Ditching of Schools Bill welcomed - let's concentrate on teaching, learning and pupil wellbeing

 The announcement by the Government that the Schools Bill is not to proceed is very welcome. It appeared that apart from concentrating on all the current issues in education, including pupil menetal health, that schools would have been diverted by the government's intention that they should all join or form multi-academy trusts.  This would have taken up much time and energy and remove schools further from local democrartic accountability.

Commenting on the Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan’s announcement during the Education Select Committee that the Schools Bill will not be going ahead, Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, said:

 

The fact that the Schools Bill will not progress through Parliament is a relief as it has been widely discredited. The Bill focused on the wrong priorities, if we want school improvement or educational quality and the Government must accept that maintained schools are here to stay.

 

The NEU successfully disputed the evidence that the Government produced with its case for forcing every school to join a trust. The NEU’s challenge to the DFE data was supported by the Office for Statistics Regulation*. The Bill did not address the pressing challenges which both maintained schools and academy schools face. The urgent challenges are recruitment and retention of teachers, school funding, pay, and the unequal learning gaps created by Covid.

 

The Bill missed the opportunity to resolve the problems created through the fragmentation if the system, such as the lack of voice and choice for schools after they have joined a Trust. This is the second time the DFE have been prevented from trying to over-rule local communities en masse and lever forced conversions on them. As a result of the abandonment of this misguided Bill, leaders and schools can focus on collaboration, retaining staff and outcomes for their students, rather than structures and DFE dogma. Voluntary aided and community schools do not have to convert to academy status. Single-academy trust schools do not need to join a multi-academy trust. Multi-academy trusts do not have to grow to contain a magic number of schools directed by DFE.

 

The Government must recognise that structural change is not what schools and communities want and should also back away from the counter-productive pressure which it is putting on schools, predominantly those in poorer communities.

 

Parents and local councillors want an education system which is well-funded, responsive to local needs and which works for their local context, without pressure to join a mega-trust. Now that it has dropped the Schools Bill, Government has the opportunity to focus on the actual priorities and the real challenges around modernising assessment, identifying funding and addressing teacher retention.

 

Vix Lowthian, Green Party spokesperson on education and herself a secondary school teachers said:

 

 Great news that the much misguided Schools Bill has been dropped. It was badly informed and full of discredited views. But - what next for education? The current system - poor funding, huge pressures on staff and students, lack of SEND support - is letting everyone down.

Governors urged not to panic over government academisation policy: 'seize the agenda and be collectively creative'

Gail Tolley, Strategic Director of Brent Children and Young People, advised governors at this weeks Governors Conference, not to be panicked into action on the Government's aim to convert all schools to academy status.

She said:

There is no time pressure for schools to panic themselves into action - you have the opportunity to pause and reflect on what action to take.

The immediate time pressure disappeared when the Government backed down in the face of opposition from Tory MPs and Tory shire counties.  Academisation of all schools remains a long-term objective but the legislative timetable is unclear ion the light of recent events.

The Government retains the policy of  triggering mass academisation in local authorities which are deemed to be failing or where the number of academies has reached a tipping point where there are so many academies that LA management of the remaining LA schools is not viable.

Brent is not a designated 'Achieving Excellence Area' (newspeak for failing) nor are there a majority of academies across the borough.  93% of Brent primary schools are deemed Good or better by Ofsted (91% of Brent schools overall).  12 out of 23 Brent academies and free schools are part of a Multi Academy Trust.  86% of Brent primary schools and 17% of secondary schools remain with the LA.

The Senior HMI in Brent has told Ms Tolley that Brent is now a 'light touch' local authority and meetings with the HMI will now take place on an annual, rather than termly, basis.

However the local authority will come under pressure financially due to the changesin the National Funding Formula LINK and the phasing out of the £3m Education Services Grant.  There may also be reductions due to the loss of European funding.

