What sort of Academy now?

Martin Field's picture
Has anyone come across a case where a school has been approved for Academy status by Gove but just days before it becomes an Academy it is put into special measures by OfStEd? What now? Can it scrape into its original Academy status along with the "Good" schools it was partnering or will it be forced to be a sponsored Academy like other "failing" schools.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.


Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 17:26

Martin - have you a real case in mind?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Wed, 04/04/2012 - 22:47

I imagine Martin can't say Janet as there is a long lag between the inspection and the publication of the report during which the papers say much but nobody associated with the school can say anything.

Was the report justified Martin? If not it could go for a Judicial Review - more details here:

Martin Field's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 12:04

I think I have to keep it hypothetical for the moment. However, in this hypothetical case a school that should have become an Academy on April 1st is not now an Academy. No-one seems to know what is happening...hypothetically.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 14:52

Okay, let's keep it hypothetical.

It appears, Martin, that your hypothetical school faces rather fewer challenges than, say, a school like Mossbourne Academy. You have only 2.9% of pupils with English as a second language (as opposed to 33.2% at Mossbourne); you have a lower proportion with SEN than Mossbourne; and your FSM (at 15%) is less than half that at Mossbourne (35.9%).

So far, you'd probably be expecting that Hypothetical Community College would be doing rather better than Mossbourne. But - as we are so often reminded here at LSN - it is prior attainment that's the biggest influence on outcomes.

So, let's compare HCC's 2011 KS4 cohort with Mossbourne's:

Mossbourne had 23% high attainers, while Hypothetical Community College was lucky enough to have 29%.

HCC had a manageable 16% low attainers, while Mossbourne had a challenging 25%.

Turning to KS4 outcomes - given all those relative advantages, isn't it odd/striking/significant that:

1. Hypothetical Community College only managed 42% hitting the 5 A*-C GCSE (including Maths & English) target, while Mossbourne managed 82%.

2. 0% (yes, ZERO per cent) of HCC's low attainers hit that same target, as opposed to 61% at Mossbourne.

3. Only 8% of HCC's cohort achieved the Ebacc, while at Mossbourne, 29% did - despite HCC having a higher proportion of high attainers.

4. At HCC, fewer than one in five high attainers achieved the Ebacc; at Mossbourne, more than half did.

Okay, so HCC didn't deliver for low attainers or high-attainers. Maybe it concentrated on those in the middle? Sadly, not. The average grade for middle attainers at Hypothetical (all qualifications) was D+ ; while at Mossbourne it was B.

Why can't your community school - with all its advantages- deliver an education comparable to that delivered by a sponsored academy in a deprived inner-city area?

Maybe this jolt you are having will wake someone up.

K Campbell's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 15:36


Why isn't Mossbourne's 'outstanding' performance in GCSE subjects not sustained at A' level?

Has the penny dropped yet?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 13/04/2012 - 07:16

K I think you're thinking about before Mossbourne began to cream off the best students in London by academic results for their sixth form with the offer of their elite rowing program?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 15:48


Okay, let's continue the comparison through KS5.

Hypothetical Community College had a 2011 average point score per student of 599.8. At Mossbourne, the equivalent figure was 734.8.

At HCC, the average point score per entry at KS5 was 182.8. At Mossbourne it was 226.6.

Only 70% of HCC students got 3 or more A-levels (or equivalent). At Mossbourne, 87% did.

What penny?

Martin Field's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 15:57

Wow, what a response! Didn't Mossbourne do well. It would be interesting to know what they have done to make it so successful and whether that was down to the work and ability of the staff,students and parents or down to it being sponsored. Do all sponsored academies do so well? Will HA be so much more successful than HCC just by making the change? That would be magic, literally.

By the way, what I was asking was does anyone know what the procedure was in this hypothetical situation and not for a rant about the hypothetical failings of a school where I may or may not work and send my possibly hypothetical children.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 16:15

Unfortunately, Martin, it appears that your reasonable request for information has sparked off a tirade about a hypothetical school which hypothetically employs you or hypothetically educates your hypothetical children.

