From Cradle to Grave – Jeremy Corbyn’s N.E.S. will transform and rebuild Education in Britain

Quote

 From Cradle to Grave – Jeremy Corbyn’s National Education Service

The Labour Party achieved a landslide victory after the war. It must have been so exciting looking forward to peace, to the promise of a better world for ordinary people. Homes for all, and a National Health Service, a Welfare state. One thing was missing, and that was a National Education Service which is now planned by Labour under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Daily-Herald-27-July-1945Daily Herald “Labour in Power” 27th July 1945

Those days were remembered, in Think Left’s blog Academisation and the Demolition of our Education Service

 

After the war, the hope was that the Labour Party would introduce policies which would change the lives of working class people, leading to a fairer society, and a fair education system was on their list.

It was not just the working class who knew things needed to change. It had been clear that there was a shortage of skills during the war, and this led to the 1944 Education Act  which led to the provision of free state education for all children from 5 -15.

The incoming socialist Labour government, led by Attlee, and inspired by Bevan, brought in popular policies, especially the introduction of a universal National Health Service, and an extensive social housing building programme. To the disappointment of many, a universal National Education Service was not an outcome, and this omission led to decades of disruption to an education service which, as I write, is now at a point of re-privatisation, via academisation.

attlee mug

Attlee’s government did not go far enough to eradicate the class-ridden divisiveness caused the by privileges from private education and public schools. The state-funded education system introduced was a tripartite system of grammar, secondary modern and rarer technical schools. Selection at eleven would determine the course of a child’s life before even reaching puberty. Meanwhile, the rich and privileged continued to send their children to private and public schools, which opened the doors to an elitist society and via Oxbridge right into the heart of our political system, maintaining class divisions.

Had Attlee’s government made the brave decision to solve the problem of private and Church schools, and introduced a free universal education system for all, and eradicated private education, I believe it would have led to a fairer, and much more settled system which would have benefited all as the NHS has done. Everyone benefits from an educated population. We share the technological advances, healthcare, scientific research, and can enjoy the Arts.

But that dream is still alive. Jeremy Corbyn wants to see a National Education Service

. Corbyn wants to see investment in education system from cradle to grave. Education is not about training for a job, about ticking boxes and league tables. Education is about enriching our lives – and life long learning. It is fifty years since Harold Wilson’s inspirational Open University which opened doors for so many.

Tory cuts and fees have taken the “Open” away and closed doors to this university without walls. Education should not end with a school certificate. There is so much knowledge and skills to share.

In July 2016, 100 Tory MPs call for return to grammar schools. Grammar schools select pupils, and are not open to all children. It is impossible to have selection without exclusion. The  politics of superiority – a selfish, divisive attitude of “I want something you can’t have” is not unknown to the Conservative Party. But perhaps they have short memories, because it was Tory voters themselves, those who could not afford private schooling which decried the divisive grammar schools.  Further development of the new comprehensive schools was due to disgruntled middle class conservative voters who could not get places for their children in what they perceived as their very own grammar schools, so resulting in the Tories losing power in 1964. This is something which Margaret Thatcher, while an advocate of the grammar schools, was well aware of. The Newsome report  entitled “Half our Future”, published in 1963, recognised the eleven-plus failure and a drive towards a more comprehensive system was subsequently planned.

NFER on grammars

Comprehensive education was intended to be more inclusive. Indeed it is. But where there is an education system where privileges are bought – fast track entrance to university, schools with small class sizes, it cannot be fully comprehensive. Evidence shows that the comprehensive system has not failed  yet the private system, which excludes those by wealth skews results.

Tuition fees are leaving a generation in debt, and as a result our society is wasting potential talent. The gap in university access between students from state and independent schools is widening. This is expected to widen further by the recent abolition of maintenance grants will hurt those most in need. John McDonnell  rightly said to students  protesting against hike in tuition fees

“Education is a gift from one generation to another, not a commodity to be bought and sold.

For generations now one generation has handed the baton onto the next, and it’s our job to ensure that the next generation has a better quality of life than the last.”

Education benefits us all. Corbyn’s Education policy will put an end to tuition fees, and restore grants.  Building on that, his plan for an NES and a life-long learning service will open up  education for everyone and enrich our lives and our society.  The thirst for knowledge and skills does not stop and the school gates. Education is about life-long learning, and that is what Labour wants to see. We can start this dream at the very beginning of an incoming Labour government. This is exciting, positive politics and the spirit of ’45 is alive again.

