Jump to content

Talk:Academy (English school)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pic

[edit]

Don't know if you guys want this (please delete if not), but I just happened to have it (placeholder pic, better'n nowt, the lighting is not great, will likely replace whenever). I'm not big on education, but I have written some stuff over on Hackney Downs that I hope is fair and not (too) POV. Be grateful if it were checked, by the way. Tarquin Binary 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition tidied

[edit]

Expanded and tidied the opposition/criticism section which seemed to have lots of uses of the word 'also' and made clearer the wider objections to the programme rather than just specific ones.

Alibi 22:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Despite the previous edit Academies (or City Academies) were created by the 1996 Education Act, not the 1998 Act which was the School Standards and Framework Act - there is no schools focused Education Act 1998. Check the Stationers (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm) if you want proof.

Alibi 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent an hour reading through several different Acts (the Education Acts 1996, 1997, and 2002), I finally found the piece of legislation which actually established City Academies: the Learning and Skills Act 2000. This modified the Ed Act 1996, and was itself amended again by the Ed Act 2002, completely replacing the section entitled "City technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts" with a new section entitled only "Academies". I have amended the text to reflect, with citations. Therefore, I actually think the Education Act 1996 is barely relevant; it only created the City Technology College framework which was then later amended - in itself, it provided nothing specific to enable the creation of (City) Academies. DWaterson 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

Am I reading this right? The sucker taxpayers have to pay 90% of the startup costs and 100% of the running costs, yet whomever paid 10% years ago gets to run the school? --Billpg 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it's the "sucker taxpayers" whose children go to these schools it's not like they're being robbed. Also define run the school - sponsors get to set out at the beginning the ethos of the school and its educational vision but the day to day management of the education is by the principal (the same as any other school). Alibi 09:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the principal is appointed by the sponsor as are all the other heads. They are also able to decide contractors that the school takes on (including their own!). Also, I think its wrong that you don't think that having the ability to set ethos is not a big thing. For many children (especially the younger more impressionable ones) this will be the ethos that decides their outlook on life. Oh and finally, the sponsor gets to own the site and the land after 25 years. Finally, the sponsor gets three seats on the board of governers whilst parents only get 1 (potentially representing hundreds of families). So the sponsor can literally run a school anyway HE (I say he as I am unaware of a female sponsor) or the comapny pleases. Not too bad for the sponsor, shame for the parents.

[edit]

Could whoever is moving the link of the former pupil of an academy please either justify their actions or stop it. Not only is the pupil a former pupil of an academy but he is a former pupil of an academy specifially mentioned in this article - the Kings academy in Middlesbrough. Therefore is his view not a valid one?

'Side-note: What is an in-valid view?'... The question is not of validity but of reliability and notability. Wikipedia uses sources which are well-known and respected in their field. A single student making their views known is not notable.
In addition, please remember to sign your posts with this ~~~~'. Thanks, Philipwhiuk 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye

[edit]

Private Eye seem to be mentioning Wikipedia quite a lot these days, Giovanni di Stefano and other things recently, now this article. For those who haven't read the brief Private Eye article it points out that despite this article claiming 'Previously this school performed extremely well, but since becoming an Academy, is now at the bottom of the league tables' a webpage belonging to Djanogly City Academy still proudly points here as a definition of a City Academy. I guess this could get a bit of attention in the next couple of weeks. JMiall₰ 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced? Properly referenced?

[edit]

I stumbled on this article because it was mentioned in a category re-naming discussion here.[1] What an eye-opener. This article not only fails to maintain a neutral, objective point of view, it is vey poorly referenced. Rather ironic that it's part of the Wikipedia Schools project. It pays lipservice to balance, but to any outside observer it reads like it was largely written by campaigners against academies.

For one thing, it devotes more space to criticism of the academies than to actually describing their key aspects, e.g. their specialisms and the fact that the 10% aptitude selection relates to those specialism(s). I've added a one or two referenced sentences about the specialism issue. I've also added a referenced quote from David Cameron dating from the same period as the assertions about the Liberal party's view on city academies. The introduction and expansion of the academies has definitely caused a lot of controversy and attracted a lot of criticism and it's right to cover that. But that section and the following one on "Comparisons", which basically contains more unreferenced criticism (see 2. below) are currently out of proportion (in terms of 'column inches' and detail) to the rest of the article.

Secondly, it is bizarre to put an external link to a web site run by a disgruntled former pupil of a city academy without adding a counter-balancing link. I've now added one from a student defending city academies who found his to be a positive experience.

