Academies - Let's Move The Debate On Says Stoke-on-Trent Central MP Tristram Hunt

If I'm reading this correctly, then Labour's brainwave of Academies is a failure, it has failures running them and they are failing our children.

In short, my children are lucky not to be accepted into an Academy and will be brighter children for not doing so.

The question of Governance is the sole reason many of us oppose what is a deliberate back-door method of State selection.

The fear is, and has always been, the possible second rate education given to those not selected by dubious methods of enrolment.

I'm sure that Tristram has spotted something but I'm confident it will be corrected.
When it is, we'll still have Academies and their practices.

Gary Elsby's concern is well-founded and the letter from Hunt welcome but I feel he misses the point somewhat.

In the 'smoke and mirrors' approach so well loved by NuLabour he attacks the effect rather than the cause.

In the Academies system it is the Governors who decide what is taught - with scant reference to the National Curriculum - so it is ultimately the GOVERNANCE aspect which is important. As it stands, in their pursuit of a good position in the 'league table', the Governors of Academies concentrate on subjects which are easier to deliver and thus give a very skewed picture of their apparent success.

It also results in a cohort of school leavers who are ill-equipped to meet the demands put on a modern workforce and thus will be unable to serve society in a way which ennables the nation to compete in today's - and tomorrow's - world.

There are many other consequences of adopting a system of academies which will impact negatively on society as a whole - the matter of admissions will only serve to fragment society even more than it is at present and the effect on staff conditions for the education industry as a whole will be a real turn-off for aspiring teachers.

I wonder if my MP thought of this when he sat on the Board of NLGN (New Local Government Network) - who are well-documented as being strong proponents of the academies system ?

In democracy,

Mick Williams
(in a personal capacity).

It is difficult to move the debate on when Mr Hunt's colleagues have failed to explain to the public why academies are a better option than improving LEA run schools.
We have been rail-roaded down the route of academies in Stoke-on-Trent as there was no alternative available.
Answers please Tristram.

This is the point, they have never had the intention of losing the argument that is well founded.
Tristtram is the product of any opposition to Academies and to those that brought in this system (corruptly) into Stoke-on-Trent.
It's a bad line to take to suggest that we move on in the debate without crucifying a failed structure that is not accountable to the public and determined not to be accountable.
The lip service they will provide will be a sop to politics and politicians will play a pretend part in raising concern.
No-one should decry Tristram his good intentions and saying "we told you so" is meaningless.
Meredith and his failed people wait patiently for the headline of "Academies are great!! Critics proven wrong" sort of stuff.
The over-riding claim that other types of schooling can be purpose built to provide a lesser academic environment for our children at the expense of the Government's baby, the Academy, still stands.
I don't see any explanation from Tristram whether he still believes in Academies and its Governance.
Simple question.

Funny, isn't it, that all abusers are anonymous?
Just answer the points.

errrr. MP Tristram Hunt but the governance of academies dictate what the pupils are actually learning.

Hence why academies choose easier subjects to get higher pass rates and appear to be doing well.

MP Tristram Hunt the debate should be/or have been "are academies needed"? sadly for Stoke your Party have FORCED academies upon us under the disguise of NEW SCHOOLS.

"Let's Move The Debate On"

No, let's not bother.

I haven't got any kids anyway.

I welcome Tristram's examination of the subjects offered by academies and have followed with interest his questions in parliament on this topic.

But I think he is dead wrong to try to brush governance under the carpet. Governance is crucial to the decisions made by schools in general and academies as part of that, including decisions on curriculum.

Under the tory view of academies, they are not required to be so-called 'sponsored' by a company or other body, so that is not quite so bad as the labour academies in my personal view. But it's still bad I think because the academy trust appoints a majority to the school governing body, so are in control. Worse than trust schools in a number of respects, first the central government control (still want to know how the tories square that with their so called 'localism' ideas), second the academy trust control rather than more parental and community based input to governance, third the staff have fewer employment rights although some protection but only under TUPE.

Trust schools on the other hand are local authority maintained, most have minority trust input and staff have no change of contract.

e.g. Trentham is trust school with only 2 trust appointed governors:

http://www.trenthamhighschool.co.uk/?page_id=418

As far as curriculum is concerned, the main gripe I have is forcing young people down certain routes, it's not so much the subjects studied but the opportunities for young people to choose a route which best suits them that I think are most important. In general, for all school types there is too much core, too many restrictions in choice of subjects and woefully inadequate information available to families on what choices are available at schools when they are choosing a school (that is if they have much choice or indeed any nearby schools to choose from).

And Tristram, why have you not signed the Community Schools Action Group petition for a school on the Mitchell site? Is this just a case of typical labour?