Jeremy Corbyn writes  for Labour List

“The case for investing in early years education towards universal free childcare is overwhelming. A study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers a decade ago told us that in the long-term universal childcare would more than pay for itself – due to extra tax revenues from those in work and productivity gains. Politicians like to dress up in hard hats and hi-vis jackets on their pet construction projects, but lack the same enthusiasm for investment in social infrastructure.

In 2020 we should start by reversing the cuts to the adult skills budget and expand it into a lifelong learning service by adding 2% to corporation tax (still comfortably the lowest in the G7). This funding would be hypothecated to expand adult learning into a lifelong learning education resource. The extra tax revenues brought by a high skill, high productivity and high pay economy will fund further expansion.

A National Education Service will give working age people access throughout their lives to learn new skills or to re-train. It should also work with Jobcentre Plus to offer claimants opportunities to improve their skills, rather than face the carousel of workfare placements, sanctions and despair. We need a return to ambitious joined-up government.

While slashing college funding, Tories  boasts of increasing apprenticeships. Yet too many are low quality, failing to give young people the transferable skills they need to get on.

It is clear that some employers are using apprenticeships and traineeships as a means of circumventing minimum wage legislation. This has to end.

“We will build a new National Education Service, open to all from throughout their lives. We will create universal public childcare to give all children a good start in life, allowing greater sharing of caring responsibilities and removing barriers to women participating in the labour market. We will bring about the progressive restoration of free education for all; and guarantee quality apprenticeships and adult skills training.”

jeremyforlabour.com

How refreshing to hear positive , sensible policies from Labour. Jeremy Corbyn speaks, honestly, pragmatic, socially desirable policies. He challenges the Tory myth of austerity, and these are the policies people have been calling for. All Labour supporters should sign up and vote for Jeremy Corbyn, who is just what the Labour Party and the people of Britain need. He certainly has my vote, my best wishes, and hopes.

Young Eyes to see a Future for Labour.

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn’s new politics is about mutual respect, open debate and inclusivity.

The problem is that MPs of all parties have become so out of touch with public opinion, which is why the referendum result took them all by surprise. The reason that they are so out of touch is because they are unrepresentative.

For example, the average age of MPs elected at the 2015 General Election is 50, as with 2010. The recent referendum showed wide differences of opinion between various demographic groups yet still this particular group is greatly unrepresented. Generally supportive of remaining  in the EU, it is unsurprising they feel their ideas are ignored. Austerity policies have affected this group. Abolition of maintenance grants, increased tuition fees,  unaffordable rents, inflated house-prices for first time buyers  and poor pay are difficulties obstructing young people getting on in life. This group need  a voice in parliament. It is our responsibility to give the young a chance.

We need fresh ideas. We need real people in parliament not Oxbridge careerists.  Young people want a say in how their future, and who are we to stop them?

The Labour Party supports opening up the voting to people of 16. This was one of the policies identified by Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign for leader. In addition, we need younger people in the Commons. But in today’s climate how can that be achieved?

Grants, and training for young people who would like to contribute to the debates which will change their society for the better should be made widely available. 

Kenneth writes:

Kenneth Jones:  I’m 71 in a few days time, I would like to let the young people know in my humble opinion they have had a very bad deal from the MPs in the UK.

I want,  sincerely,  to see many more youthful Labour MPs come forward to represent the people.

Without exception,  in my experience of young people, they are much more caring and loyal.  It’s  just that we don’t encourage them to be involved. I have just read somewhere that Mr Corbyn wants the Labour Party to help young MPs to come forward and the party will pay the fees.

So bring it on, you youngsters,  show us you’re up for the job!  And help heal the wounds the conservatives have inflicted on us.  You are the future.

Related Links:

Mr Cameron, please learn this Lesson. “Children who are Fearful to go to school do not need Punishment.”

Quote

Mr Cameron has clearly different experiences in life than those who he serves as Prime Minister.  As Maria Montessori has said, “It is the child who makes the man, and no man exists who was not made by the child he once was.” Mr Cameron’s callous response to the poor does not surprise any of us,  because he was never without a decent suit of clothes and a warm home, and he has lived among the privileged for all of his life.

