Education

Mrs Maylum said: 'I am not a hirer and firer, that has never been my approach'
advertisement

JMA head denies sackings after 16 teachers go

By Paul Cassell
August 07, 2012

The headteacher of the John Madejski Academy has insisted that no staff have been sacked, despite 16 teachers leaving the troubled school this summer.

The school in Hartland Road, Whitley, was placed on ‘special measures’ in January with Ofsted being heavily critical of all aspects of the academy, including teaching standards.

Principal Nicola Maytum confirmed none of the departing staff had been fired and the number of staff that had left was fewer than in previous years which had created a more stable environment.

A major shake-up has seen 23 new teachers appointed, including new heads of English, maths and science, while the senior management team has been restructured with just three of the original 10 remaining.

Mrs Maytum, who took charge of the school in January, said: “We work in a difficult but very noble profession and the best teachers want to work in schools and academies like ours.

“I have the best teachers that are staying and I have some cracking people who are joining.

“I am not a hirer and firer, that has never been my approach.

“When you are going to develop outstanding teaching and learning you need to be able to invest in staff so they are not looking over their shoulder in fear of their job.

“However, they need to be very clear about their roles and responsibilities, and it is important that we can challenge one another to create a positive environment.

“If I had a reputation as a hatchet merchant I wouldn’t get the commitment I do.”

Following the school’s Ofsted inspection, the education watchdog returned in May to carry out a monitoring reports in which it concluded the school was making ‘satisfactory’ progress.

It stated that some teaching was still inadequate, although there were strengths in sport, humanities, business studies, literacy and performing arts where pupils were encouraged more.

Inspectors further noted that too many lessons did not adapt enough to suit pupils’ abilities and progress was not checked enough, leading to frustration and deterioration in behaviour.

Chair of governors Alex Bayliss said: “This is not a mass exodus.

“Staff move on for a variety of reasons such as promotion, some move away because of change of circumstances or family commitments and some have retired.

“I do not think it’s a particular issue. All schools will have a turnover of staff at the end of an academic year. There is nothing unusual about that in particular.

“We do not have any concerns, other than we clearly have work to do as a result of the Ofsted inspection, and we are committed to our staff and students to make sure we provide a first-class education for the community.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (39)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 39

1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

And you clearly IMAGINE that Sponsors have a part in the structure of an academy other than as a benefactor.

To quote you : "The buck stops with the sponsor" In what way, pray tell?

C8H10N4O2
08/08/2012 at 14:34

It's a shame they can't make this place work after all the money and time has been spent. I went to Ashmead 79-84 and we would have loved to wear a fleece instead of the green blazer and we never had enough text books to share round. I am not so sure we should blame the teachers and administrators - I have a feeling it's more to do with the low opinion of the importance of education felt by the parents. We do need some education Mr Floyd !

Fondue
08/08/2012 at 14:13

C8H10N402, you clearly do not accept that Sponsors have a part in the structure of an academy other than as a benefactor and that it all rests with the head. Blame has not entered into my discussions merely accountability. What do you think would be the difference with regime change? The school has failed.

The Auditor, Reading
08/08/2012 at 13:37

"Are not sponsors supposed to be active in the great scheme of things and not just a source of funding?"

"The level of sponsorship had nothing to do with my comments."

Yet you have repeatedly re-iterated the sponsor is to blame?

I'll repeat the question : If the current sponsor was removed, what difference do you imagine will be made?

C8H10N4O2
08/08/2012 at 13:09

C8H10N402 The figures for 2010/11 - Government grant £8,523 per pupil; income and donations (from all sources) £446 per pupil. I make income and donations which will include all sponsors around 5%. This figure may include capital projects. Why I have thanked you is what percentage of that is income? The level of sponsorship had nothing to do with my comments.

Are not sponsors supposed to be active in the great scheme of things and not just a source of funding?

The Auditor, Reading
08/08/2012 at 12:48

@ Auditor : There you go then, in this instance just over 7% sponsorship...so less than the 10% I mentioned.

C8H10N4O2
08/08/2012 at 11:48

@Auditor : Say the current sponsor withdraws from the scheme, or the sponsor was changed to Tesco/Quantas/whoever....do you think things at the school will improve as a result?

It's FA to do with the sponsor, whether the funds are provided as an act of philanthropy or to exact commercial or other influences.

As I said, and agreed with you, the Headteacher and Governors are where the failings stem from in terms of curriculum and teaching, the pupils fail themselves by baulking at the work, and the parents fail their children by not influencing their positive sense of self-responsibility.

This is not confined to JMA either, many teachers from many schools will tell you how they waste too many valuable teaching hours performing "riot-control".

