A pdf version can be downloaded here
As opposition to forced academisation grows across the political spectrum, why would London Councils encourage MATs?
Ever since March, when the Conservative Government released its misnamed White Paper, ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’, there has been growing opposition from across the political spectrum to their plans to force academisation on England’s schools (1). That opposition is based on an increasing volume of research showing academies are not improving educational outcomes.
In parliamentary debate,
even Conservative MPs spoke out against the plans. As Steve Brine, MP for Winchester,
explained, “local teachers are confused about why something that is so
obviously not broken needs fixing” (2). A number of Local Authorities have passed
motions opposing the White Paper including the country’s largest Council,
Birmingham. As one of their Councillors explained, “If there was
any impact academisation worked I would do it tomorrow to all of our schools.
[But] there is no evidence. What the White Paper proposes is spending millions
on changing structures without changing a single life.” (3).
In London, Islington
Labour Group has launched a petition opposing forced academisation saying that
this “is another top-down reorganisation that will not help young people in
Islington get the education they need” (4) . That kind of
initiative, reaching out to Londoners to stand together for education, can help
defeat forced academisation and the proposed cuts to school budgets too. Yet,
regrettably, it seems that a number of London Labour Councils are exploring
plans to develop Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) and in some cases considering
actively encouraging their formation.
This document
gives ten clear reasons why Councils should not be pursuing academisation or supporting
the setting up of MATs but should be adding their support to the growing
opposition to the Government’s plans.
1. There are no educational advantages to Multi Academy
Trusts
“It is now widely recognised that ‘academisation’, and
the competitive system it is intended to encourage, has had no discernible
impact on standards. Whatever the real arguments for academies, they cannot be
based on an assertion that academisation will ‘drive up’ standards”
(5).
The facts are
increasingly beyond dispute. Even Schools Minister Nick Gibb has conceded that
“this government does not believe that all academies and free schools are
necessarily better than maintained schools.” (6). The recently
updated NUT “EduFacts”on ‘Academy Status, Pupil Attainment and School
Improvement’ lists just some of the evidence confirming that “there is no
credible evidence that conversion to academy status improves pupil attainment
in national tests and exams, supports pupil progress or leads to school
improvement” (7). For example:
·
In January 2015, the all-Party House
of Commons Education Committee concluded that: “We have sought but not found
convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment in primary
schools” and that “it is too early to judge whether academies raise standards
overall or for disadvantaged children”.
·
Henry Stewart’s analysis of 2015 results
data showed that sponsored primary academies’ results increased at a slower
rate than similar non-academies and that sponsored secondary academies are also
improving at a consistently slower rate than similar local authority schools.
·
Analysis of DfE data released under
a Freedom of Information request in July 2015 showed that a school rated
‘inadequate’ by Ofsted was almost four times more likely to remain ‘inadequate’
at its next inspection if it became a sponsored academy than if it remained a
maintained school.
‘EduFacts’ also
points to specific evidence questioning the effectiveness of Multi Academy
Trusts:
·
A report by the consultancy PwC,
published on 9 May 2016, completely contradicts the Government’s claims about
the effectiveness of MATs. It revealed that only three of the 16 largest
secondary academy chains could demonstrate a positive impact on pupils’
progress, while just one of the 26 largest primary sponsors produced results
above the national average.
·
The Sutton Trust has produced two reports
looking at the impact of academy chains on low income students in secondary
sponsored academies: Chain Effects (an analysis of 2013 GCSE results published
in 2014) and Chain Effects 2015 (an analysis of 2014 results). Both reports
found “very significant” variation in outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, both
between and within chains. In 2013 only 16 out of 31 chains exceeded the
improvement for disadvantaged pupils in 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and
maths for all mainstream schools. The report also concluded that “far from
providing a solution to disadvantage, a few chains may be exacerbating it”. The 2015 report indicated a worsening
situation concluding that the “contrast between the best and worst chains has
increased in 2014”.
If decisions are going to be made about the
future of our schools, surely they should be made on educational grounds?
However, in that case, there are no good reasons to encourage academies.
2. MATs threaten the break-up of comprehensive education
“There is no evidence base to support this claim [that
‘academisation’ will drive up standards]. So why the drive to academisation?
The answer lies in understanding that academisation is not about quality
education for all but about a fundamental transformation of the English school
system whereby public schools are transferred into private hands ... The
process is initially gradual as individual schools are forced to become academy
schools and in due course all schools are drawn into Multi-Academy Trusts. In
turn these Trusts become larger and larger.” (8).