And finally I've added {{Fact}} to the following:

  1. "Academies that have already demonstrated strong success are the City Academy, Bristol and Mossbourne Academy in Hackney." What is the reliable source for this assertion? Why should anyone believe that?
  2. "The academy can therefore 'select' after admission by finding excuses to exclude poorly performing pupils, and so artificially boost their league table scores." What is the reliable source for this assertion? Why should anyone believe that?
  3. "most famously, the Evangelical Christian car dealer, Sir Peter Vardy, who has been accused of promoting the teaching of creationism alongside macroevolution in two academies he sponsors in Gateshead and Middlesbrough." Accused by whom? Reported in which reliable source? I strongly suggest the editors here read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
  4. "Lord Irvine Laidlaw, lived as a tax exile in Monaco for almost two decades, thereby avoiding the payment of at least £50 million in UK taxes." What is the reliable source for this assertion?
  5. "Some observers on Tyneside have asked how many schools a UK based Laidlaw might have provided through normal payment of taxes, and are perplexed that this arrangement is not considered a national scandal". Who are these un-named 'observers' who consider this to be a national scandal? (Again, read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). In what reliable source were their observations published?

Both the 'pros' and the 'cons' need referencing, but the unreferenced (and distinctly non neutrally expressed) 'con' statements outnumber the pros by four to one. Voceditenore (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that advocates of the academy programme claim it leads to better exam results but doesn't explain how they accomplish this ? Is independence from local authority control the main driving factor (and if so why/how) or is it something else (and if so what....) ? 2.216.13.220 (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

I've boldly moved the article to Academy (English school). "English school" disambiguates in the same way that "Song", "TV series", "Film", "Album" or "Character" does. "England" says nothing - other than perhaps suggesting that "Academy" is a soubriquet for England, like, say, "Albion".

chocolateboy (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out some issues

[edit]

I have made some edits to the article to sort out a couple of issues, particularly the way that opposition and criticism of the scheme was all in its own section, while supportive opinion was scattered through the article and in some instances presented as fact rather than opinion. For example the "features of an academy" section contained the statement "compared to their predecessors, academies have largely been considered a success". This isn't a feature of an academy, it's an opinion about academies and the only reference for it came from an article by Andrew Adonis. I've created a new section called "Support for the academies scheme". At the moment the content of that section isn't great - it's almost all from one article in the Observer. Hopefully other editors can improve this section further. Alboran (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US controversy

[edit]

I removed this information because of the extremely low prominence it is given in Charter Schools article. Writing about it here is tangential and selective. The success or failure of the equivalent US programme, which has included thousands of schools, might be judged in many ways and concentrating on this is arbitrary and biased. Also, the way in which this article attempts to link corruption in the US system with the British academies programme is a clear synthesis of published material designed to advance a particular position. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background and balance

[edit]

Made mainly additions of further information to explain what Academies are intended to do, and made some changes to the text to make the article a little more balanced: the tone before suggested that Academies aren't successful and that all the concerns about them are correct, and considering the controversial nature of the programme it is important to present the issue in more objective way and distinguish between assertion and fact.

--In terms of balance, it should also be added that Richard Rose Central Academy in Carlisle has been moved out of special measures in its most recent inspection (and no, I have nothing to do with this school!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.73.206 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updates needed?

[edit]

I think this article might need some major updates. It seems as though this article only really relates to Type 1 academies... i.e. brand new schools or failing schools that were closed and reopened as academies (with a sponsor). It doesn't seem to cover type 2 academies... i.e. Successful schools who voluntarily converted to academy status and do not have a sponsor. Bleaney (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is insufficient information about Convertor Acadamies and some of the information about Sponsored Acadamies is now out of date. I have added an "update" template to the article. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Unbalanced

[edit]

The criticism section of this article is much longer, and much more emphatic that than the support section.Paiforsyth (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1980's

[edit]

What of the Government programme of the 1980's whereby schools were encouraged to "Opt-out" of local authority control. Were/are these academies or something else ? 2.216.13.220 (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't they mostly faith schools and other non-rational idealogues? 2.31.162.109 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Academy (English school). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Academy (English school). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

selection still possible

[edit]

http://grammarschools.lincs.sch.uk/admissions/faq lists a lot of schools that have academy status that were never CTCs and yet they have 100% selection. So it seems that academies can still select pupils. Unless Lincolnshire is stopped this probably applies to Grammar SChools over all UK. It maybe a legal challenge would show otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.172.120 (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academy (English school). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Academy (English school). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academy (English school). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Academy (English school). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parking a reference

[edit]
  • Adams, Richard (17 January 2018). "MPs call for overhaul in oversight of England's academy school chains". the Guardian. Retrieved 17 January 2018.

MAT- floating

[edit]

With the publication of the Sutton Trust report, I think we now have enough material to make MATs a separate article and end the redirect. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation schools

[edit]

This article needs to clarify the relationship between a "foundation school" and an "academy school". Deipnosophista (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Academy_(English_school)&oldid=1197894185"