In what would arguably be the most radical change to English education in contemporary history, the government has announced its intention for every school in England to become an academy in the white paper Educational excellence everywhere. In doing so, they've announced their intention for an almost absolute dismantling of state involvement when it comes to English schools.
The government has said that it wants to give control of schools to headteachers rather than local authorities. Currently, the latter have oversight of the bulk of English schools and of more than 24,000 schools in England, about 5,000 are academies. With their proposed academisation of the remaining schools, a lofty task to say the least, the government claims they'd be ridding schools of those pesky local government bureaucrats. Schools would consequently have sufficient control to do what's best for students and education standards in another righteous move from the Tories, right? Wrong.
Academies are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and have more autonomy that other state schools. They have no accountability to local authorities, thus removing a layer of checks and balances in safeguarding against inappropriate conduct and improper management of public funds. They can decide on their curriculum, length of school day and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions (the latter being an area where many academies have already shown themselves to have little commitment to or value of their staff). While academies in England were initiated by Labour, they’ve become a favoured policy of the Conservatives who have actively sought for more schools to adopt the model. Indeed, their proposal for the academisation of all schools has confirmed that beyond any doubt.
In 2011 I wrote about the rise of academies and free schools and I called the widespread academisation of schools based on what was already happening -
Should the government's proposals become law, what would that mean for schools in England? Firstly, in making such radical plans they've neglected to consider who will fill the void left by the loss of local government’s role in education? It's also proposing something for which it has no evidence to support and it’s failed to consult parents, teachers and unions (the proposal wasn’t in its manifesto either). Most significantly, it's also failed to realise that academies do not equate to better schools which is the crux of the failure of such a proposal.
Academies are not a panacea to improving school standards and there is no evidence of this being the case. There are of course some good academies for whom the academy model works for their respective school and community and that should be acknowledged. Conversely, there certainly are some bad ones for whom their autonomy should be relinquished as a result.
Academisation of all schools is a hugely politicised move and one driven by ideology; a commitment to further dismantling of the state. Education should be driven by the motivation of what is best for students and in raising standards. That shouldn't include bureaucratic targets, political or ideological motivation, profit or any other drivers that detract from its primary goal. It's why the role of the state in education is invaluable as it provides and preserves much needed altruism.
Admittedly, the state can often be lacking in dynamism, is guilty of its frequent charge of being overly bureaucratic and can be sluggish in getting things done. What the state is good at however, is prioritising what really matters as it's broadly free of influences that benefit the privileged few and disadvantage the many. It's where the state's inherent altruism comes into play and why it plays such an important role in education.
Removing the state from education cannot be deemed positive. Education is already a sector at breaking point in England with untenable bureaucracy and a very present teaching crisis. Allowing schools to be free from the state's oversight will likely exacerbate the status quo and become the straw that breaks the camel's back in causing education in England to implode. Yet the government doesn't seem to care and it's partly due to who they intend to hand control of schools over to.
At present, academies can be standalone schools that have decided that autonomy is best for them. For others, they're part of chains or trusts, effectively overseeing umbrella groups that control a number of academies with similar branding and uniformity amongst all of their schools. Some academies within chains are the result of takeovers where they have been converted and rebranded under the identity of the chain while others have been ‘born’ under the banner of their respective chain and are wholly new schools. Though looking more closely at many of the chains, are they an appropriate alternative model upon which the English school system should be based on?
Candidly, many academy trusts are politicised vanity projects. They're often established by individuals or groups who claim to want to make a difference in education via noble use of their wealth and influence. Many, such as Harris Federation (which was established by Conservative Lord Harris of Carpet Right fame), tend to be run by those who the Tories would love to bestow with further academies as they reward their backers and help bolster their vanity projects. All very cosy with raising education standards somewhat of a secondary thought.
It's also important to remember that when schools under local authority control are handed over to academy chains, with each one millions of pounds of state assets in school buildings and land are handed over with them. Not in exchange for cash like traditional privatisation, but absolutely free. It's therefore little wonder that many academy chain bosses are friends and backers of the Conservative party who stand to benefit from a windfall should every school be up for grabs as an academy. A wholesale conversion of all schools to academies would amount to billions of pounds of assets being handed over to private entities in exchange for absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, state cash would continue to be handed over for the academies to spend as they see fit. Just let that sink in.
An additional problem with the academy chains is that they are seen by many as driving the destruction of education in England. So why would we allow them to run schools?
Many academy chains are considered by parents, teachers and unions to care only about results with little regard for anything else. That makes for a toxic environment to work in for teachers and can create a sterile environment for students that is void of empathy and support during their youth.
