|
|
 |
| |
Questions over academy ‘model’ and performance
CONGRATULATIONS to students and staff of Pimlico Academy, I know how hard they have worked.
However, the story (Academy answers its critics, August 28) claiming it has done so by achieving better results, has taken the statistical evidence simply at face value without questioning how it may have been achieved.
It also inaccurately reports why parents were against the change in school status. It was never claimed academy status “would damage the area’s community spirit,” and there was no “series of protest sit-ins”.
The concern was Westminster Council wanted Pimlico to be replaced by a new school “community in ethos if not in designation” (Westminster quote) while not acknowledging the major differences between a community school and an academy, most notably the way in which accountability and governance changes.
Many untruths are bandied about to justify more academies opening; 1) that they achieve faster increases in results than other types of schools. This is misleading. Many start from such a low point that any increase may appear to be far greater than a school which already has good results.
2) Academies are, at present, given a huge cash injection during the first three years, giving an unfair advantage.
Many questions need to be answered. How much extra money has Pimlico Academy received from the Department for Children, Schools and Families so far, compared with other state schools’ annual operating budgets?
How many children were entered for short courses equivalent to half a GCSE in English and maths? How were results of these “half”’ exams recorded as part of the overall pass statistics?
How many children sat GCSE exams, and how many sat GNVQs?.
How much was spent on the iPods, laptops, and other incentives used to encourage students to attend the booster and revision classes, and who paid for them? I challenge Pimlico to give the answers to all these questions, while acknowledging that hard work played its part.
A “Year 11 Intervention Team” clearly put a lot of energy into improving the GCSE results. Some students were invited to “intervention classes” with incentives to attend, while some were offered one-to-one tuition, and working in small groups for English and maths.
Pimlico’s management seems to be putting into practice a business model, look at statistics and target the failing areas, without taking into account that children are being manipulated to perform. Is this educating them?
Georgina Schueller
Address supplied
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