Wikipedia lists David Cameron’s educational experiences:

 “From the age of seven, Cameron was educated at two independent schools: at Heatherdown School in Winkfield (near Ascot) in Berkshire, which counts Prince Andrew and Prince Edward among its alumni. Due to good academic grades, Cameron entered its top academic class almost two years early. At the age of thirteen, he went to Eton College in Berkshire, following his father and elder brother. His early interest was in art. ” 

Whether his expensive education was adequate is questionable, since it has clearly left him unable to identify with other people, to feel compassion, and certainly totally unskilled to be a Prime Minister.  Evidence from Finland shows its educational success is because it banned private schools. We need Jeremy Corbyn’s National Education System providing quality learning for all, from Cradle to Grave.

Having attended one of the very first purpose-built comprehensives, my experiences are different to his.  I find I can identify with people from various different walks of life, and when working in education, it is a skill which I have found invaluable.

However, I have less understanding of the experiences of the little Camerons of the world, and certainly find it difficult to feel compassion for anyone who can cut tax credits to millions of hard-working families, who can cut the numbers of health workers so that midwives have no time to eat, and who can attack the rights of working people because of a wish to crush trade unions. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. But I wonder how much lower can politicians stoop, when now, the wish is to punish children who are too ill or frightened to go to school.

Now parents of “truants” have to face cuts to Child Benefits. 

Now, David Cameron proposes to cut child benefit to families. This approach is callous, and shows ignorance of the difficulties children face. Children who have difficulties attending school need support, not punishment. I have considerable experience working alongside families where children exhibit acute anxiety, and who find school a terrifying environment. You cannot force children with mental health issues into the busy stressful environment of a modern school without the trauma causing lasting damage which could result in them never being able to participate in a productive way in society.

Pressures may be due to the curriculum itself, where schools themselves are pressured by league tables to tick boxes and clock up more and more A-C’s, rather than providing individually tailored education and pastoral support which every child needs. Children with social anxieties find the hustle and bustle of large comprehensives impossible, so why is it not possible for more adequately funded and professionally staffed smaller units and schools to be set up – rather than closing them down?

Children suffering glandular fever, ME or CFS cannot attend school due to illness .Often there are issues with diagnosis, and differences of opinion exist between medical professionals, but attending school is impossible, unless supported and graded. Often other provision is required. Where there is insufficient home tuition support, the return to school, where classmates have moved on both in the curriculum and socially can leave them feeling further isolated.

Maria Montessori also said ““When dealing with children there is greater need for observing than of probing” . I would therefore suggest to Mr Cameron that he starts by listening to people about the reasons why children are finding it difficult to attend school. Then he may understand why breaking up LEAS, cuts to CAMHS and  EOTAS and home tuition services will not help. In Cambridge there is a crisis, a very modern scandal,  where cuts to services are damaging provision for autistic children.  Punishing their parents with fines  is absurd. It shows a total lack of understanding of the problems parents face.

What would Mr Cameron say to Anne’s friend?

” a petite, female, mid 40s friend of mine (who worked) had a difficult, tall, strong 13 year old son. He had mental health problems and often refused to go to school. Some mornings I would see her cajoling him into the car. Other mornings her ex husband (the lad’s dad) would come round and would be manhandling him into the car. But when, eventually, his mum would drive him to school, and had to stop at traffic lights, the lad would get out of the car. She couldn’t physically force him to go to school. She tried her best.”

How would docking tax credits or any financial penalty help this situation?  Punishing parents in this way is a triple whammy, first, cut their tax credits when they are trying to work hard. Then, withdraw the support families need for their children. Now they suggest cutting their child benefit because they are suffering for the government’s inadequacies? No. This will be opposed.

As Cathy observes  of the government ” they are blinkered as to some of the reasons children are truant from school. Some may be being horribly bullied and too frightened to go to school. Some may have horrible family lives and just can not cope with school on top. This could put children in danger if they have abusive parents.  I so wish this government opened its eyes to the real world.  But they do not live in it. They are never going to see how stupid and narrow-minded they are. School can be a horrible place for some children. No, it should not be but it is – and the government needs to tackle those reasons before it starts punishing parents and children so quickly. They really are a totally ignorant lot.”