One consequence of this approach is huge staff turnover with academies haemorrhaging staff at an incredible rate that dwarfs the already high turnover throughout teaching as a whole. According to a Freedom of Information request, between 2012 and 2015, over 1000 staff left schools within the Harris Federation. And they aren't the only chain with shockingly high staff turnover. It begs the question what might all those teachers be keen to escape from if these are such bastions of educational excellence? With such an exodus of staff, they're definitely not retaining expertise, good practice and good teachers that are crucial to any good school.
The fervent and blinkered focus on external results isn't any different from teaching across the board. Though in academies it's typically pursued even more aggressively with a ‘by any means necessary’ attitude that's akin to a pyrrhic victory with students and staff taking the loss in the process. Hardly an appropriate attitude for a school.
Some may read this and think if academies are getting results with their approach, then perhaps the government is correct in wanting to give them further control. However, grades and levels aren't the only things that matter when it comes to the betterment of students. Nurture, empathy, wellbeing and good mental health matter just as much but they're often given insufficient regard. There is also anecdotal evidence of vulnerable children and SEN students, who may not achieve the best possible results, not being as warmly welcomed as others by some academies. Is that what we want our school system to be built upon? A factory of identikit students with a culture that is void of empathy and support? But it's OK because (allegedly) some them have good results…
Most would assume the government's proposal to be supported by robust evidence that would sway detractors and prove to the public that academisation is the way forward. Like anything, academies have shown to work in some instances and it can't be claimed that they're all bad. Although with good leadership, teaching and a supportive cohort of parents and community, most schools have a fair shot at doing the best for their students regardless of their status. And those aren't attributes that can only be engendered by an academy or an academy chain.
Currently, 82% of schools under local authority control are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. Meanwhile, in 2014/15, 99 schools that converted to academies went from ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ to less than good. Moreover, those against academisation have an unlikely ally in Chief Inspector Michael Wilshaw who has expressed his concerns over the performance of some academy chains to Nicky Morgan, Secretary of State for Education.
There are also precedents for the Department for Education (DfE) needing to take some schools out of the control of academy chains and prohibiting some from opening or taking over any new schools due to concerns with their performance. In 2014, the then biggest academy chain, Academies Enterprise Trust, was barred from taking on additional schools and E-ACT, the then second largest chain, had a third of its schools handed back to the government. Should a similar hypothetical scenario occur where local authorities’ education functions had become defunct as a result of the government's proposal, who would then step in if several chains were deemed unfit to run their respective schools? It's more uninformed and political short sightedness from the government. Just like a Conservative policy of yesteryear in right to buy (which has resulted in a legacy of huge social housing shortages), academisation could be another policy that sees history not judging the Conservative party favourably.
Even by 2020, such a far reaching proposal for all schools to become academies is a mammoth task and it requires support yet many are opposed to it. Teachers, unions and unsurprisingly the local government community are all against academisation and a petition to scrap the plans received over 100,000 signatures within a week. The academy chains that are favoured by the government are nonetheless licking their lips with anticipation at the prospect of expanding their academy empires. They've been waiting (and I’m sure lobbying) for this and have their prey of local authority controlled schools well within their sights. But aside from the academy chains and the government, there doesn't appear to be much support for academisation.
An intention to turn all schools into academies wasn't in the Conservative party’s manifesto so there hasn't been any gauging of support for this, or any subsequent consultation whatsoever. It's hardly democratic and it's not welcome. Teachers and unions have not had a say on an issue that they are significantly more attuned to than the government. Similarly, surely parents at least deserve to be consulted before their child’s school has such a change forced upon them? On this occasion, the Tories think they know best so they'll be making that decision for you.
Academies aren’t necessarily the antithesis of good schools but they don’t equate to better schools either. Complete academisation will nonetheless force academy status onto all schools with no regard for the implications, the amount of evidence to support the contrary and the lack of support from parents, teachers and teaching unions. Instead, the government seeks to proceed with a policy that will remove the role of the state in an area where its function is paramount while giving academy chains carte blanche to run schools as they see fit. That means diminished accountability and a removal of the oversight that local authorities have long provided in English schools.
Just as the then Conservative government abolished the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) in 1990, the Tories are politically motivated to change the landscape of English education yet again. This time, the plans are more radical and the implications are bigger. And with that comes an even greater risk to the future of English schools and education.
