6 Myths About The Academisation Process – And Why They’re Wrong
Solicitor Kim Freeman-Smith attempts to set the record straight on what she sees as some persistent myths regarding academisation…
As the government pushes for schools to convert into academies, the issue of whether state schools should be funded directly from central government rather than local authorities continues to be widely debated.
After a school converts into an academy, the operation of the school is controlled by the headteacher and school business managers, overseen by the school governors or academy trustees. Academies don’t have to follow the national curriculum and can set their own term times, but still have to follow the same rules on admissions, SEN and exclusions that apply to local authority schools.
Some teachers and parents have expressed concerns over academies in relation to their accountability, the sense of creeping privatisation and their impact on pupils – but many of these concerns involve misconceptions about the academy process and the potential advantages of academisation.
Here, we’ve taken a look at the six biggest myths surrounding the academisation process…
Myth 1 – Academies are run for profit and local communities don’t get a say
Academies are free, state-funded schools and cannot be run for profit. Charity law presently prevents the creation of profit-making schools, and there are strict rules in place designed to prevent individuals and companies from profiting from their interest in an academy.
Academy headteachers and governing bodies hold direct relationships with pupils’ parents and have the power to be much more involved with their communities. If a parent wants to change something in a non-academy school, they will have to persuade the whole LA to act. In contrast, parents simply need to contact an academy school directly if they have an issue, after which the school itself can decide on whether to act on the parent’s feedback.
Myth 2 – The changes involved in academisation have a negative effect on pupils
When a well-performing school converts to an academy, this does not mean that the school has to change its teaching practices or headteacher. Since academy schools don’t have to follow the national curriculum, an academy will have more freedom to choose what their pupils learn. Students may be offered a different range of subjects or different lesson plans to previous years, but all academies are still required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum that includes English, Maths and Science. Any changes to lessons or subjects will be done to suit the school’s learning needs and to help improve results for its pupils.
Academies are also required to meet certain requirements set by the Department for Education and still have their results published in performance tables, so it’s unlikely that students will see any changes that negatively affect their school experience.
A 2014 survey conducted by the DfE [PDF] looked at how academies used their autonomy, and found that 55% of academies changed their curriculum, 8% changed the length of their school day and 4% changed their school term dates. 22% of secondary school academies introduced new subjects including Computer Science, Psychology, Engineering and Photography.
Myth 3 – The school’s relationship with local authorities will be negatively affected
Academies should find that the relationship with their LA remains positive. LAs are still responsible for ensuring that all children in its area receive a good education, and schools can still work closely with their LA – but decisions about the school itself will instead be driven by the academy senior management team deciding what works best for their particular school.
Myth 4 – Academies aren’t transparent
Academies are actually held more accountable for their results that local-authority schools. The office of Schools Commissioners Group was established in 2014 in order to oversee performance of academies and free schools, and to intervene in cases of underperformance. The performance of every school in the country is further monitored by Ofsted and clearly shown on the regulator’s own website, as well as in the DfE’s aforementioned performance tables.
With regard to funding, the Education Funding Agency currently ensures that all academies sign a funding agreement to make sure that any spending is in the interests of the school’s pupils.
Myth 5 – Converting a school into an academy means that the government has less incentive to improve education standards
The Government’s stated aim in its drive for academisation is to improve education standards. The question of whether it is working is complex, as can be seen from research published earlier this month by the Education Policy Institute [PDF], which found that both under-performing and outstanding schools that converted saw improvements post-conversion, but that for other schools, the outcome was less clear.
It is central government, in the form of the DfE and through Regional Schools Commissioners, that bears responsibility for the performance of academy schools. With academisation being a such flagship policy of the Conservative government – albeit prior to the the recent changes we’ve had in Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education – it seems determined to make it work, having announced in the most recent Budget that:
• The budgets of schools will be protected in real terms (the value will be adjusted to take inflation into account) • There will be a £23 billion capital investment to open 500 free schools • 600,000 additional school places will be provided • Over 500 schools will be rebuilt and refurbished, with their essential maintenance all addressed.
So, while those running academies do so with more freedom, the message from central government is that it remains committed to improving education standards for all schools.
Myth 6 – Academies aren’t accountable to parents
Academy trust boards are able to appoint governors as they see fit – but the government has reassured parents that they will still be welcome on governing boards. The difference is that academies have now been encouraged to move away from a model where parents are elected or appointed to boards for the purposes of representation.
Instead, they are to be chosen for their skills and expertise, just like other governors – the purpose of the governing body being to expertly oversee the academy’s management and operation, and to lead the school’s strategic direction.
There is also an expectation on each academy to put in place arrangements that ensure parents are fully engaged with the school, and that their feedback is regularly considered.
Kim Freeman-Smith is a Senior Solicitor at berg – a law firm that works closely with the education sector and assists schools embarking on the conversion to academies. A step-by-step guide to the conversion process produced by the firm can be found here
For more information, follow @berg_tweets