And in the pomposity of ignorance they feel morally superior, yet they really haven’t got a clue. Perhaps Cameron believes punishment is the answer at school, as he recollects his own for smoking cannabis.

 “.. .  fined, prevented from leaving school grounds, and given a “Georgic” – a punishment which involved copying 500 lines of Latin text.”

No, Mr Cameron, non-attendance at school is not a game or mischievous fun. EBSR is a very serious issue, and our children need support. Their families need support, not punishment. Please listen to those of us who do understand, and have seen the distress, the self-harm, the isolation, and educational opportunities missed. Please reverse the cuts to CAMHS. Provide training for teachers and pastoral staff about EBSR and ME/CFS.  Reintroduce EOTAS services. Bring back LEAS and  the centralised  specialist services which students and teachers need.

 Mr Cameron, learn your lessons! It’s time for you to start listening to teachers.

Midwives Standing Together – When We Have Had #ENOUGH

Quote

There are many good people  in working reponsible roles in society. They are not earning a fortune; they are doing jobs because they care, careers they are proud of – because they want to make a difference.

But caring is not enough. Everyone derserves a life, a family, a home. The government’s treatment of our skilled health professionals, on whom we depend for our lives is appalling.  Staff are working long shifts with no mealtimes, with wages frozen and no prospects of improving conditions. Remember this is in  one of the richest countries in the world, one where where bankers have bonuses, where  global corporations hold democracy to ransom, and where they seek to silence dissent. We should be ashamed. Now it is time to say, “Enough”!

This plea from Hayley, a midwife,  is calling time on this government’s treatment of our workers, on the erosion of our public services. We will take no more.

A Midwife’s Call for An End  to Abuse of Good Will

By Hayley Huntoon

Twitter: @hayleyhuntoon

Yesterday a man came to me livid with frustration ‘this is not good enough’. He told me ‘my daughter has been waiting hours to be seen’ . He went on to tell me, ‘it isn’t you. It isn’t the other midwives – the care has been impeccable but the situation just isn’t good enough.’

I know. I agree. I have shed too many tears over a career I could not love more because there is nothing I can do. What he didn’t know was that heartbreakingly this is a daily occurrence in my life as a midwife. What he didn’t know was that actually yesterday was a rare Saturday off for me yet I had come into work so that my amazing colleagues could have a break from their 13 hour shift. A break they won’t be paid for whether they take it or not, but that they physically need as human beings. I had come into the unit so that women like his daughter could be seen. So that our unit could be open to women who needed our skills as midwives, doctors, health care professionals. Women who were in labour. Women who’s babies weren’t moving much. Women who were concerned about their own wellbeing.

5 maternity units in the north-west have been closed over the weekend. These women need our care. We are literally being worked to the ground. I am watching amazing midwives leave a profession they love because the workload and stress is too high.

Today is a rare Sunday off for me. But I will be spending it supporting our rights as workers. The NHS is run on good will. But there is only so much we can take. We joke at work that midwives don’t need to eat. To rehydrate. To empty our bladders. To sleep. Let us look after ourselves so that we can look after our women. Our future generation of children.

Earlier this year, our country voted for a government that said no to more midwives. The Conservative party have demonstrated five years of austerity, falling living standards, pay freezes and huge cuts to public services. They have threatened to make cuts to our night shift and weekend enhancements. Over the past 4 years I have missed Christmas days. New Years days. Family’s birthdays. Countless nights out. I had a good education and did very well at school. I am 22. I have held the hands of women through the most emotional times of their lives. I have dressed Angels we have had to say goodbye too. I have supported women to make decisions that empower them. I have been scared myself. Tired, stressed, emotional every day. Yet I am not and will not be paid well like my friends who have chosen business careers. I am not offered pay rises for my efforts or successes. I don’t care because I get something more valuable than that from what I do. I love what I do. I’m passionate about what I do that’s why I do it. But I do care that we are the ones who are being threatened with further cuts. Further strain.

Enough

So today I stand with doctors, midwives, nurses, teachers, firemen and many other amazing people to spread awareness of a situation that has gone too far. To share information that the general public are oblivious to because as midwives, we will not let these women be failed. I am regularly met by stunned responses from women and their partners to the situation they watch me working under. But Hayleytoday I say no. Enough is enough.