The government has said that it wants to give control of schools to headteachers rather than local authorities. Currently, the latter have oversight of the bulk of English schools and of more than 24,000 schools in England, about 5,000 are academies. With their proposed academisation of the remaining schools, a lofty task to say the least, the government claims they'd be ridding schools of those pesky local government bureaucrats. Schools would consequently have sufficient control to do what's best for students and education standards in another righteous move from the Tories, right? Wrong.
 |
Academies are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and have more autonomy that other state schools. They have no accountability to local authorities, thus removing a layer of checks and balances in safeguarding against inappropriate conduct and improper management of public funds. They can decide on their curriculum, length of school day and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions (the latter being an area where many academies have already shown themselves to have little commitment to or value of their staff). While academies in England were initiated by Labour, they’ve become a favoured policy of the Conservatives who have actively sought for more schools to adopt the model. Indeed, their proposal for the academisation of all schools has confirmed that beyond any doubt.
In 2011 I wrote about the rise of academies and free schools and I called the widespread academisation of schools based on what was already happening -
‘...where such demand [for academies] does not exist, it is likely that academy status will be foisted upon more challenging schools, particularly against a backdrop of the coalition government’s zeal in promoting its flagship education policy… Diminishing what should be an altruistic role of the state with regard to the provision of education and replacing it with autonomy raises several concerns. It also takes the provision of education a step closer to privatisation – a move that would pit the provision of quality education against profit.’The government hasn't announced that academies will be able to be run for profit but its proposal does take it a step closer to that (it was rumoured that the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, had sought to allow academies and free schools to eventually make a profit during the coalition government but was blocked by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg). Nevertheless, they’ve laid their cards on the table with their intention to foist academy status onto all schools.
Should the government's proposals become law, what would that mean for schools in England? Firstly, in making such radical plans they've neglected to consider who will fill the void left by the loss of local government’s role in education? It's also proposing something for which it has no evidence to support and it’s failed to consult parents, teachers and unions (the proposal wasn’t in its manifesto either). Most significantly, it's also failed to realise that academies do not equate to better schools which is the crux of the failure of such a proposal.
Academies are not a panacea to improving school standards and there is no evidence of this being the case. There are of course some good academies for whom the academy model works for their respective school and community and that should be acknowledged. Conversely, there certainly are some bad ones for whom their autonomy should be relinquished as a result.
Academisation of all schools is a hugely politicised move and one driven by ideology; a commitment to further dismantling of the state. Education should be driven by the motivation of what is best for students and in raising standards. That shouldn't include bureaucratic targets, political or ideological motivation, profit or any other drivers that detract from its primary goal. It's why the role of the state in education is invaluable as it provides and preserves much needed altruism.
Admittedly, the state can often be lacking in dynamism, is guilty of its frequent charge of being overly bureaucratic and can be sluggish in getting things done. What the state is good at however, is prioritising what really matters as it's broadly free of influences that benefit the privileged few and disadvantage the many. It's where the state's inherent altruism comes into play and why it plays such an important role in education.
Removing the state from education cannot be deemed positive. Education is already a sector at breaking point in England with untenable bureaucracy and a very present teaching crisis. Allowing schools to be free from the state's oversight will likely exacerbate the status quo and become the straw that breaks the camel's back in causing education in England to implode. Yet the government doesn't seem to care and it's partly due to who they intend to hand control of schools over to.
At present, academies can be standalone schools that have decided that autonomy is best for them. For others, they're part of chains or trusts, effectively overseeing umbrella groups that control a number of academies with similar branding and uniformity amongst all of their schools. Some academies within chains are the result of takeovers where they have been converted and rebranded under the identity of the chain while others have been ‘born’ under the banner of their respective chain and are wholly new schools. Though looking more closely at many of the chains, are they an appropriate alternative model upon which the English school system should be based on?
Candidly, many academy trusts are politicised vanity projects. They're often established by individuals or groups who claim to want to make a difference in education via noble use of their wealth and influence. Many, such as Harris Federation (which was established by Conservative Lord Harris of Carpet Right fame), tend to be run by those who the Tories would love to bestow with further academies as they reward their backers and help bolster their vanity projects. All very cosy with raising education standards somewhat of a secondary thought.
It's also important to remember that when schools under local authority control are handed over to academy chains, with each one millions of pounds of state assets in school buildings and land are handed over with them. Not in exchange for cash like traditional privatisation, but absolutely free. It's therefore little wonder that many academy chain bosses are friends and backers of the Conservative party who stand to benefit from a windfall should every school be up for grabs as an academy. A wholesale conversion of all schools to academies would amount to billions of pounds of assets being handed over to private entities in exchange for absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, state cash would continue to be handed over for the academies to spend as they see fit. Just let that sink in.