Government policy
is not based on evidence, rather on ideology. There are clear similarities between
the attempts to introduce market-based ‘reforms’ to the National Health Service
and the academisation of schools. Few politicians would risk being seen to be
supporting privatisation of the NHS, so shouldn’t London’s politicians and
elected councillors feel the same about education?
Allowing such a
politically-inspired policy to take any greater hold on education could prove
disastrous for the future of education, as the failed ‘Free School’ experiment
in Sweden shows (9). Sweden’s development of publicly-funded but
privately-run Free Schools was originally praised by Michael Gove as evidence
for his own Free School and Academy policies. However, it has caused Sweden’s
position in the international ‘PISA’ educational rankings to plummet more
sharply than that of any other participating country. This is what happens when
you base policy on ideology, and on meeting the interests of education
businesses and academy chains, rather than evidence. So why would any London
Councils want to repeat those mistakes at the expense of our children?
Sweden’s failed
policy also led to widening inequality, confirming that when schools are
encouraged to compete with each other in a marketised system, the most
disadvantaged young people are likely to lose out most of all. Unfortunately, we already see evidence of
similar trends under school academisation. Last year, the Office of the Schools
Adjudicator reported their concerns about how schools in charge of their own
admissions policies – most of whom are academies – can manipulate procedures to
their own advantage. In the words of Richard Garner of the Independent, “academies
are selecting by stealth by making their admission rules so complex that parents
fail to understand them” (10). A report drafted by the “Centre for High-Performance”
describing the lessons from 160 UK academies on how best to ‘turn around a
failing school’ states bluntly that academies should “exclude poor quality students,
improve admissions” (11).
There are
particular concerns about how academies will support children with SEND, particularly
if Local Authority support services no longer exist as a result of mass academisation.
A joint statement from AEP/ATL/NAHT/NUT/Unison
explains how this would “fragment still further access to local authority support
services, such as support for disabled children and young people and those with
special educational needs, and weaken local co-ordination of education
provision. This is likely to have a particular impact on disadvantaged or
vulnerable children and those with SEND” (12).
In short,
encouraging MATs allows, at best, individual MATs to ‘game’ the admissions system
to their own benefit. At worst, it threatens the future of comprehensive
education in London.
3. Encouraging MATs risks all schools being forced into
academies
“The government will bring forward legislation which
will trigger conversion of all schools within a local authority in two specific
circumstances: firstly, where it is clear that the local authority can no
longer viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools
in that area has converted ... secondly, where the local authority consistently
fails to meet a minimum performance threshold across its schools”
(13).
Under pressure
from the widespread opposition to their White Paper proposals, the Government
has been forced to announce a change in the way they intend to achieve their
goal of full academisation. The Education for All Bill announced in the Queen’s
Speech on 18 May reiterated the Government’s determination to move “towards a
system where every school is an academy” but now its chosen route will be “through
powers to convert schools to academies in under-performing and unviable local authorities”
(14) .
In the light of
these proposals, Local Authorities need to consider carefully what the effect
of encouraging the development of MATs will mean to their ‘viability’. The DfE has not yet spelt out how an
‘unviable authority’ would be defined, although it’s likely to be set in a way
that assists its goal of full academisation by 2022. An initial analysis by the
Think Tank ‘Centre Forum’ shows that if the threshold for ‘viability’ was set
as being 60 per cent of pupils remaining in Local Authority schools, then more
than half of the total number of LAs would be declared ‘unviable’ already (15)
.
So, under the
latest Government proposals, even a small amount of additional academisation
could see the whole Local Authority being declared as ‘unviable’, meaning every
single one of its schools would be forced into becoming an academy. This would include all of its primary
schools, where a large majority are likely to still be maintained schools. By
encouraging MATs, Councils are not only helping the Government to reach its
goal, they put every one of its schools at risk of conversion.
(13)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-steps-to-spread-educational-excellence-everywhere-announced
4. Encouraging MATs doesn’t avoid budget cuts, it makes
things worse
“There are likely to be significant costs to the
Council in meeting the duty to facilitate the process of converting schools to
academies, at present there is no information that additional funding will be
granted for this” (Tower Hamlets Cabinet Paper May 2016)
(16) .