C8H10N4O2
08/08/2012 at 11:45

C8H10N4O2, thank you for prompting me to look into the financial arrangement at the Academy and the level of sponsorship from all sources v tax payer funding. I give below the Government answer to my question.

"The overall capital cost of the Academy was £27.66m and the sponsor provided £2 million in sponsorship You can see the information on Academies’ income and expenditure for the academic year 2010/2011 at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/academies.html The income and expenditure data is taken from the Abbreviated Accounts Returns (AARs) completed by each Academy Trust for the period ending 31 August 2011 (generally the academic year 2010/11). The information will show you the split between amount of government grant funding and other income/donations"

The Auditor, Reading
08/08/2012 at 11:42

Nowtas, if what you were doing was fundamentally flawed and regressive, you would not get the commitment either. Perhaps the issue is one of morale and conditions or one of inexperience? Is there a reputation of someone being a hatchet merchant? The article does not go for issue merely sound bite. The issue is not just teachers? How many parents are also voting with their feet? All that can be gleaned is there is a major problem and the person that needs to address it is the sponsor. What is the problem?

The Auditor, Reading
08/08/2012 at 11:24

What on earth is a "hatchet merchant"? Does the head mean she is a 'seller of hatchets'? I think she may have become caught up in the twee idiosyncrasies of the language used around the Madej Ski Academy. Surely a 'wielder of hatchets' and a 'seller of hatchets' are two different propositions and, if you ask me, a whole different kettle of ball-games. This "school" clearly needs someone at the helm who says what they mean and doesn't say what they don't mean, does what they say and err doesn't do what they don't say .... I think. The term, as I recall, used to be "hatchet man" for a boss who was brought in to sack the dross and rebuild. I suppose the head could have had the term "hatchet lady" or "axe girl" attached if her terms of reference included some clause to indicate she would "shake the place up and get rid of the crud" but somehow I doubt even the Madej Ski Academy would stoop quite that low in employment morality.

I do quite like the term "axe girl" though and day-dream of the head with an axe emblem on her tee shirt and a secret axe tattoo maybe ...

David Williams, Reading
08/08/2012 at 11:14

“If I had a reputation as a hatchet merchant I wouldn’t get the commitment I do.”

If she didn’t fire them, 16 members of teaching staff just fled to another school or left teaching altogether. That’s commitment for you.

Nowtas, West Berkshire
08/08/2012 at 10:48

Swampy1967, good post.

The problem with the article is it assumes that the 18 staff were all sacked and that they were poor teachers. In the main entirely wrong. Are more teachers planning on walking out? - that remains to be seen - 23 new ones are coming in.

The buck stops with the sponsor. He should have stopped the rot under the old regime (I did warn, and probably the only person to be critical of the school and its approach) and has now got one enormous problem because again wrong decisions have been made with the current structure from the governors through to the head. What is the problem that needs addressing first?

The Auditor, Reading
08/08/2012 at 10:09

As a parent with a child at JMA, I for one am glad that there has been an exodus of teachers, this makes up about one 1/3rd of the teaching staff. Ofsted criticised the teaching as inadequate, along with leadership and management in their January report. The follow is also a quote from the Ofsted report; The new principal has vision and drive and is quickly raising the morale of staff. She has an astute understanding of the problems of the academy and in the very short time she has been in post has rapidly started to make changes. However, it is very early days and until this point, leaders and managers have been unrealistic about the academy’s current performance. The monitoring and evaluation of the work of the academy have lacked rigour and accuracy, particularly with regard to the quality of teaching. Self-evaluation has been overgenerous and has not focused sufficiently on raising attainment. The current principal had only just been in post when Ofsted came calling so the blame must lay with the previous principal Kate Shaw who was all smoke and mirrors. Telling parents their children were doing well when they were not.

The current Chair of Governors was also fairly new as chair of governors, but the Governing Body must equally hold responsibility for allowing this situation to arise.

Parents – me included – also bear responsibility for the behaviour of our children. The new principal call me on her second week in charge and told me she had just taken my sons mobile of him as he had it out in class – I said good – I will collect it from school and he can explain to me why he had it out in class – then I will also support the academy in any punishment they see fit.

I went to Ashmead and it was bedlam then, no learning just surviving in a jungle. I feel we as a community should support the community and schools by getting our kids to understand action and consequences. Very sorry for the long post!!!

swampy1967, Reading
08/08/2012 at 00:13

Um...you really should be careful about putting blame on single parents. There are many reasons why a parent is alone. My partner left after twenty years together and I am now struggling to raise a child on my own. Single parents are not the problem. A good parent is a good parent.

Moriarty, Caversham
07/08/2012 at 23:20

Good education and social responsibility start in the home. This is where the focus should be in the long term. Far too many single parents, far too many parents with expensive hobbies in the area. I would send the parents back to school!