Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Kingsdale website says Kingsdale rejects 'old style' Academy status but considers 'new style' academy proposals


"The school is committed to protecting the independence of the Governing Body and to maintaining high quality provision for students and staff. The proposals being investigated do not include a sponsor and the ultimate strategic authority would reside and remain with the Governing Body."

What does Academy mean? What's wrong with 'School'?

It's like "Foundation Trust", when we just want a 'Hospital'.

SOOO much money being wasted on branding and PR and advertising and meetings and - no wonder it's all going downhill!


(Note to self, do not post when depressed or ill.!)

Academies are state funded independent schools. So Charter and Kingsdale would run outside of local support networks and be on their own. The extra money is a bit of a misnomer since it is the share of the money held back for the school and held centrally to provided for services such as Educational Welfare Officers etc and since the schools would still have to spend some of this on some services that must be provided and some of the money would go on paying increased salaries to the principals and senior leaders (expecting to be paid on a par with other academy leaders). This extra money would not necessarily go to the pupils in terms of resources and support.

Academies I believe do their own selection - but cannot be selective (i.e. take only the most academic candidates). The idea behind this change is so that schools can be responsible for their own futures and so that school governing bodies can be (virtually) autonomous. They will not be obliged, I believe, to follow e.g. the National Curriculum, although they will be subject to inspection by Ofsted as before.


The schools lose economies of scale that central purchasing and support (i.e. Bursars departments) offer; however it is possible that third parties could set up such services for these new schools who could outsource to them. There is little evidence that councils have uniformly offered good value for money here anyway, and many council's own works departments (i.e. Lambeth's in the past) have been notoriously poor in this area. That is one reason why so much social housing has been moved efectively from Council to Housing Association care, because of the poor value for money from (some) Council work forces. It would be possible for the Dulwich academies to pool resource for such things as maintenance etc. if they chose. That is the one beauty of the change - they get to choose what is optimal for them, rather than having to dance to a more convoluted tune that reflects the local governance of an entire borough, with all the conflicting calls they have on resource and focus.


Academies escape the political ideology of councils, although of course they are not thus politics free.

Hi Peckham Rose: I quote:

www.natsoc.org.uk/academies/academiesgovernanceandtransitionupdatedoct07.doc -

RE and Worship


The provisions relating to religious education and collective worship at an academy are part of the funding agreement for each academy. They are not imposed by the Education Acts and do not as such flow from designation. However, in the DfES model funding agreement, the optional clauses for denominational RE and collective worship are stated to be for use where it is intended that the academy will be designated as having a religious character. Therefore designation should be seen as part of the package that secures the religious character of a church academy along with appropriate provisions in the charitable objects and the funding agreement.


This means that it is up to the academy whether to have collective worship or not

MichaelDavern wrote:-


transferring what is public property paid for by local taxpayers(buildings/fields/school equipment) to an asset for a private company which an academy would be


I have not seen Michael Gove's detailed proposals but I would be surprised if a school which transferred out of the existing system (under his new proposals) would be able to alienate the capital (land and buildings) of the existing school away from state ownership - they would probably be held in some form of trust, only to be used for public (not public school!) educational purposes. The capitation fees to be paid on behalf of pupils cover current accounts costs and are assumed to be used up during the year (maintenance would probably be seen as current expenditure, maintaining but not adding value to the capital assets). New build schools would of course be a different issue. Academies so far have been been new build in the main, even when on the site of an existing school.


'Giving away' public assets would surely be open to judicial review (not that that stopped Westminster Council 'giving away' their cemetaries for a shilling a go). And not that that stops councils disposing of assets at knock down prices themselves on occasion, including school and playing field sites.

Michael Davern, your post doesn't seem to follow logically from Penguin's, and also doesn't seem to make much sense.


True privatisation involves selling an asset held by the state to private buyers. When a school becomes an academy, my understanding is that the 'property' e.g. land and buildings are owned by a charitable trust, but management is devolved to the governing body. There is no prospect of a transfer into private hands.


I've looked at the anti-academies website - it's not terribly persuasive. It doesn't address the core issue i.e. who runs schools better, LEAs or the schools themselves. A bit of googling also seems to indicate that all of the officers of the 'Anti-Academy Alliance' are both members of the more left leaning teacher's unions and associated with SWP, WRP etc., which makes me suspect that this is an ideological crusade with a bit of self-interest thrown in rather than a campaign with parents and pupils' interests at its heart.


Local authorities haven't exactly covered themselves in glory over the last 20 years or so when it comes to running schools, so I'd like to see them making a strong positive case why they should retain control. If they can.

Penguin68, DaveR


Good posts and entirely right.


The anti-academies site is very misleading on many levels: so requirement to have a sponsor, "privatisation" (academies are charitable trusts). Most telling as you point out is the membership of the "alliance". Anything with the whiff of the SWP about it should be ignored.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you're a fundraising intermediary, reporting promptly and accurately on how you've raised and spent funds seems quite important.
    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...