I am worried about the way Sheffield City Council are pushing through the idea of creating 2 "City Academies" without talking to the people that matter, the kids and their parents. It seems that they will only start consulting after the deal is done. The same goes for the special schools in Sheffield. Council officials have refused to talk to the governors of these schools. Staff have been told not to talk to parents about the changes on the grounds that it might cause panic. Is it me, or is this some sort of gagging order?

Where abouts in Sheffield are they going to open these academies, may I ask?

Bernz

Are these so-called "Academies" Myrtle Springs and Waltheof? If they are then the kids, their parents, the staff and the governers have been made fully aware of the situation. Even the people who live near to Myrtle Springs (me) have been invited to a public meeting.

If they are not these two schools let us know which they are, we can then give you a fair reply to your query.

You are right. What did they actually say at these meetings. Did anyone ask if people thought it was a good idea?

Didn't go to the meeting at Myrtle Springs - see enough of the little b****rs during the day.

But I work with one of the govenors of Waltheof and he told me that their main concern is for the Muslim kids as it is supposed to be a "Christian" academy. Apparently they told him that it will remain open for all religions and they will be given opportunity to follow them.

Must admit I think there might be something a little fishy - nobody does something for nothing.

My concern is with the process. Dame somebody or other was quoted in the Sheffield Telegraph last week saying that the meetings were about how the people involved thought that the academies should work. That sort of implies that they are going ahead. Do the folks on the Manor know that for £2 million quid, with I think £19 of Council taxpayers' money, the school will be run by more or less a private company. I think that they can even appoint their own governors. However, I may be wrong on that one.

That should be £19 million of course.

did anyone see the sketch on bremner bird and fortune on these academies - was really good!

went on the lines of companies put in £2m
the government puts in the rest - up to about £20m!
the company gets to own the building! - that sounds like a pretty good deal to me

the schools dont have to follow the national curriculum - now that may be ok for some students who perhaps arent as studious but what about those that are???

So the schools are usually failing ones - but - the kids remain from the same area and the teachers are TUPE'd over to the new company so that doesnt change either!

so we have a new building worth £22m ish
same kids, same teachers -= same outcomes!!!

these academies have been proven NOT to work in the USA so why the hell are we pursuing them!

i worked with kids from myrtle springs as a mentor this year - they are hoping to get academy status and I think are looking to an Irish Catholic man as their sponser - he wants to increase the amount of religious education the pupils take - some of the teachers said they thought the increase in R.E. lessons would be a good thing, i'm not so sure that having to stick to specific requirements like this by changing where the money comes from is a good thing at all.

Originally posted by redhotjo


So the schools are usually failing ones - but - the kids remain from the same area and the teachers are TUPE'd over to the new company so that doesnt change either!



Actually not true - Most of the academies in London made staff reapply for their own jobs to clear the dead wood out. And as for teachers - the academy schemes remove many of the obstacles that teachers often state that makes thier job difficult such as:

poor resourcing (= not enough time)
slavish adherence to National Curriculum (no flexibility in teaching and too much admin)
better salary (potentially attracts staff of a higher callibre)

As a result the staff are freed uo to do what they actually joined the profession to do and teach.

The Academies in London have seen improvments in results already and have been succesful in tackling disciplinary problems. If some of the money is private money, so what? The public consistently wants lower taxes so we can't pay for better schools out of the public purse!

The Christian group (United Learning Trust) that is proposing to take over the two Sheffield schools managed to turn the school they took over in Manchester into the second worst in the country!! See: -

http://education.guardian.co.uk/secondaries/story/0,,1389166,00.html

Is this what we want for Sheffield? The two schools in question are actually improving year on year. Council officers have said that funding for refurbishment can be secured from Government through the 'Building Schools for the Future' programme. Why do we have to privatise our schools.

The Christian group could change its policy on uniform and admissions and nobody would be able to do anything about it! One academy in the North East banned pupils from reading Harry Potter because the books were viewed as satanical!!

Something in the news recently about one failing an OFSTED. They are also allowed to kick out any students they do not like, without reference to anyone. I think it was in the North East where in one area, the 2 academies had permanently excluded 42 pupils and the other 6 state schools had excluded 10 between them. Those 42 kids have got to be taught and they end up at the state schools.

It's an extremely worrying development. My old alma mater, Thorne Grammar School, near Doncaster, is currently being rebuilt with money from the Christian Fundamentalist group The Vardy Foundation. The blurring of the line between the state and the church, as witnessed in America, is a concern for anybody who thought they understood this secular, more cynical age. I'm anti-theist, that is I'm actively opposed to religion, although I accept it is for the individual to decide what they want to believe in. What concerns me though, is that our children won't have the choice as to what they believe. The percentage of university graduates in America who accept the creationist doctrine rather than natural selection makes me wonder whether there are forces at work in our society who wish us to regress to the Dark Ages.

In Conisbrough, parents fought and won the battle against an academy, despite having to wade through much beaurocracy and over many hurdles. A public meeting was held in which parents were limited to one question each only. In response to one parent's question about homosexuality, the terse response was "well, we think it's a sin." Imagine your child, perhaps in their early teens and unsure of their sexuality, being told in no uncertain terms that they are a sinner. Is this what we want, in a modern country in 2005?

In Thorne, however, a combination of apathy and untruths from the council led to the scheme going ahead to little opposition.

Furthermore, as has already been said, existing teachers are invariably moved out and troublesome children are farmed to other local schools in order to massage performance figures.

Further reading:

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1389500,00.html)

Originally posted by Jess
I am worried about the way Sheffield City Council are pushing through the idea of creating 2 "City Academies" without talking to the people that matter, the kids and their parents. It seems that they will only start consulting after the deal is done. The same goes for the special schools in Sheffield. Council officials have refused to talk to the governors of these schools. Staff have been told not to talk to parents about the changes on the grounds that it might cause panic. Is it me, or is this some sort of gagging order?

As a local ward councillor, I have now chaired two public meetings concerning the proposals for Academy status for Myrtle Springs school (details, which are extracted from the council's website, are listed below).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -PARK/HEELEY AREA PANEL
Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 16th November, 2004, at 6.30 p.m., at the Arbourthorne Centre, Eden Hall Road

A G E N D A

SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE
Ed Wydenback, Head Teacher, Myrtle Springs School to report.

PARK/HEELEY AREA PANEL

Meeting to be held on Friday, 29th April, 2005, at 1.30 p.m. at Arbourthorne TARA Social Centre, East Bank Road, next to Myrtle Springs School

A G E N D A

MYRTLE SPRINGS ACADEMY STATUS
Martin Gazzard to report.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Additional consultation processes for parents, pupils and staff have also been arranged.

Under the law, it is a requirement for the local authority to consult on the proposed closure of a school. I refute the allegation by Jess that consultation is taking place after a "deal is done". As you will see from the published agendas above, I began the process of public consultation as far back as last November. This is a matter of public record.

Jess also made an allegation that "Council officials have refused to talk to governors", but has failed to provide any supporting evidence. I will investigate this claim with the Executive Director of Education.

I am a student of myrtle springs one of the good ones rare i know, anyway me and some other students have been interviewed about how 'we' feel about the acadeny and we was all happy with it. The amount of RE lessons will stay the same the teaching of it will stay the same, meaning they will not saying be a christain because if you dont you will go to hell and so on. It will also be easier to kick out bad kids and since the places will be limited this is a good thing.

Originally posted by Jess
I am worried about the way Sheffield City Council are pushing through the idea of creating 2 "City Academies" without talking to the people that matter, the kids and their parents. It seems that they will only start consulting after the deal is done. The same goes for the special schools in Sheffield. Council officials have refused to talk to the governors of these schools. Staff have been told not to talk to parents about the changes on the grounds that it might cause panic. Is it me, or is this some sort of gagging order?

Like ditching the word "polytechnic" for an alternative name for the university, isn't "academy" just replacing the phrase "failing school", to make the "failing school" stand out to seem half reasonable? Or am I getting on my irrepressibly snobby high horse?

:)

I have received the following reply from Jonathan Crossley-Holland, Executive Director of Education.

"I am baffled by the suggestion that officers have refused to talk to governors or asked for parents to be kept in the dark over the SEN review. We have just launched a public, statutory, consulation process with Cabinet papers, press briefings, advance letters to all parents, consultations with governors, parents etc etc. Members are involved too in both processes.
There will be a report back to Cabinet on the results of both sets on consultations.
I appreciate too that these are big changes and there are understandable anxieties"

It is quite clear that full and proper consultation on proposed school changes is taking place, and that this is fully compliant with the law. It is also apparent that there is no "gagging order" as claimed by Jess.

If Jess knows something different, perhaps he/she would now publish their evidence. It is important to deal with facts, and not propagate myths.

Originally posted by theflyingfish
Actually not true - Most of the academies in London made staff reapply for their own jobs to clear the dead wood out. And as for teachers - the academy schemes remove many of the obstacles that teachers often state that makes thier job difficult such as:

poor resourcing (= not enough time)
slavish adherence to National Curriculum (no flexibility in teaching and too much admin)
better salary (potentially attracts staff of a higher callibre)

As a result the staff are freed uo to do what they actually joined the profession to do and teach.

The Academies in London have seen improvments in results already and have been succesful in tackling disciplinary problems. If some of the money is private money, so what? The public consistently wants lower taxes so we can't pay for better schools out of the public purse!

The one that's just failed its inspection is criticised for the fast turnover of staff and over reliance on supply teachers, many classes having no continuity of teaching. Is this what you mean by being freed to do what they joined to do?

I may be wrong but are the academies obliged to stick to national pay scales and conditions for teachers? My understanding is they're not, and the conditions of service are worse than in state schools.

If adherence to the national curriculum is a bad thing, why not just scrap it, you don't have to privatise education to do it.

Of course they are successful in tackling poor discipline, they simply expel the pupils concerned, and the local comp has to pick up the pieces.

The government claims the new buildings are a great aid to raising standards. In the case of the failing academy Ofsted said the buildings were totally inappropriate for a school.

I understand that the govenors of one of the schools involved have had numerous queries which have not been answered and until they do get replies nothing definite will be done.

One of the most outrageous things which the new owners want is that the Headmasters and all the teachers will have to attend church on a regular basis. This is not speculation or conjecture - it is a fact!

I have seen the letter sent to the chair of governors of one of the special schools involved. I forget the exact wording, but it stated quite clearly that nothing could be achieved by such a meeting at this time because certain facts had to remain confidential.
Furthermore, has any opinion been sought by the LEA from parents and children of its SEN policy? Have there been any public consultations with council officials and parents? How far will the council proceed without this consultation?

extaxman, they might want them to attend chruch but they dont have to, like sony want you to buy their stuff but you dont have to. So obivously they're going to want them to attend chruch but they dont have to. One of my friends mum is on the PTA i asked her to ask this question when she went to her next meeting and she did and they dont have to go to chruch. fact!

What about the plus side?

It gives parents more of a choice rather than the typical state education and it's curriculum. If there are more academies offering different curriculums they will cater for more diverse groups. It will take time to solve problems like the one's mentoned here as it is a new venture.

In the long run it gives more power to the parents in how thier children are educated. In some cases what was private education can now be state funded.

Not all academies are a religious denomination either.

I have obtained further information regarding the position of SEN schools. If Jess would like to PM me, I can send details.

This thread is about new academies, not SEN schools.

Academy status agreed for schools

Plans to turn two schools in Sheffield into city academies have been approved.
Under the proposals, ownership of Myrtle Springs and Waltheof schools will transfer to the Christian-run United Learning Trust (ULT).

But, a Sheffield City Council spokesman said, beliefs and practices of all faiths would be valued and respected.

When they open in September 2006, the academies will specialise in business and enterprise, with Myrtle Springs also focusing on the performing arts.

Councillor Veronica Hardstaff said there had been a lot of support for the changes from school staff, parents of the pupils and members of the public.

"People are very much looking forward to the new school buildings and facilities which will be focal points for the communities they serve, and the new post-16 provision which will become available in that part of the city."

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4488268.stm)

If the new academy improves the standards of pupils education as a result then surely it can only be a good thing. Making sure the pupils are able to and prepared for adult life is probably their main function.

See the SAT figures are out on the BBC webpages - some interesting figures amongst them...

The acronym for Christian United Learning Trust doesn't inspire confidence, does it?

I would suggest there is a lot to be worried about, and this threatens the very basis of secondary education in this country.

Some ideas from both sides here:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,664608,00.html

http://www.learning-together.org.uk/

http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1544167,00.html

There are a number of arguments here but surely we need to bear in mind the relevance of academy schools controlled by a Christian foundation for these particular schools and their communities.

Firstly the trust say they will not be using their powers of selection in these schools in order to serve their communities BUT they also have the avowed aim to create a "truly comprehensive intake." Neither Myrtle nor Waltheof have ever had such an intake both being skewed towards an intake from the lower end of the ability range. Indeed, many parents of more able pupils in the area sought other schools at the time of the merger of Hurlfield and Ashleigh to make Myrtle and as far as I am aware this school has not improved enough to encourage such parents back. This would suggest that some selection must be necessary to create a 'balanced intake' or this aim must be abandoned and the school must deal with the children that are sent to them. Any one sense a 'get out clause'?

Secondly, staff at the school have not been assured of a job in the new school - note that the head of Myrtle will not be the head of the new school next september. Has it actually been made public why this is so? The new head already works for the foundation in another school. The senior staff at Myrtle have made public their support for the current head in the Star recently. How many of them will the new head want to work with under such circumstances? How unsettling will all these changes be for the current students who are being handed over to this trust when the academy opens in september? And when talking of culling 'dead wood' on the staff - who will define what dead wood is? Will the criteria be political, religious or academic? How much say will the community have in THESE crucial matters?

Meanwhile there are outstanding questions about a bullying culture at Myrtle as seen in recent news stories - will this get brushed under the carpet come september? The students in years 8 to 11 will still be the same ones that are there now. Doesn't the whole thing seem to be rather 'rushed' given that no one yet knows who, apart from the head, will be working in the schools.

How willing are the authority/the foundation to answer these questions at present?