Academisation in England: Pass or Fail?

Add a comment

By Boyan Kostadinov (BSc Economics And Finance With A Placement Year)

[This essay was written for the Government, Welfare and Policy third-year undergraduate module. Students were tasked with writing a blog-style essay on a topic linked to a group poster project. Topics were chosen by students and reflect their own interests. The essay gave them experience of writing content in an engaging style for a non-expert audience. What you see below is one of this year’s top-marked blog-style essays. Christa Brunnschweiler]

What is education?

Education has been recorded as a human right in international law since 1948.1 To the individual, it provides knowledge, purpose, and improvement. But beyond personal development, education plays a key role to an economy – using attained qualifications to signpost the skills an individual possesses.2 In today’s context, the need for a strong British education system has never been greater. With remarkable technological advancements and demographic declines in birth rates, it is paramount the UK education sector prepares its youth adequately for tomorrow. This has left education unanimously valued but difficult to evaluate, making it incredibly contentious amongst policymakers – no more so than academisation in England.

But first, key legislation reforms before academisation – In 1944 the Education Act initiated a national system of primary and secondary education, embracing schools under the supervision of ‘local authorities’ (LAs) responsible for their maintenance. The big paradigm shifts then commenced under the Education Reform Act in 1988, moving control away from LAs and upwards to the Secretary of State. However, the Acts purpose was not primarily structural, it was motivated by a national curriculum that is easy to assess – driving up standards.3

However, LAs still had too big a slice of the pie, triggering the failure of schools from deprived areas. This is because LAs controlled the distribution of resources to schools within their region. Therefore, more affluent catchments had greater access for the funding of a ‘good education’, creating a disparity between the rich and the poor – driving inequality in educational opportunities.4 Moreover, without full autonomy, the LAs cannot act in the best interest of their students. This limited schools capabilities in innovation to improve quality of education, leading to inefficiencies within the system.

Here came academisation – The Learning and Skills Act in 2000 was the governments solution to revive educational standards and opportunities, particularly in disadvantaged areas and schools of poor educational performance.5 This intervention consisted of two separate waves and was implemented by two separate governments. The focal point of both waves was converting schools into academies, in attempt to improve educational outcomes.

But what is an Academy? The government would describe academies as independent state-funded schools. The key difference is funding flows directly from central government, instead of being distributed by local authorities. Primary, secondary, as well as special needs schools all have the ability to be remodelled into academies. Most importantly, an academy enables schools to have more freedom over; how their money is spent, how much to pay teachers, school hours and curriculum.6

Wave 1: Teachers had lost control over corridors

Academies made their first appearance under Tony Blairs Labour government in the early 2000s. This programme was constructed on the strong concerns that LAs were failing pupils in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.7 A solution was then championed from Lord Adonis, the labour education secretary, with the idea of remodelling struggling schools into “sponsored” academies.8 Academy conversion would see private businesses or charities sponsor failing schools, in return taking over management and contributing to the cost of capital. Initial intervention had general positive effects:

  • Pupils from academies scored better in their GCSE than schools who had not converted. With the largest gains found in students who had spent four years at an academy. These gains were equivalent to a child’s eight best grades at GCSE leaping from eight Cs to seven Bs and one C.9
  • Academy conversion also had positive spill over effects in attracting better educated pupils from primary schools. Results found during the year of a schools conversion the new year 7 intake would achieve higher average test scores.10 This can be perceived as a positive externality, as academies are attracting better educated pupils from schools not targeted in the intervention.
  • Academies opened doors for pupils pursuing tertiary education. Academies open for four or more years boosted attendance to non-Russell group universities by 30%.11

But what is behind academies success? The short answer is more money and more freedom. Converted schools are eligible for lucrative grants alongside contributions to capital costs from “sponsors”. The ability to access a larger pot of funding, in collaboration with more autonomy, has allowed schools to make gains in allocative efficiency.5 This is due to a firmer control over funds, allowing resources to be allocated to their most efficient needs. For example, academies can invest in areas that have fallen behind and push boundaries with technological advancements. In comparison to having a one-size-fits-all approach from LAs providing needless resources and depleting an already restricted source of finance.