Your question merits serious attention but I don't think anyone, the DfE included, has the answer. It was supposed to be the case that only "outstanding" schools were invited to become academies but this criteria seems to have slipped. And one school that converted to academy status failed its Ofsted before Christmas.

When academies were first set up under Labour, they were supposed to be failing schools. Following this example, then, the hypothetical failing school which was about to convert could still become an academy although it would have to have a sponsor. As there's no shortage of those willing to drop in on"failing" primaries, I don't suppose it will be long before Harris, or AET or perhaps even a Swedish education provider with no experience of running English schools, will step forward to put the hypothetical school into chains (sorry, I mean a chain).


K Campbell's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 16:01


Forget HCC for a moment. Let's just consider Mossbourne and how well they perform at A level.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 13/04/2012 - 07:17

Oops sorry duplicating this post as it went in the wrong place:

K I think you’re thinking about before Mossbourne began to cream off the best students in London by academic results for their sixth form with the offer of their elite rowing program?

Martin Field's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 16:30

Thanks . I guess it will be down to Slithey Gove himself but it seems I should look forward to this golden age where all children will magically achieve excellent results because there will be a company's name on the school letterhead. However I may have been hypothetically made redundant by then but I won't worry for my children though beacuse no doubt half the staff from Mossbourne will be applying for my job.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 17:05

Can we actually learn anything at all from Mossbourne?

I thought Mossbourne was a special case that had enormous amounts of money thrown at it and wouldn't publish any details about that? Or has it done so now in which case what are the figures.

One local secondary comp here which had just been dumped into special measures for failing to produce above average results costs the UK taxpayer just over £4000 a year per child, has always got the least cash going and could clearly produce vastly better results with its intelligent and highly dedicated staff given just a little bit more.

I've no interest whatsoever in comparing it with schools which receive vastly more funding. Clearly more funding = better results. It's not rocket science to spot that Ricky.

So - let's have it - Mossbourn's funding per child for each each of the last five years. If you can't provide it there is no coherent comparison to be made.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 17:32

K Campbell

Okay, here goes:

%age achieving 3 or more A-levels (or equivalent):

England (all state funded schools/colleges) - 80.9%
Borough of Hackney - 79.5%
Mossbourne Academy - 87.0%

Average Point Score per Entry at KS5

England (all state funded schools/colleges) - 213.1
Borough of Hackney - 217.0
Mossbourne Academy - 226.6

Both in terms of number of qualifications and level of achievement, Mossbourne outperforms both its borough average and the national average at A-level.

So, your point is........what, exactly?

K Campbell's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 17:54


Given its 'outstanding' GCSE results they have a very A level average performance. I wonder why? LOL

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 17:55


Mossbourne (like any other academy) gets from central government:

1. Formula funding - the same per pupil as other schools in the borough.
2. Pupil Premium (high-ish - because it has high-ish FSM at c. 36%).
3. LASCEG (what the LA normally retains or topslices to pay for services).

"Funding per child" is meaningless, because funding is linked to FSM.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 18:14

No, NOT 'very average'; ABOVE average.

What's more, no fewer than 8 Mossbourne students were offered places at Cambridge last year - that's very high for a state school. Three students went on to medical schools.

61% of Mossbourne's A2 grades were in the A*-B range. Two students achieved 4 X A*s.
All bar 5 of the A2 cohort won places at university.

You keep hinting at something obliquely - ("has the penny dropped?".... "I wonder why?"...... "LOL" ... etc.) I thought at first you were clutching at straws, but you seem to be clutching only at thin air. Mossbourne's results were jolly good.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 13/04/2012 - 07:18

"no fewer than 8 Mossbourne students were offered places at Cambridge last year"

How many of those had come in from other schools on the elite 6th form rowing program?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 14/04/2012 - 14:29


K Campbell's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 18:58

What is it, above average or jolly good or in current OFSTED speak requires improvement or just about acceptable?