London schools
already face severe cuts to their budgets under the combined impact of rising
costs, especially for Teachers Pensions and National Insurance contributions,
and the predicted effects of the proposed National Funding Formula. NUT figures
suggest they will mean an overall 12% cut to London school budgets by 2020 but
the cuts could be over 20% in some Inner London boroughs (17).
Firstly, it’s
important that schools considering academisation recognise that academies will
be hit just as hard by these cuts as maintained schools. In fact, without the
‘economies of scale’ available to LAs, academies may well be hit worst of all.
Joining a MAT does not solve the problem.
There’s another
reason why joining a MAT might mean a cut in the resources being spent on
teaching and learning. That’s because there is increasing evidence of a growing
layer of well-paid bureaucracy within academy chains taking resources away from
where they are most needed. As one Headteacher put it in the TES recently,
"we see even smallish multi-academy trusts with chief executives earning
more – sometimes much more – than the prime minister. We see chains employing
small armies of pinstriped executives who talk of standards but rarely set foot
in a classroom to teach a lesson they have prepared themselves” (18)
.
Secondly, any
Local Authority contemplating encouraging MATs needs to recognise that the
legal costs of each academy conversion, and the consequent land transfer that
goes with it, will also use up resources that they won’t have the budget to
meet. The exact shortfall that LAs may face is still being debated but, as
Tower Hamlets warns above, the costs are still likely to be considerable (19).
Surely, instead
of promoting an academisation agenda that will further cut into resources and
only alienate many parents and staff opposed to the Government’s academy plans,
Local Authorities should be working together with communities to defeat the
threatened cuts to school budgets?
5. Why the ‘jump before we are pushed’ argument doesn’t hold
water
“The first job we have as Labour Councillors is to get
the message out that these changes are not inevitable and governing bodies
should not rush to convert”.
(Letter from Leader of LGA Group) (20) .
There can be no
getting away from the fact that supporting schools to become MATs means helping
the Government to succeed in its plans to academise schools . Those damaging
plans are not inevitable and can be defeated. The ‘let’s jump before we are
pushed’ argument must be opposed.
Those who argue that,
by acting first to set up ‘home-grown’ MATs, Local Authorities can somehow protect
themselves from a ‘hostile takeover’, need to look at the legislation. The
truth is that, after conversion, a Local Authority will cease to have any real
influence on the direction a MAT takes and nor will the individual schools
within a MAT. When schools join MATs
they cease to exist as separate legal entities. Decisions are taken centrally
by those who control the MAT - the members (akin to company shareholders) and Trustees
(akin to company Directors). There can be no guarantee that any MAT will act
according to the wishes of the Local Authority.
Even if a local
MAT continues to work cooperatively with the Local Authority, then that
relationship can easily be changed by the intervention of the unelected
Regional Schools Commissioner. Even if the RSC were to approve a local schools
MAT in the first instance, schools can be removed and 'rebrokered' with an
external sponsor (21). The White Paper states clearly that ‘at the
heart of [our] approach will be supporting the strongest schools and sponsors
to expand their reach’ (22). In other words, small ‘home-grown’ MATs
could quickly become part of much larger academy chains.
Once in a MAT,
there is no going back and a school has no protection against what may happen
to it in the future. Its best protection lies in remaining maintained and
working within the local family of schools with the Local Authority brokering
support where required.
(22) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence-everywhere
(see page 19)
6. MATs leave parents and communities without a say in
education
“We will expect all governing boards to focus on
seeking people with the right skills for governance, and so we will no longer
require academy trusts to reserve places for elected parents on governing
boards”. ( ‘Educational, Excellence, Everywhere’, page 51 )
The White Paper
is absolutely clear that there will be no requirement on Multi Academy Trusts
to include parent governors, far less staff governors representing its
workforce. In fact, Trustees do not even have to decide to establish local
governing bodies within their constituent schools at all. The E-ACT academy
chain has just announced that they will be abolishing local governing bodies in
favour of one single central governing body covering all of the chain’s schools
(23). Where they do establish school governing bodies, it is for the
Trustees to decide what powers, if any, to delegate.
Elected parent
and LA appointed governors sit on the governing body of all community schools
and can take up parents’ concerns. Councillors themselves can be lobbied and,
in the final analysis, voted out of office. Encouraging MATs means removing
that local democratic accountability.
7. Schools need to work in partnership – but MATs don’t
provide it
“The evidence that the London Challenge was a
successful approach to school improvement is overwhelming. It was also
comparatively cheap; over three years the funding for City Challenge was £160
million, considerably cheaper than the £8.5 billion reportedly spent on the
academies’ programme over two years” ( Professor Merryn Hutchings) (24) .
