matter what the school is called. Some teachers are inspirational and some are not irrespective of their qualifications and that has nothing to do with money. Some teachers have a vocation and other treat teaching just as a job. And while I'm at it let me voice a very unpopular and contentious opinion that ALL faith schools should be scrapped. Indoctrination in one faith or another IMHO no longer has relevance in modern society

Lots more money and the ability to select only the best and turn away anyone they don't like the look of. Of course they achieve. Fine if you can get in. The scrap heap for the rest.