The local authority will retain core responsibilities:

• school places, admissions, school transport, emergency planning
• vulnerable children, special educational needs and disabilities, attendance, exclusion, safeguarding, looked after children
• acting as a champion for parents

The collaborative BSP (Brent Schools Partnership), run on a school subscription basis, will undertake more education and training and school improvement functions. LINK Its Strategic Director, Farzana Aldridge, told the conference that most Brent schools, whether LA, voluntary, academies or free schools, were now part of the Partnership.  They had offered 'neutral' information sessions on academisation.

In discussion it appeared that various options were on the table including the LA itself, or perhaps  the BSP, setting up multi-academy trusts of Brent schools.

The role of the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) came under some scrutiny. Our RSC is responsible for a large chuck of London and large areas of the South East outside London. They have powers to convert schools deemed failing to academy status and can over-rule the local authority. The RSC capacity to intervene with particular schools at a detailed level is extremely limited.

A new provision is that the LA and governing bodies now have a statutory duty to assist the academisation process in these circumstances.

A further change which has not received much publicity is that LAs will have to comply with a request by the Secretary of State to transfer its land (not just 'education' land) to the SoS for free school or academy use.  This involves a major loss of local public land to the government. Currently the land is leased to the free school or academy at a peppercorn rent for a 125 year lease.

The question for me is whether the LA can survive the forthcoming financial cuts sufficiently to maintain the borough's current success in its oversight of schools and thus avoid a 'failing local authority' designation leading to forced academisation.

Gail Tolley remained optimistic telling governors they had the opportunity to 'seize the agenda' and be 'collectively creative and make a focused response.'

She emphasised that it was extremely important for governors to respond to the second round of consultation on the National Funding Formula - this is clearly vital given the potential impact of cuts.

Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray, the new lead member for Children and Young People, did  not intervene on any matters of detail but told governors that the voice of parents and governors was important. She asked. 'What do you do with failing academies?*' and said that the government should concentrate on 'running the country - not running our schools.'

* The answer is hand them over to another academy trust. They are not allowed to revert to LA status.

'Significant risks' attached to academy accounts warns National Audit Office

From the Local Schools Network LINK by Janet Downs

The National Audit Office has warned of ‘significant’ risks attached to academy accounts in a letter to auditors LINK. These include:

CAPITAL RISKS

1    The expansion of the capital programme in 2014/15 involves different ways of acquiring land such as buying freeholds or leasing.

2    There’s a risk these ‘ownership arrangements’ aren’t identified correctly and are included in the wrong accounts.

OTHER MATTERS

There is an ‘inherent risk’ of ‘material or systematic irregularity’ across the whole academies sector because of the ‘number and variety of providers’. The NAO is particularly concerned that:

1    Academy trusts don’t always seek approval from the Education Secretary for transactions which trusts aren’t delegated to make.

2    Related-party transactions might not be ‘arms-length’ or ‘at cost’.

3    Fraud or misuse of funds, especially at ‘trust level’ in Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), could take place.

4    Academies with long-standing deficits could become insolvent.

The NAO has listed factors which it wants academy auditors to consider when identifying whether there is a ‘risk of irregularity’. These include:

1    Heads ‘using academy funds for personal gain’.

2    ‘Inappropriate expense claims’ for staff or trustees.

3    ‘Unjustified salary increases’.

4    Weak controls at trust level over activities of individual academies within MATs.

5    Transactions which breach the Academies Financial Handbook.

6    Weaknesses in procurement (including employment or related-party transactions).

The letter to auditors asks them to notify the NAO if they identify ‘significant risks of material misstatement’ in academy accounts.

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS

The number of academy trusts, MATs and sponsors is continues to rise. And Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has pleaded with businesses to run academies. But the NAO already has significant concerns about risks linked to the present ‘number and variety’ of providers.

It appears these serious misgivings are not enough to prompt a rethink. On the contrary, the Education and Adoption Bill will make it easier for the Government to push forward academy conversion. This is despite an earlier NAO report finding formal methods such as academy conversion were less effective in improving struggling schools than informal methods such as local support. And an even earlier NAO report (2010) which warned about potential conflicts of interests between sponsors and their academies.