An additional problem with the academy chains is that they are seen by many as driving the destruction of education in England. So why would we allow them to run schools?
Many academy chains are considered by parents, teachers and unions to care only about results with little regard for anything else. That makes for a toxic environment to work in for teachers and can create a sterile environment for students that is void of empathy and support during their youth.
One consequence of this approach is huge staff turnover with academies haemorrhaging staff at an incredible rate that dwarfs the already high turnover throughout teaching as a whole. According to a Freedom of Information request, between 2012 and 2015, over 1000 staff left schools within the Harris Federation. And they aren't the only chain with shockingly high staff turnover. It begs the question what might all those teachers be keen to escape from if these are such bastions of educational excellence? With such an exodus of staff, they're definitely not retaining expertise, good practice and good teachers that are crucial to any good school.
The fervent and blinkered focus on external results isn't any different from teaching across the board. Though in academies it's typically pursued even more aggressively with a ‘by any means necessary’ attitude that's akin to a pyrrhic victory with students and staff taking the loss in the process. Hardly an appropriate attitude for a school.
Some may read this and think if academies are getting results with their approach, then perhaps the government is correct in wanting to give them further control. However, grades and levels aren't the only things that matter when it comes to the betterment of students. Nurture, empathy, wellbeing and good mental health matter just as much but they're often given insufficient regard. There is also anecdotal evidence of vulnerable children and SEN students, who may not achieve the best possible results, not being as warmly welcomed as others by some academies. Is that what we want our school system to be built upon? A factory of identikit students with a culture that is void of empathy and support? But it's OK because (allegedly) some them have good results…
Most would assume the government's proposal to be supported by robust evidence that would sway detractors and prove to the public that academisation is the way forward. Like anything, academies have shown to work in some instances and it can't be claimed that they're all bad. Although with good leadership, teaching and a supportive cohort of parents and community, most schools have a fair shot at doing the best for their students regardless of their status. And those aren't attributes that can only be engendered by an academy or an academy chain.
Currently, 82% of schools under local authority control are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. Meanwhile, in 2014/15, 99 schools that converted to academies went from ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ to less than good. Moreover, those against academisation have an unlikely ally in Chief Inspector Michael Wilshaw who has expressed his concerns over the performance of some academy chains to Nicky Morgan, Secretary of State for Education.
There are also precedents for the Department for Education (DfE) needing to take some schools out of the control of academy chains and prohibiting some from opening or taking over any new schools due to concerns with their performance. In 2014, the then biggest academy chain, Academies Enterprise Trust, was barred from taking on additional schools and E-ACT, the then second largest chain, had a third of its schools handed back to the government. Should a similar hypothetical scenario occur where local authorities’ education functions had become defunct as a result of the government's proposal, who would then step in if several chains were deemed unfit to run their respective schools? It's more uninformed and political short sightedness from the government. Just like a Conservative policy of yesteryear in right to buy (which has resulted in a legacy of huge social housing shortages), academisation could be another policy that sees history not judging the Conservative party favourably.
Even by 2020, such a far reaching proposal for all schools to become academies is a mammoth task and it requires support yet many are opposed to it. Teachers, unions and unsurprisingly the local government community are all against academisation and a petition to scrap the plans received over 100,000 signatures within a week. The academy chains that are favoured by the government are nonetheless licking their lips with anticipation at the prospect of expanding their academy empires. They've been waiting (and I’m sure lobbying) for this and have their prey of local authority controlled schools well within their sights. But aside from the academy chains and the government, there doesn't appear to be much support for academisation.
An intention to turn all schools into academies wasn't in the Conservative party’s manifesto so there hasn't been any gauging of support for this, or any subsequent consultation whatsoever. It's hardly democratic and it's not welcome. Teachers and unions have not had a say on an issue that they are significantly more attuned to than the government. Similarly, surely parents at least deserve to be consulted before their child’s school has such a change forced upon them? On this occasion, the Tories think they know best so they'll be making that decision for you.
Academies aren’t necessarily the antithesis of good schools but they don’t equate to better schools either. Complete academisation will nonetheless force academy status onto all schools with no regard for the implications, the amount of evidence to support the contrary and the lack of support from parents, teachers and teaching unions. Instead, the government seeks to proceed with a policy that will remove the role of the state in an area where its function is paramount while giving academy chains carte blanche to run schools as they see fit. That means diminished accountability and a removal of the oversight that local authorities have long provided in English schools.
Just as the then Conservative government abolished the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) in 1990, the Tories are politically motivated to change the landscape of English education yet again. This time, the plans are more radical and the implications are bigger. And with that comes an even greater risk to the future of English schools and education.
