Politicalog - Fighting the Spin: City Acadamies

Firm pulls out of academy scheme

A private education company has pulled out of a £4m scheme to sponsor two city academies, following a parents' revolt at a nearby independent school it owns.

Global Education Management Systems has dropped the project amid negative publicity in Milton Keynes, Bucks, where it already runs Bury Lawn school.

Parents there have threatened to withdraw their children, complaining that the institution is badly managed.

...

The Dubai-based company, which runs 13 schools in the UK, had offered to put in £2m to sponsor each of two city academies in Milton Keynes.

These - run by a single Gems-appointed "superhead" - would have replaced Sir Frank Markham Community School, on the earmarked site.

Under the sponsorship scheme - designed to replace under-performing schools - central government puts up the remainder of the building and start-up costs, which are typically £25m.

The private sponsor gains a say in the running of the academy.

Gems withdrew its offer after parents at independent Bury Lawn complained when the head teacher, Mark Olejnik, was asked to leave a few weeks before the start of A-levels.

It has had five heads since the company bought it two years ago.

Is this not privatisation of the State Education system?

A Gems spokeswoman added: "The decision was taken in light of the fact that the secondary heads in Milton Keynes have yet to be convinced of the value of the academy concept and that the local climate of opinion against sponsors from the private schools sector is not favourable.

On the same day you get the following article:

Parents 'backing' city academies

City academies are proving broadly popular with parents, but are facing a number of "significant" problems, a report commissioned by ministers says.

It found 66% of 433 parents thought private sponsorship of up to £2m had "made a difference" at their school.

"Made a difference"... Read into that what you will. This "report" is pure and utter spin.

Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said: "The report demonstrates the real progress that the first academies have begun to make in turning around the life chances of thousands of children in the most deprived areas of the country.

Well Ruthy... It seems you still have to convince the Education professionals:

Teachers angry at Government pledge on city academies

Teachers' unions reacted angrily today after the Government vowed to press ahead with plans for 200 privately-sponsored city academies.

...

But the report showed that of the first 11 academies created only six had managed to improve GCSE results since 2002. Of the three academies that have existed since 2002, giving them more of a chance to iron out teething problems, two have managed to raise the key measure of GCSE results by one or two percentage points beyond the national average rise while the third has actually seen its results fall below those of its predecessor schools.

...

The National Union of Teachers was equally scathing. Steve Sinnott, its General Secretary, pointed out that in the only two Ofsted inspections of existing academies, one, the Unity City Academy in Middlesbrough, was failed, and the other found to have room for improvement.

Mr Sinnott said: "The Government is publishing an evaluation that fits its bill. It has taken academies outside the requirement to have qualified teachers. It has been blackmailing local authorities into asking for academies. It then suggests that academies are a good thing. There is no proof of that."

The PwC report did list a number of "not insignificant challenges" faced by the new academies, including a "lack of clarity" on the admission of pupils with Special Educational Needs and problems with the physical design of the new schools.

It also found that levels of bullying at the academies was broadly in line with that experienced at their predecessor schools declared by Ofsted to be failing their pupils.

In summary, City Acadamies:

Are backdoor privatisation
Are part run by private firms who don't always get it right
Are not backed by the Education profession
At best, show the sort of improvement that could be achieved by investing in better/more teaching staff and facilities at existing schools
At worse show no improvement or are actually worse than the schools they replace
Have no effect whatsoever on the existing problems of bullying
Are nothing more than expensive shiny new buildings that inherit the same problems as the schools they replaced