I have shed too many tears over a career I love. Missed too many meal breaks. Not physically been able to care for too many women the way I wanted to. Spent too many days off in work. Lost too much sleep over the stress I am under. Watched more of my colleagues than I could count (myself included) be signed off work with stress in the early years of their career. Watched too many good midwives leave careers they love. This is not humane.

Please let’s end this. Protect your NHS. Your children’s future. Your education system. The core foundations of Great Britain.

I have recently learned the world is a selfish place. But I have also learned that there are a lot of very good people in it. The NHS is run on good will and because of this we have been pushed too far. Let’s change this.

Further Reading:

So What’s Wrong with Academisation? 10 Myths and Facts to Disprove Them

Quote

What’s Wrong with Academies?

The policy of the break up of our Local Education Authorities, pitching schools against one another in an ultra-competitive environment has nothing to do with learning, nothing to do with improving standards, and everything to do with privatisation of our schools and profits for the Academy chains. The result is seriously damaging the education of young people today.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to see Academies returned to Local Education Authorities.

Instead of inter-school competition, he wants to bring all schools “back into the local authority orbit”. He has discussed “rebuilding the family of education” and said he thinks local authorities could oversee and provide supplementary support resources for schools. He also suggested local authorities should be allowed to build new schools again. . “We need to be bolder about all children having an equal chance, proud of the idea of first-rate community comprehensive education and encourage a diverse mix of pupils in all our schools”. Corbyn also wants to set up a National Education Service – which would be modelled similar to the NHS. (Schoolsweek)

LEAs or local consortia should involve professional teachers and educational professionals  as well as parents in decision making. Co-operation rather than competition between schools allows sharing resources, skills and provision of centralised services such as SEN, Education Psychology, provision for sick children and CAMHS.

Labour’s Education minister Lucy Powell has announced at Conference her plans to bring back LEAs. “Schools must work together not compete. Local authorities will be able to ensure sufficient places and fair admissions, and have the ability to intervene in any school that is failing. I want to encourage collaboration in communities of schools and for all schools to work with their local communities to drive up standards.”

Academised schools should be returned to our local community – our family of schools , as Jeremy Corbyn has referred to. The following article  by Henry Stewart has been previously published on Local Schools Network, and is available for download in Word Form here. It is the result of extensive research, and clearly exposes the claims for justification of Academisation as untruths.

Please share widely, as it is important that these myths which the government are circulating in the media are debunked, so that parents , teachers and politicians can act in counteracting these policies, and protect the education of our children.  Schools are there to provide the education all our young people need. We must ensure that is the case.

Academies: Myths & Facts – Henry Stewart, Local Schools Network 

By Henry Stewart

Myth 1: Local authorities are no good at helping schools improve. That’s why “inadequate” schools must be converted to academies.

The facts: Of the 331 primary schools that were rated “Inadequate” at their previous inspection, and did not become academies, only two remained “inadequate” by the time Ofsted called again. On average, this was less than 21 months later.

Of 59 secondary schools that were rated “Inadequate” at their previous inspection, and did not become academies, only four (7%) remained “inadequate” by the time Ofsted called again. On average, this was less than 15 months later.

There is no need for the forced academisation of the Education and Adoption Bill. Local authorities are actually remarkably successful at helping “inadequate” maintained schools to improve.

More at: http://bit.ly/SponSlow

Myth 2: Sponsored academies are more likely to improve a school that is “inadequate”

This is the basis of the Education and Adoption Bill. Any school rated “inadequate” (or coasting) is to be issued immediately with an academy order. Both the governing body and the local authority will be legally bound to support the conversion.

a.  Sponsored academies are almost four times as likely to remain “inadequate” if secondary and twelve times as likely if primary. 

School Myth 2.jpeg

  • Of primary schools rated “inadequate”, just 0.6% remained “inadequate” at their next inspection (v 6.8% for sponsored academies)
  • Of secondary schools rated “inadequate”, just 7.6% remained “inadequate” at their next inspection (v 27.1% for sponsored academies)

This comparison is between sponsored academies that were “inadequate” at conversion, and have had one Ofsted inspection since, and all maintained schools.

More at: http://bit.ly/spon49000

b) For secondary sponsored academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion, they are over twice as likely to stay “inadequate” and over twice as likely to become “inadequate” if they currently rated higher.      

2b Liklihood-to-remain-or-become

  • A secondary school is over twice as likely to stay “Inadequate” if it is a sponsored academy (6.8% v 17.6%)
  • If a secondary school is rated “Requires Improvement”, it is over twice as likely to become “Inadequate” if it is a Sponsored Academy (7.7% v 19.6%)
  • If a secondary school is rated “Good”, it is four times as likely to become “Inadequate” if it is a sponsored academy (4.4% v 19.6%)
  • If a secondary school is rated “Outstanding”, it is over twice as likely to become “Inadequate” if it is a sponsored academy (3.3% v 8%)

More at: http://bit.ly/InadSpAcad (Note: primaries not included as too few have had 2 inspections)

Myth 3: Forcing “inadequate” schools to become academies is the best route to less children remaining in “inadequate” schools

In fact, due to the facts above, the reverse is true. If we apply the data on the % that remain “inadequate” we can estimate the difference between all “inadequate” schools being in the maintained sector and them all being sponsored academies:

If all “inadequate” schools were of that type, how many children would remain in “inadequate” schools at the next inspection:

Primary Secondary
Maintained schools 505 14,432
Sponsored academies 6,736 57,348
Difference 6,231 42,916

The effect of sponsored academies and the forced academisation of the Education and Adoption Bill can be estimated: 49,000 extra children will remain in “inadequate” schools.

While the number of primaries that are “inadequate” has stayed constant at 2%, the number of “inadequate” secondaries has gone from 3% to 6%, according to ofsted Data View Or as Ofsted 2014 report put it:

“Children in primary schools have a better chance than ever of attending an effective school. Eighty-two per cent of primary schools are now “good” or “outstanding”, which means that 190,000 more pupils are attending “good” or “outstanding” primary schools than last year. However, the picture is not as positive for secondary schools: only 71% are “good” or “outstanding”, a figure that is no better than last year. Some 170,000 pupils are now in “inadequate” secondary schools compared with 100,000 two years ago.” (Ofsted annual report 2014:http://bit.ly/Ofs2014, p8)

The difference? The vast majority of primary schools are still maintained, while the majority of secondaries are now academies.

More at: http://bit.ly/spon49000

Myth 4: Academies are responsible for 1 million more children being in “good” or “outstanding” schools

Nick Gibb: “there are 1,100 sponsored academies that started life as under-performing schools, which is a colossal achievement that has led directly to over 1 million [more] children being taught in “good” or “outstanding” schools.” (11/9/15)

The facts: There are over one million more children in schools rated “good” or “outstanding” but the majority (78%) of these are in primary schools, where there are few academies.

In total there are 69,000 pupils in sponsored academies that are rated “Good” or “Outstanding”, representing just 7% of the extra primary pupils that are in such schools. So 93%

More at: http://bit.ly/NoGibbNo

Myth 5: Sponsored secondary academies improve their GCSE results faster than non-academies

Government ministers frequently make claims that sponsored academies increase their GCSE results at a faster rate than other schools. However the comparison is always between sponsored academies and all maintained schools. As schools increase faster when they start from a lower base, and sponsored academies generally start from a lower base, they will always increase their results faster than all other schools.

The key question is whether a specific school will improve its GCSE results faster if it is a sponsored academy or a maintained school.

To find this out, we must compare sponsored academies to similar maintained schools. The graph below groups schools by their 2011 GCSE results and then compares the change in GCSE results over the three years to 2014.

In each band (20% to 40%, 40% to 60% and over 60%), maintained schools increase their GCSE results faster – or saw them fall less – than sponsored academies.

mtyth 5Sp-academies-2011-2014.jpeg

LSN’s comparisons of 2011, 2012 and 2013 GCSE data generally showed that sponsored academies improved their results no faster than maintained schools but did not show them performing worse. This changed in 2014 with the removal of most GCSE equivalents from the results, which sponsored academies relied heavily on.

Without those equivalents, it seems that sponsored academy secondaries perform, on average, clearly worse than similar maintained schools.