If I ran a public organisation and achieved outstanding results I would invite my peers into the organisation to examine and analyse the structures and policies, so that they would learn and implement these practises in their schools.

This isn't the Mossbourne or Sir Wilshaw way. I wonder why? LOL

Not clutching at straws, but I never judge a book by its cover.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 23:37

Could you just give the figures please Ricky - the comparables which are so openly published for most schools over the last five years and which link to the historical results you are quoting. It's essential contextualisations for your claims. Thank you.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Thu, 05/04/2012 - 23:48

Blimey - a school which has been given the freedom to do what it feels is best for its students and loads of money has flourished.

Fantastic. Lets give other state schools the same freedoms but modernising Ofsted to get it to comply with the law, by improving the quality of the assessment we use with students under 14 and by sacking ignorant politicians who develop abysmal policy.

Let's stop forcing other schools to copy a model which was created in another time and place and let's listen to them when they tell us what they are doing and why and when we suggest things let's LISTEN to their response.

Or are you suggesting it's more constructive to rush round shoving all the schools with a below average results into special measures to force out their management, knacker their budgets and er...... well what then, oh ooops we hadn't though of that yet. Time to get promoted before we have to.


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 12:20


"What is it, above average or jolly good or in current OFSTED speak requires improvement or just about acceptable?"

Jolly good.
11% of Mossbourne A-levels were at grade A*. That's almost as good as the average for Grammar schools (12%) and a heck of a lot better than that for Comprehensives (5.9%).

"This isn't the Mossbourne way......etc"

But it is. Mossbourne is heavily involved in outreach to spread good practice within Hackney and beyond, receives numerous visitors from other schools, and has been selected as a Training School.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 13:22

Ricky you seem to have missed my comments on this thread and on the other current thread about one of the good schools around today: http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/03/the-mossbourne-fallacy/

K Campbell's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 13:50


Jolly good eh. The stats, the stats. LOL

Outreach, visits and training school doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

All policies and finances need to be made available for comparisons. What is Mossbourne afraid of?

Respond to the above if you wish but I will only reply to your post if you can provide the answer to one simple question (with the verifiable source). What is the income per Mossbourne student?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 14:02

No, Rebecca I didn't miss them. One didn't have a reply button; the other missed the point by a mile, and I try to refrain from making snarky remarks about reading comprehension.

But while your here:

1. You know perfectly well that I can no more go rooting around Mossbourne's accounts than I can in your bank statements. Both are (rightly, in my view) private.

2. That said, Mossbourne is in receipt of taxpayers' money and it seems fair that we should know how much. We can find that out, if we are bothered, by using the various calculators for academy finance on the DfE site and in-putting the published data for pupil numbers, FSM, SEN etc. Fill in the LA formula and LACSEG stuff and this will magically produce a figure for the secondary phase (11-16) and there's another calculator for 16-19, I believe. I haven't done this, but I'd predict it would come out at around £8,000 per pupil, perhaps a touch more. (Henry's nearby Stoke Newington School has an income of £7907 per pupil).

3. From what is already published, we can see the big-ticket spending too. Staff is always the biggest budget line. Henry pays his teachers on average £44,500; Mossbourne pays theirs £42,500. We can make our own minds up about VFM.

4. Your obsession with per-pupil spend is, I think, misguided. Mossbourne, for instance, has an autism unit, I vaguely recall. Things like that are bound to skew a pps approach and make all comparisons otiose.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 14:04

Work it out yourself (it takes about half an hour). See above.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 14:21


Since you asked so politely, I've done half the work for you. At current rates it comes out at £6824 (without pupil premium), £8356 (with pupil premium), excluding post-16 allowance.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 15:18

That's very interesting Ricky. Could you publish your calculations please? As I said one overcrowded local comp with poor facilities in a disadvanted area which has just been dumped into special measures for having below average results has a figure of just over £4000 per student including all extras. I'm guessing that the astronomical cap ex. of the wonderfully supportive Mossbourne building and all the amazing technology and facilities they have there are not included in your figures - but please do contradict me if I'm wrong.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 15:21

I'm wondering, perhaps, if you've failed to understand the extent to which staff put up with the ignorant brutality of the process of special measures in the early days simply because it came with some money and even small amounts of money make such a huge difference to what schools can do for their children so it makes it worth putting up with all sorts without complaining?

K Campbell's picture
Fri, 06/04/2012 - 22:15


I could have done that myself, but that wouldn't have given the real figure. So what is the income per student (with the verifiable source)?

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 09:21

For all its propaganda on transparency, the Government doesn't publish the spend per pupil figures for academies in the same way as the figures are produced for non-academy schools. It will, therefore, be difficult to discover how much income and expenditure there is per pupil in either academies or free schools.

This is unacceptable. If the figures are deemed to be so important that non-academies have to publish them, then this same rule should apply to academies and free schools.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 10:33


Academies and free schools may be state-funded, but they are independent. Therefore, they have the choice whether or not to publish details of their expenditure and of any income that does not come from the state. It would set a very disturbing precedent if the government were to tell private individuals or bodies to disclose information they may deem confidential. How would you like it if HMRC were to publish your tax return without consent?

I would agree with you to this limited extent - we should know how much income each academy receives from the taxpayer. Actually, we can work it out from published data and using calculators at the DfE site, but it's a chore. It would help if the DfE published these figures on the performance tables with the data for maintained schools.

K Campbell's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 11:04


You can only use the DfE site to work out the minimum income. Don't forget Mossbourne has been open for seven years now and so there shouldn't be any secrecy over their income. They are also publicly financed.

As you have mentioned Stoke Newington School for a comparison:

Stoke Newington School  
Cohort- 1326
Teachers (FT) -100
Ratio of teachers to pupils- 1: 13

Mossbourne Academy
Cohort- 1194
Teachers (FT)-125
Ratio of teachers to pupils- 1: 10

Mossbourne also has a far greater number of full time teaching assistants (or unqualified teachers)

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 13:00


You will also have noted that Mossbourne pays its teachers less than Stoke Newington does, which is one reason it can afford to hire more.

What do you mean by 'minimum income'? For academies, the income provided by the taxpayer is fixed by the formula established in the funding agreement. Two academies in the same borough, with identical numbers on roll, FSM, SEN etc. will have identical budgets. The same is not true in LA schools, where education bureaucrats can favour schools run by their ideological cronies.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 13:09


By citing the pupil teacher ratio, you are doing exactly what I warned about earlier. Mossbourne has an Autism Centre that makes resourced provision for fifteen autistic children. Does Stoke Newington? Without taking such things into consideration, the comparison of teacher/assistant numbers is meaningless.

K Campbell's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 14:08


Sorry but you can only work out the minimum income of an academy. That's why I asked you to confirm your source.

There are only 15 autistic pupils at Mossbourne, with three pupils in each year group. Do you know the ratio of teachers to pupils in the unit? If so state it and then we can make a comparison.

If Stoke Newington paid its teachers the same as Mossbourne they would gain about 5 teachers, which would better but they would still have a 1:13 ratio.

It would take far more than a 2 grand pay cut for Stoke Newington to have the same teacher to pupil ratio as Mossbourne.

K Campbell's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 14:31


Also, although Mossbourne's mean teaching salary is lower than Stoke Newinton's, its total teaching bill is higher.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 15:12


But what do you mean by 'minimum income'?

Do you mean 'total income from from public funds', or are you implying that the school receives supplementary grants from DfE?

Or are you alluding to the funds that the school might raise extra money itself - from PTA events or charitable gifts?

Nor do I understand quite why you are making so much of a 3 point difference in pupil teacher ratios. Are you suggesting that is sufficient to explain the 22 point gap between Stoke Newington's and Mossbourne's results on the L2 (inc M&E) measure?

If so, you might pause to consider that Stoke Newington's pupil-teacher ratio is higher than the national average by the same margin that Mossbourne's is higher than Stoke Newington's. By your logic, therefore, SN's outcomes should be 22 points above the average. But they're only 1.8% higher.

Besides, most of the "evidence-based" types who inhabit this site presumably subscribe to the Ed establishment position that class sizes don't matter much at secondary level (at least until they get below 20). If class size doesn't have much of an effect, why are pupil-teacher ratios so important?

You may recall that you began these exchanges by asserting (wrongly) that Mossbourne's A-level results weren't particularly good. Now you seem to be implying that Mossbourne's success is simply attributable to some extra resourcing of some shady kind.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 15:17

Well of course it is, it employs more teachers.

If a school chooses to use its money to hire more teachers rather than provide saunas and jacuzzis for the senior management team, or foot-rubs for the more troublesome students, then that's a good thing, isn't it?

K Campbell's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 16:08

I made the comment based on Mossbourne's 'outstanding' GCSE figures. I say that it has an average conversion rate, you say they are jolly good. Well that's your opinion.

The income calculator provides the public figure, I want to know the actual figure.

I stated the teacher to pupil ratio because this that is one measure that you could compare in terms of total salary. Mossbourne spend more, but what is their budget?

If Stoke Newington School wants to spend money on spas etc, instead of on students, then they should be exposed.

Given the advantages that Mossbourne has been given, I am surprised about Wilshaw's lack of humility.

So once again, what is the income per Mossbourne student?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 16:38


"ignorant brutality", eh?

I gather you used to teach in a community school that went into special measures, was closed/merged and is now an academy.

I must say the record of Ehenside Community School looks pretty grim. Back in the 1988-2001 period its performance on 5 X GCSE (or equiv) A8-C was truly dreadful - 24% 28%,31%.

In 2006, when the school went into special measures, only 18% achieved the L2 (including Eng & Maths) target, and only 21% the L2 threshold. Awful.

Yet 5 years later, the successor West Lakes Academy has got that 18% up to 44% and that 21% up to 78%. Progress!

So why aren't you the biggest fan of academization (even forced academization) going? Or do you find the transformation of the life-chances of so many Cumbrian kids a little, ....er.... embarrassing?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 18:06

Indeed Ricky. And where were Ofsted when all those horrors were going on? Why did they only turn up after the staff had no confidenced and got rid of the head, had organised themselves and were fixing things and had proactively accepted substantial pay cuts to deal with the deficit?

The idea of comparing the Ehenside catchment with the West Lakes Academy catchment is utterly ludicrous Ricky unless you're one of these deluded people who thinks FFTs should be abolished because it's wrong to expect students with very well organised home lives, wide out of school experiences, highly academic parents and plenty of highly achieving role models to do better than those who have none of these things.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 18:08

Can we have the figures on what the teachers at both schools are paid here please?

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 18:16

er yes. What's the relevance of your comment? What were the relative pay rates of the senior management in the two schools? I assume you must know since you've made this comment.

When one school has a lower average pay rate than another it's usually because they have more younger teachers who are not so far up the pay spine. This is a huge problem for schools which face special measures as they can't train teachers or take NQTs so their wage bills go up, exacerbating the other financial difficulties which happen as they lose students.

It's normal for schools which have great uniformity of behaviour across all staff to employ younger staff and its normal for some secondary schools to operate in this way.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 18:17

I want to know too.

If Mossbourne wasn't being held up as being the be all and end all of everything by Ricky it wouldn't matter but it is so it does.

Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sat, 07/04/2012 - 18:20

I think this discussion might interest you Ricky. Perhaps you could join in? I would value your contribution:

Leonard James's picture
Sun, 08/04/2012 - 06:17

I've heard that Mossbourne tends to hire young, mainly female teachers and works them to the bone.

No idea whether it is true or not but Wilshaw has been known to boast about teachers working 15 hour days at Mossbourne. I don't think you'd attract older, experienced (and more expensive) staff who have families under those sorts of working conditions so this could be one way of keeping staff costs down.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 08/04/2012 - 07:28

K Campbell, Rebecca and Leonard (above 8/4/12 6.17am) – you’ll be interested in this video about Mossbourne. The info gives five main reasons for the school's success: “providing a structured environment; insistence on good behaviour; devolved management; quality teaching and learning, and consistent assessment.” These reasons are not limited to academies.

The video makes it clear that teachers are expected to work long hours joining which include Saturday mornings (broadening the curriculum, exam preparation and supervising detentions). Sir Michael says his staff are expected to put in this extra time and have a “no hours contract” (c 9 minutes in).

Interestingly, the school’s extended opening hours do not mean that pupils are there all the time. The long school day is often touted as a reason for Mossbourne’s success but the hours are: Key Stage Three 8.30-3.10 + two 1-hour extension classes per week; Key Stage Four 9.30-4.10 + extension classes (number not specified). So, although teachers are expected to work into the “twilight hours”, many of the pupils will not actually be there. And the mandatory hours for pupils are no more than would be found in most other schools.

I didn't notice anything about funding on the video - but perhaps I missed it.


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Sun, 08/04/2012 - 09:23

Thanks for that Janet - it's lovely and it knowing that others can see this video makes me more confident and comfortable in talking about the strengths and limitations of this school.

First of all I had previously suggested that the teachers at this school would be young and that this would explain the difference in average wage. I think the video confirms that?

I can now also replace the phrase 'boot camp' with 'structured environment' which I'm assuming will be much more acceptable terminology to all?

So what do we have at Mossbourne Academy?
We have a wonderful description of one type of school which works in the most challenging areas and I'm really glad that video is there as in most communities with deprivation it is very wise to have at least one school like Mossbourne.

When you are a new, young teacher, it is very hard to command the respect of disillusioned teenagers. Why the heck should they respect you? It takes years to learn the variety of teaching strategies which will really engage them. It takes years and a lot of life experience to learn how to scan a classroom where misbehaviour is taking place, to watch the situations and diagnose which student is at the heart of the problem and to have a wide repertoire of skills in working out what that student's issues are and how to resolve them. It's only when you have these skills and have established your personal credibility in your school by consistently exercise them that you can do that.

The teachers at Mossbourne do not command the respect of children in this way - they use instead co-ordination, routine and the strategy of subjugating their own strength to those of operating in this collective way. It's a very liberating environment for teachers who cannot yet command the respect of children on their own to work in because it liberates them to achieve truly impressive things with students.

By employing young teachers who don't yet have their own families you can get them to work all hours and this brings clear benefits to the students.

However schools like Mossbourne typically have quite high exclusion rates and their ability to exclude is fundamental to their success. (I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any figures on Mossbourne)

So surrounding a school like Mossbourne you would tend to get inclusive schools. Schools with a less structured environment because the teachers don't need that structure to command the respect of students and because their methods of persoanlly commanding the respect of students are diverse. These tend to be the schools where the students are deeply understood and where poor behaviour is seen as there being a sign the student needs attention and the support of one of the many members of staff who have plenty of experience of understanding children at their worst (and has often raised their own teenaged children) and knows how to get them to describe their experiences from their point of view and how to listen to them in a way which supports them in puzzling out their own way on from their current situation.

In this second type of school structures and rules are still there - they just aren't all used proactively and relentlessly. Some of them are only used as a last resort.

Has anyone else noticed Michael Wilshaw at his lack of understanding of averages game again in this video - schools can get above average results if their teachers work above average hours. Hmmm...


Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.