Furthermore, cutting ties with LAs has allowed academies to gain control over staff management. The ability to negotiate your contracts presents the opportunity to create high-income job roles. The first wave of the academisation programme saw head teachers’ salaries rise between £18,000 and £32,000 more than the £74,000 average for local authority schools.12 The offering of lucrative wages, in comparison to competitors, attracted experienced and top-talented teachers capable of improving the quality of education.

Overall, wave 1 was a success in achieving education’s primary objective – improved educational outcomes. This is because schools improved efficiencies whilst rehabilitating school systems in low-income areas, striding towards equity. Therefore, this presented a no-brainer for further intervention on a mass scale.

Wave 2: Race to the bottom

Following the 2010 general election, the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition pushed the academisation programme into overdrive. At the time of speaking the UK now has over 10,264 academies, making up close to 45% of all schools in England.13 This rampant growth was due to the Academies Act 2010, which forced ‘coasting’ primary and secondary schools into mandatory conversion. Furthermore, it allowed the opportunity for ‘outstanding’ schools to sever ties with local authorities and convert.14 However, the context of wave 1 was one in a couple of hundred significantly underperforming secondary schools converted into academies. It does not necessarily follow that these positive effects can be extended to better-performing schools.15 Therefore, the government’s ambitious attempt to generalise results from a small sample to the whole population revealed many issues associated with academisation.

Lack of accountability – There are no longer requirements for academies to include parent representatives on the ‘local’ governing bodies, in fact, some have abolished local bodies altogether.16 This has led to more asymmetrical information as the needs of parents are not considered, as well as scrutiny from LAs. A House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report stated “Parents and local people have to fight to obtain even basic information about their children’s schools,” portraying the lack of transparency in how decisions are being made.17

Degrading school workforce – In attempt to attract top-quality teaching staff, the academies programme allowed schools to have full autonomy over staff management. However, a 2019 study published in the British Journal of Sociology Education confirmed academies with pupils from poorer backgrounds are hiring more unqualified teachers. 18 This has further aggravated inequality within education, as reduced access to proficient staff exuberates educational outcomes, especially in low-income areas.

‘Outrageous’ staff pay gap – The Department for Education data for 2021/22 confirmed classroom teachers in primary and secondary academies earned £1,300 less than their LA school counterparts.19 However, CEOs of Multi academy trusts, a group of academies under the same framework, were being paid lucrative six figure salaries.20 Therefore, schools that allocate significant portions of funding to salary costs, are finding themselves allocatively inefficient.21 This is because funds are being misallocated to the top of the hierarchy rather than funding resources, programmes, or classroom teachers that directly benefit educational outcomes.

So, has Academisation passed?

In short wave 2 has led academies astray, failing their instrumental objectives of equity and efficiency for the education system. The involvement of private organisations, masked as “sponsors”, rebranded schools as businesses. This caused inefficiencies, as CEOs would cash in large cheques whilst cutting corners for pupils, hiring unqualified teaching staff. Furthermore, educational inequality has widened with academies cherry picking the best individuals to improve their schools academic outlook.22 Overall, education is a public good, and private sector involvement is skewing its objectives or principles. It is provided for a purpose, and in the case of sponsored academies, there can often be detriment to the goal of national education.

How can we rectify the situation?

Reintroduce transparency – There is a clear demand for more transparency concerning the governance of academies. A short-term policy would aim at restoring the requirement for parental, teacher, and community involvement. A framework as such can be more or less insistent for each area, as considered fitting to their social class. The encouragement of accountability for the community will help prevent conflicts of interest and abuses of power, ensuring resources are allocated to their most optimum use.23

Addressing fragmentation – Academy relationships with LAs must be restored. A long-term policy would allow academies to operate with LAs alternative to the Secretary of State. In return, this will reduce the centralisation of power that has occurred, instead empowering LAs to democratic oversight.24 These fundamental changes to the framework would restore fairness and inclusion in the provision of education, reversing the harmful effects of academisation.25 Therefore, rebuilding bridges with LAs can enable effective local planning for the provision of high-quality educational services. This will ensure efficiencies are realised in procurement, and the standards of provision are being monitored.

References:

Banner Image by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

Leave a Reply