More at: http://bit.ly/SponSlow

Myth 6: Sponsored primary academies improve their KS2 results faster than non-academies

The same is true when the performance of sponsored primaries is compared to similar maintained schools. In this case I adopted a new approach (which I will use for secondaries this year) of grouping the schools into five equal sets, or quintiles, according to their 2012 KS2 results. (ie, each of the five sets has the same number of sponsored academies.)

In four of these quintiles the sponsored academies improved their results at a slower rate. Only in the already highest performing set did the sponsored academies perform better.

Note that the same pattern as for secondaries is clear, that the fastest improvement is in the groups of schools that previously had the lowest results. Far more of the maintained schools are in the higher sets and so, if sponsored academies are compared to all schools and not to similar schools, they will appear to improve faster.

myth 6

There have only been results for the last two years for most sponsored primary academies. The initial indication is that the smaller increase is a 1st year effect, probably due to the distraction of becoming an academy. Beyond the 1st year, the two types of schools appear to increase at similar rates.

More at: http://bit.ly/SponSlow

Myth 7: Academy chains are generally high performing and a route to success

A Department for Education report published in Spring 2015 compared the value added in the largest 20 academy chains with that of 100 local authorities.

  • Of the 20 chains, only 3 had a value added that was above the national average of 1000.

  • Even the two best performing chains (ARK and Harris) were outperformed by 8 local authorities.

  • ON the combined list of 120 LAs and academy chains, there are just 3 chains in the top 50 but 15 chains in the bottom 50.

While the government, and their supporters, like to talk of “high performing chains” there are only actually two academy chains that fit that description. The vast majority are producing results that are below average, by the DfE’s own analysis.

More at: http://bit.ly/DismalChains

Myth 8: Sponsored academies are particularly successful at helping disadvantaged students

The Sutton Trust report Chains Effects 2015 makes clear that there are serious problems with many of the academy chains: “far from providing a solution to disadvantage, a few chains may be exacerbating it”. – See more at: http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/07/are-academy-chains-harming-the-progress-of-disadvantaged-pupils/#sthash.fuBUKWi4.dpuf

The conclusions are stark: While there are some chains demonstrating “impressive outcomes”, “a larger group of low-performing chains are achieving results that are not improving and may be harming the prospects of their disadvantaged students”.

More at: http://bit.ly/AcadHarm

Myth 9: Sponsored academies lead to more pupils taking traditional subjects, like languages and humanities.

Students in sponsored academies are far less likely to achieve a history or geography GCSE. The graph below compares all sponsored academies to all maintained schools. But the same is true when comparing “underperforming” sponsored academies to similar maintained schools (both having 2012 GCSE benchmarks between 20% and 40%) or comparing those with the most disadvantaged intakes (only those with 40% or more on free school meals).

The same is true for languages. Students are less likely to take a language GCSE if they are in a sponsored academy – both overall, and when compared to similar schools.

It is not the case that students in lower achieving schools, that become academies, are being transformed by new opportunities to take core academic subjects. Students in these academies are significantly less likely to get a C or better in a language or a humanity GCSE.

More at: http://bit.ly/AcadHisGeo (analysis was in 2014 on 2013 GCSE results)

Myth 10: Independent research supports government claims for academy performance

You know that somebody is losing the argument when they fall back on the work done by Stephen Machin and colleagues at LSE. The most recent data used by Machin was for 2008, and so the analysis only reflects the performance of the early Labour academies. Machin himself has made clear that it is “hard to justify” the use of his research by the government for its very different academies. Indeed he called it a “step too far”.

In contrast independent bodies have generally disputed any claims of better academy performance:

  • The Sutton Trust (above) warned that low performing chains may be harming the performance of disadvantaged students.
  • The Conservative-chaired Education Select Committee report on Academies and Free Schools found no evidence of better academy performance. It stated “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school“ and added that “the Government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. More at http://bit.ly/PriAcad
  • NFER in 2014 concluded: “no significant improvement is seen in the rate of improvement of GCSE results for academy schools over and above the rate of improvement in all schools”.

Conclusion

None of the claims of government ministers for the better performance of sponsored academies stand up to scrutiny. In contrast what the data tends to reveal is that maintained schools are actually performing very well.

There is no basis or justification in the data for the forced academisation of the Education and Adoption Bill.