One argument
being put forward for encouraging MATs is that it will encourage schools to
work in partnership, particularly now Local Authorities are to lose both the
funding and responsibility to support school improvement. However, for the
reasons described above, MATs are no guarantee that schools will work together
across an Authority for the benefit of all. Instead, MATs will be driven by
their own interests in the competitive environment created by Government
policy, particularly with the pressure of new ‘MAT performance tables’ (see
Chapter 7 of the White Paper).
There are many
other models that could be explored for creating genuine partnership, and a
number of London Authorities are looking at various approaches. However, any
such approach does not require encouraging Multi Academy Trusts. Instead, Local
Authorities should focus on cost-effective and proven school improvement
initiatives, such as local partnerships and federations or larger scale
interventions such as the successful London Challenge programme. Significantly,
a 2014 National Audit Office report, Academies and maintained schools:
Oversight and intervention (25) found informal interventions such as
local support were more effective than academy conversion.
The NUT has
produced its own evidence into successful partnership working which was
submitted to the Education Committee Inquiry into School Partnerships and
Cooperation in 2013. It concluded that “the most successful partnerships
involve all the key partners in education and characterised by a bottom-up
approach to developing the real collaborative arrangements that are most suited
to the local context. The most successful school partnerships are driven at a
local level, are flexible, involve all local schools, engage the whole
community around a shared vision, provide support and challenge without
stigmatising weaker schools, work with families of schools, involve a degree of
experimentation, develop organically according to local need and circumstance
and are based on the notion of trust in teachers and school leaders”. Any such
partnerships must be built inclusively.
8. Encouraging MATs ignores the real priorities like
teacher shortages
“The plans are indicative of a Government with the
wrong priorities for education. The proposals in the white paper will do
nothing to address - and may in fact worsen - teacher shortages, a lack of school
places in many parts of the country, chaos over curriculum and assessment
changes and funding pressures in schools
and colleges” (NUT Model Council Motion for Local Authorities) (26)
.
The White Paper
completely ignores the real issues facing education; in fact it will make them
worse. The same will be true if Local Authorities pursue the development of
Multi Academy Trusts instead of concentrating on the real issues, not least
teacher shortages in London.
Increased
academisation is a direct threat to the national pay and conditions of teachers
and other school staff. By encouraging MATs in their area, Local Authorities
will only be accelerating that break-up of national conditions. They are also
likely to make their schools a less attractive prospect for teachers to seek
employment than other authorities who are not pursuing such academisation.
9. Councils should not have to rely on MATs for new school
places
“The Government’s academy and free school policy has
prevented councils from opening local authority schools where they are most
needed. We call on the next Mayor and London Assembly to champion local
councils regaining the power and the funding to open new schools” (from the
NUT’s ‘London Manifesto’ 2016) (27).
There is no doubt
that Local Authorities across London face significant difficulties in meeting
the demand for new school places. Without the power to open new community schools
themselves, some of the arguments in favour of setting up MATs are undoubtedly
linked to the idea that these MATs could then be used as vehicles to allow the
opening of new free schools in their authorities.
However, the NUT
believes that this would be a very short-sighted policy. For all the reasons outlined above, Local
Authorities should resist the Government’s attempts to be bullied into
accepting a ‘Free School’ academy as the only way to provide funding for new
school places. Not only is this damaging to education as a whole, it also
accepts the Government agenda that sub-standard accommodation can be used for
education. As the New Schools Network explains, “one of the aims of the policy
is to deliver better value for money in education by providing innovative
solutions to the challenge of finding new school premises. Already, Free
Schools have been opened in former hospitals, office buildings, job centres,
church halls and other types of buildings” (28). Instead, the
campaign needs to be stepped-up for Local Authorities to have both the power
and the funding to open new schools, as demanded by the NUT in our London
Manifesto.
10.
Encouraging MATs
will alienate parents and school staff
Finally, Local
Authorities need to consider the strength of opposition to the White Paper,
opposition which has already mean that Nicky Morgan has had to rethink her
plans. A political choice can be made to lead that opposition, linking with
parents, staff, unions and the wider community in opposing forced academisation
and demanding that the resources are provided to genuinely meet needs. The
alternative of encouraging MATs will only alienate parents and school staff and
see the Local Authority being seen as agents of damaging Government policies.
The choice is surely clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment