Academy Status: the Dangers

We often reflect on how academies have more cash (at least in the short term) and general advantages than their LA-maintained neighbours. But there are inherent and real dangers of academy status, and systems are being put in place that could in extreme circumstances jeopardise their existence.

1. They are all companies, accountable to Companies House and have to remain solvent in trading terms to continue to survive. There has already been some discussion in the media about how the DfE plugged about £8 million in various academies’ annual accounts last year to keep them on a sure footing. But imagine the situation when about 2,000 schools are academies (and upwards of this figure), and quite a lot of them are having financial difficulties. That level of shoring up of accounts becomes unsustainable. In the short term there would be more takeovers by academy chains, to be sure, but in the long term?

2. They all have a direct relationship with the DfE with no local body to protect their interests. I noted recently in the model pro forma financial statements, given out as guidance on financial management to academies by the audit firm RSM Tenon, that the “principal risk and uncertainty” is “government funding”, ie that each academy is ultimately publicly funded. As the document states, “There is no assurance that government policy or practice will remain the same or that public funding will continue at the same levels or on the same terms”. It recommends that this risk is to be mitigated in one or more of three ways:

• by “ensuring funding is derived through a number of direct and indirect contractual arrangements” (opportunities encouraged to engage in non-core [to each school and its pupils] educational activities in order to raise cash?? Teaching schools are a prime example.)
• by “ensuring the academy is rigorous in delivering high quality education and training” (Clear incentive to raise standards [by whatever means?] or face takeover or the chop. NB: FE sector: , beware over mention of “training”—looks like schools will have to begin to encroach on classic FE territory in order to keep the head out of the water)
• by putting “considerable focus and investment on maintaining key relationships with the YPLA” (encouraging a “crony culture” with the funding agency as a way of getting preferential treatment)

I think that what convertor academies have failed to realize in their race for the cash on offer and “independence”, is that having a one-to-one with the DfE may not be as cosy, preferential or safe as was anticipated. It will be quite a hard existence—simply because they are companies which can fail–and one that is bound to detract from the core mission of schools, which is education.

3. How long before the first major law suit against an academy, particularly now that there is no opportunity to appeal to the LA (or very soon the local ombudsman) when someone has a complaint? Imagine a powerful, well resourced, parent incensed by a decision made by the school and unable to seek meaningful redress without having to march to Whitehall. That distance could create the fertile ground that could push a parent to go to the law. Any law suit could put a disproportionate strain on a school’s budget and take up valuable time on the part of the SMT—all to the detriment of the school’s core mission and purpose.

4. The amount of “red tape” that an academy has to endure is quite extraordinary, and the Finance Director (not “business manager” or “bursar”, please note, as a finance director is absolutely required by an academy in order to stay afloat) has a tough role navigating his/her way through it. This is in marked contrast to DfE rhetoric about the benefits of autonomy. For example, an external audit of each company (ie academy), is required annually by the Companies Act 2006 (cost, circa £8,000 per year for a large secondary school). This includes a regulatory audit that has to be carried out to ensure probity, as public money is being spent. I recently was at a conference where a headteacher got quite a shock on being informed of this piece of “red tape” for the first time. He had been intending to dole out pay-offs to teachers to get rid of them, but was informed that this would count as an inappropriate use of resources and would not be allowed. Thus, there is still no easy way even for academies to get rid of under-performing teachers. This, obviously, is a problem for every school. But for an academy, it might affect their chances of becoming good/outstanding and thereby withstanding the onslaught of predatory chains……

There is a lot, lot more to be uncovered about academy status, and it is no way as attractive as it possibly appears superficially. So far there are about 1,300 academies, with that number growing. The problem is that the black hole at the DfE is growing as well. Peter Downes, a school funding expert and Camdridgeshire county councilor, has estimated that so far, since the coalition was formed, academies have cost £1 billion to set up, which is why some £450 million is being top-sliced from Local Authority budgets to pay for it (still leaving a giant gap). It seems inconceivable that the academy road-train can continue, as it is simply costing us too much and is unsustainable to roll it out to the other 22,500 or so.

So what will happen? It ‘s not beyond belief that these academies will become like miniature 2-D figures on a giant World War II-style horizontal map standing at DfE HQ, with government ministers and civil servants pushing them around to work out which ones can go, which can be taken over and which can be in the vanguard. There will be winners and losers, and it may make headteachers rue the day that they did not stand together and have faith in a local layer that could take much of the strain of the non-pedagogical, non-core activities off schools’ backs. It might sound dramatic now, but let’s just give it a few years.

The “acceptable” version of Academies

It has always stuck me that if the Government is: intent on academies being the norm and greater independence and freedoms for schools, yet wants schools to collaborate, so that higher performing schools buddy up with lower performing schools (though this was not actually made a legal requirement in the Academies Bill); and at the same time wants local people to have more say and involvement in how services are delivered in their area (cf the Localism Bill and the ideas behind the Big Society), then to have decided that the best way of delivering all this is to have academies set up as individual companies, accountable to Companies House, is completely anti-democratic and bonkers.

If government rhetoric about mutualism and “all being in this together” is to be taken at face value, then a model for academies exists already that ticks absolutely all the boxes and could even become acceptable to people who still look back and advocate total LA “control” of state-funded schools. And what’s more, canny heads and chairs of governors are already working to make this model the fastest growing schools network in England. It is the Co-op Trust School or more recently (since Trust Schools fell from favour) the Co-op Academy model.

I wrote about the benefits and attraction of Co-op Trust Schools for CASEnotes in April 2009 (http://www.campaignforstateeducation.org.uk/CASENotes30%20-%20April%202009.pdf). And Warwick Mansell has recently written for Education Guardian about the advantages of Co-op Schools, describing them as ‘the antidote to academies’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/15/cooperative-schools-antidote-academies-independent) .

Very recently, I attended a Leeds City Council session run on the advantages of setting up council services on a co-operative model. A gentleman there had recently come back from completing a case study of Mondragon in Spain. He described how co-ops work in groups (similar to the idea of academy chains, though with very different governance structures and models of ownership) so that they pool expertise and (in the case of commercial ventures) profits. The main reason they do this is so they can help each other in adversity and to uphold the principle of solidarity. He reported that “The principle of solidarity is more important in co-operatives than under capitalist arrangements –which is to let a company collapse.”

It strikes me that there will be may schools “collapsing” over the next few years as more schools convert to academy status and free schools abound. I find this unacceptable as it may well jeopardize whole groups of children’s life chances. The corporate model that academies are forced to adopt does nothing to address this issue and there will be no necessary solidarity extended from one school to another as competition in many places bites and schools are left to wither on the vine.

How easy would it have been, with just a bit of joined up thinking and with a model already out there, to put forward a co-operative model for all schools that adopt academy status? But I suppose that assumes that Gove really does want the best for all children, and not just some. That may be stretching credibility just a bit too far.

Claiming the Centre Ground

As (at least) one Lib Dem member commented after the local council elections, “the only way is up” from now on. But to win back support and indeed increase our base we need to refocus. It is right that we should be emphasising our distinctiveness in the coalition, but we need to do a lot more. We need to clearly articulate what we stand for, and communicate it relentlessly to the electorate. In the same way that the more tribal parties will repeat over and over again the same phrase so that people end up parroting them (regardless of whether, in their case, they are actually true), we need to adopt a similar approach so that people clearly know what they are voting for when they vote Lib Dem. It is about creating a clear brand. It is no longer enough to be the party of protest.

We need to recognise that we have been the party of protest for a long time. What can we learn from this?

Lots of the electorate who actually vote (and bear in mind that of those who are actually registered to vote, 35 % chose not to exercise that right in 2010) did not vote Tory or Labour last time–I think it was about 57% of actual voters chose Tory or Labour. This was the lowest percentage ever for either of the two main parties. If this lack of faith in the two main parties persists (and it probably will as their polarised ideologies are increasingly irrelevant in the modern world), coalitions are more likely, or we could be subject to the very unpalatable circumstance of even less people voting and a party being able to form a majority government with what is a tiny share of the overall electorate. I think we can be reasonably confident that there has been (and we must not let this tide reverse) a growing unease and lack of faith in the two main parties, and that a credible third party is essential. We are that party.
The fact that we have – after our disastrous showing in May – a core support level of maybe 15%, shows that we cannot only be a party of protest. So we have to build on this 15% over the next three years by clearly articulating what being a centrist party means. We have to point out what a different party we are in every way:
our democratically determined, detailed and well articulated policies (sensible and evidence-based vs. ideological and dogma-based)
the way we transact both party business and local/national politics (democratic vs. autocractic; empowering vs. creating dependency (Labour) or semi-feudal (Conservative)
people-focussed, not party-focussed. The clearest example of this recently is our concern over voting reform (though clearly our concerns as Lib Dems were never articulated accurately in the media in particular) : us (democratic) wanting to give people more voice, them (tribal) wanting to ensure their own survival. Also lots of examples from local politics, that we do not shout loudly about enough.
progressive – truly progressive – in a way that Labour cannot claim anymore and the Tories have no real interest in anyway
Given we have a core supporter base and those 15% know they are not Tory and not Labour, we need to communicate what makes us Lib Dem and what being centrist means in broad policy terms (eg what does “centrist” mean for education, NHS, defence, etc?). Increasingly we have seen both the Tories and Labour appeal to the middle, centre ground in order to get elected. They know that their appeal is running thin and they need to modernise, though they still have a core tribal vote that can get them elected. But there are concerns within each party–I suspect–that demographically speaking the clock is ticking as their tribal vote literally dies (look, also, at the massive fall in political party membership). Thus it is essential that this vital centre ground is not claimed by either party and that we not only cling on to it, but articulate it, communicate it and enlarge it.

We are a broad church, just as the other parties are, but we display this a bit too much in public, in a way that the others do not. Developing and sticking to our commonly agreed “centrist” identity will be key going forward in being able to enlist and cement support.

Can I suggest that the branding exercise commences immediately? There truly has never been a better or more urgent time to do it.

How do the Proposed Housing Benefit Reforms fit into the Bigger Picture?

There is much to concern us Liberal Democrats in the reforms suggested to housing benefits, particularly with reference to the potential ‘zoning’ of populations and communities according to socio-economic group.  Whilst this happens to some extent at the moment just as a by-product, as it were, of the sheer vagaries of the market, this reform seems to possess an actual intent to exclude those on lower incomes (whether in work or not) from having any foothold in more affluent areas.

 

We have seen the rise of gated communities within our own country and abroad, attesting to a growing divide between rich and poor that shows quite clearly that richer people shun and have security issues with those who are less well-off and, in many cases, just less lucky than themselves.  Sao Paulo in Brazil shows this in stark relief as can be attested to by the increase in helipads over the past few years.  These now number some 420 across the larger urban area and ensure that the better-off need not even pass through poorer communities by terrestrial means.  They can simply drop in now on favoured shopping areas and residential zones, thereby avoiding the traffic and maintaining a deliberate state of oblivion of fellow citizens’ circumstances and needs.

 

If David Cameron’s Big Society is to gain any traction and credibility, it is surely a certainty that it needs to work and be shown to work in communities that contain families on different levels of income cooperating for mutually beneficial outcomes.  Many rural communities provide good working examples of families on different incomes living in close proximity to each other, and cooperating as volunteers to vouchsafe community facilities and practices.  Now, one could argue that this arises out of need, as rural communities have no choice but to cooperate to get the level of services they require.  Nevertheless, it works, and could form a useful model.

 

But if we deliberately create conditions where the less well off have to vacate whole affluent urban areas, and even, as some have predicted, whole regions of the country, by creating zoned areas of wealth, you may have created a means of propagation for the Big Society to take root, but in a highly cynical way.  That is, people only helping each other because they have shared cultural references and broadly similar aspirations.  You could call it the “you’re one of us” version of the Big Society.

 

If the Big Society is to take off it has to embrace the bigger picture.  It needs to find its roots in whole, mixed-income communities, where empowered citizens cooperate to ensure beneficial outcomes for all.   It’s difficult to see how the same Government that seems intent on these housing benefit reforms can also sincerely advocate the Big Socie

 

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!