The key amendment is the one put by Labour at the committee reading, that only academy chains with a successful track record should be allowed to take on new “inadequate” or “coasting” schools. It should be hard to argue that struggling schools should only be taken over by those chains that are successful. But the Bill, because of the large number of schools set to be converted, means that many will be taken over by unsuccessful or overstretched chains.

Notes

Click through the links for details of the data that the analysis is based on, including where to download it.

Note 1: Local Schools Network has been publishing this analysis since January 2012. While the DfE has sometimes sought to use different interpretations, or data from different periods (often not in the public domain), it has never challenged any of the numerical analysis we have published.

Note 2: All of this data relates to sponsored academies. These were generally previously “underperforming” schools that were converted to academies with a sponsor. Converter academies are schools that were generally “Good” or “Outstanding” and chose to convert to become academies. The focus here is on sponsored academies is because that is the focus of the Education Bill. The key question addressed in this paper is whether a struggling school will improve more if it remains in the maintained sector or of it becomes an academy.

Contact Details Henry Stewart can be contacted on henry@happy.co.uk,or on Twitter:  @happyhenry 

References and Further Reading:

Voting for Corbyn – What it’s all about …

Quote

Hat-tip Chelley Ryan for bringing this celebratory video compiled by Nenasadie to Think Left’s attention – it’s a joy!

Voting for Corbyn – What it’s all about 

Mourning for the NHS and “The Sell Off” movie.

Quote

Mourning for Our NHS

The NHS is  a beacon of achievement brought in by Aneurin Bevan in 1948, and the nation is rightly proud of it. Both recent Conservative and Labour governments have been complicit with efforts to move aspects of our NHS into private hands. In 2002, Blair himself had toyed with the idea of user charges or ‘co-payments’ for public services. (1)

While it has been Labour’s greatest achievement, the introduction of Private Finance Initiatives (PFI’s) by New Labour has been Labour’s greatest betrayal. The politics of recent general elections have often have focused on the issue  of ” wasteful” public expenditure , and claims of inefficiency,  yet resources have been wasted on marketisation. There is now considerable evidence countering the principle of “public bad, private good” .

Jeremy Corbyn has never supported the plans to bring the private sector into the NHS.

He said at his recent rally in Nottingham,”If I said to you , do you all value the national health service, you’d say, “why is he  the asking the question, it’s obvious we do!”

Of course it is. The NHS is the most civilised, greatest achievement politically ever made in this country. It was the culmination of those who fought for the right to vote, those who got the right to vote for women, those who campaigned for all the things that brought about the 1945 Labour government and it was an amazing achievement.

And it was quite moving when we had a rally in Tredegar, a week and a half ago on the very spot where Aneurin Bevan used to speak to his constituents, and in the window of Nye Bevan House, he questioned rhetorically.  He said, ” Can a society that denies medical care when it is available, to those that cannot afford to pay, call itself civilised?”

aneurin1

Nye was right, and it’s very dangerous what’s happening to the NHS at the moment.

The internal market, the bringing of the private sector to run whole sections of it, the profit-taking out of the NHS, the continual limiting on the availability of expensive special medicines and all that, leads me to think that the Tories have got their real eye on making the NHS a privatised service of last resort, in order to promote a private medical system of first choice for those that can afford it.

And so, we have to defend that principle of an NHS free at the point of use. We have to defend that principle and also end the internal market, repeal the health and social care act, and be proud of our NHS.”

The Sell Off

Sell-Off is a full length Movie. It is essential viewing and sharing for people who want to keep the NHS out of private hands, and recommended.

If you want to know a bit about Peter Bach, who produced the film, you can watch the second half of this episode of The Keiser Report.
http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/200435-episode-max-keiser-673/

Published on Nov 5, 2014

Donations welcomed: http://www.selloff.org.uk/nhs/default…

For more information: www.facebook.com/selloffnhs

  1. Tony Blair”Where the Third Way goes from here, Progressive Politics, Vol 2,No 1, 2002
  2. NHS PLC – Allyson M Pollock, published by Verso
  3. YouTube Clip: “The Sell Off”
  4. The Keiser Report
  5. Government proposes inquiry into moving to a ‘pay NHS’
  6. Who said, “The NHS will be shown no Mercy?”
  7. For Richer, For Poorer, In Sickness and in Health
  8. The Systematic Dismantling of the NHS.