This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/27/academies-conservatives-schools-tory-dogma-observer-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Observer view on the expansion of academies The Observer view on the expansion of academies
(5 months later)
Since the opening of the first academy schools 14 years ago, their existence has provoked sharp division: demonised by some as the creeping privatisation of the school system; revered by others as a radical new way for failing schools to turn themselves around. The reality is that they are neither inherently good nor bad: sometimes the right solution, sometimes not.Since the opening of the first academy schools 14 years ago, their existence has provoked sharp division: demonised by some as the creeping privatisation of the school system; revered by others as a radical new way for failing schools to turn themselves around. The reality is that they are neither inherently good nor bad: sometimes the right solution, sometimes not.
Yet the government’s zealous commitment to academies has led it to insist that all schools – failing or not – must become academies by 2022: the biggest shakeup of the education system in decades. Tellingly, it was announced not by the education secretary, but by the chancellor in his budget.Yet the government’s zealous commitment to academies has led it to insist that all schools – failing or not – must become academies by 2022: the biggest shakeup of the education system in decades. Tellingly, it was announced not by the education secretary, but by the chancellor in his budget.
This gave it the feel of a political sleight of hand to distract from bad economic news rather than a policy driven by serious concern for improving the nation’s schools. Like disability cuts, it has provoked strong dissent from within the Conservative party. Council leaders and backbench MPs are right to speak out: it is a reform with few upsides but huge risks.This gave it the feel of a political sleight of hand to distract from bad economic news rather than a policy driven by serious concern for improving the nation’s schools. Like disability cuts, it has provoked strong dissent from within the Conservative party. Council leaders and backbench MPs are right to speak out: it is a reform with few upsides but huge risks.
Any education reform must be rooted in an analysis of the problem it seeks to address. We perform acceptably in international league tables of school standards, but lag behind the very best performers such as South Korea and Finland. There is a huge attainment gap between poor children and their more affluent peers, bigger than in many countries. And there are a minority of underperforming and coasting schools, particularly in the north and the Midlands.Any education reform must be rooted in an analysis of the problem it seeks to address. We perform acceptably in international league tables of school standards, but lag behind the very best performers such as South Korea and Finland. There is a huge attainment gap between poor children and their more affluent peers, bigger than in many countries. And there are a minority of underperforming and coasting schools, particularly in the north and the Midlands.
How to improve teaching and leadership in underperforming schools – not abstract concerns about structure – is the biggest question facing our school system. It is the only test that any education reform claiming to improve standards should face. Academy chains are essentially groups of schools run by one leadership team, an idea that has been around for more than a decade. Outstanding leadership is a precious but scarce resource, and it makes sense to think about how it can be best deployed. Having outstanding heads managing teaching and learning across a number of schools, nurturing the next generation of leaders, is a fundamentally good idea, particularly in areas where local authority performance in supporting school improvement has been unacceptably poor.How to improve teaching and leadership in underperforming schools – not abstract concerns about structure – is the biggest question facing our school system. It is the only test that any education reform claiming to improve standards should face. Academy chains are essentially groups of schools run by one leadership team, an idea that has been around for more than a decade. Outstanding leadership is a precious but scarce resource, and it makes sense to think about how it can be best deployed. Having outstanding heads managing teaching and learning across a number of schools, nurturing the next generation of leaders, is a fundamentally good idea, particularly in areas where local authority performance in supporting school improvement has been unacceptably poor.
Related: Nicky Morgan warns teachers: no 'reverse gear' for academies plan
But just as the government took the idea of academies – originally about bringing new leadership and resource into failing schools in a very focused way – and eroded their emphasis on school improvement, so it has taken the idea of academy chains and is bluntly imposing this structure on the whole school system, while systematically dismantling any role local authorities have in school performance, even where it has been excellent.But just as the government took the idea of academies – originally about bringing new leadership and resource into failing schools in a very focused way – and eroded their emphasis on school improvement, so it has taken the idea of academy chains and is bluntly imposing this structure on the whole school system, while systematically dismantling any role local authorities have in school performance, even where it has been excellent.
The schools white paper is clear: it sees academy chains as the route to school improvement. Yet to date there has been virtually no accountability for poorly performing chains. They are not inspected by Ofsted; they are accountable not locally but to one of just eight regional schools commissioners appointed by the Department for Education; and there has not even been any performance data published, which schools looking to join an academy chain can analyse.The schools white paper is clear: it sees academy chains as the route to school improvement. Yet to date there has been virtually no accountability for poorly performing chains. They are not inspected by Ofsted; they are accountable not locally but to one of just eight regional schools commissioners appointed by the Department for Education; and there has not even been any performance data published, which schools looking to join an academy chain can analyse.
So it should be of little surprise that there are many poorly performing as well as good chains, as education experts from chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw to the Sutton Trust have highlighted. The white paper had astonishingly little to say on what happens when an academy chain is failing. The only change is that performance data by chain will now be published. It is unclear how parents and headteachers could opt to leave a poorly performing chain: once a school joins a chain, its independent governing body is abolished and it becomes absorbed into the bigger organisation. Save for a vague promise to consider how parents could petition for a change, the white paper implies this decision lies in the hands of the RSCs, unelected officials who will now each be responsible for holding thousands of schools accountable.So it should be of little surprise that there are many poorly performing as well as good chains, as education experts from chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw to the Sutton Trust have highlighted. The white paper had astonishingly little to say on what happens when an academy chain is failing. The only change is that performance data by chain will now be published. It is unclear how parents and headteachers could opt to leave a poorly performing chain: once a school joins a chain, its independent governing body is abolished and it becomes absorbed into the bigger organisation. Save for a vague promise to consider how parents could petition for a change, the white paper implies this decision lies in the hands of the RSCs, unelected officials who will now each be responsible for holding thousands of schools accountable.
Despite the government’s vision being premised on good chains expanding and poorly performing chains contracting, it has set out no detail on how this would happen.Despite the government’s vision being premised on good chains expanding and poorly performing chains contracting, it has set out no detail on how this would happen.
And it would be difficult to overstate what a massive upheaval of the school system this represents. Sixteen thousand schools will have to convert to academy status at a cost of more than £600m over the next four years. The majority are primary schools – 85% of which are already good or outstanding. And the government has estimated that 1,000 new academy chains will be needed by 2020. Where will they come from? Who will run them? How will currently good chains expand rapidly without sacrificing quality?And it would be difficult to overstate what a massive upheaval of the school system this represents. Sixteen thousand schools will have to convert to academy status at a cost of more than £600m over the next four years. The majority are primary schools – 85% of which are already good or outstanding. And the government has estimated that 1,000 new academy chains will be needed by 2020. Where will they come from? Who will run them? How will currently good chains expand rapidly without sacrificing quality?
At the same time, the government is undermining important safeguards in the system. Despite being supposedly in favour of devolution to local government, it is eroding local democratic oversight of the school system. Why should local government have increasing oversight of services such as health, but not education? And removing the requirement for school governing bodies to have a parent governor is ill-judged.At the same time, the government is undermining important safeguards in the system. Despite being supposedly in favour of devolution to local government, it is eroding local democratic oversight of the school system. Why should local government have increasing oversight of services such as health, but not education? And removing the requirement for school governing bodies to have a parent governor is ill-judged.
Related: Even Tory councillors are up in arms. Osborne should leave schools alone | Simon Jenkins
These reforms are happening against a background of cleverly disguised cuts to the schools’ budget. The government has abolished the grant that used to pay for local authority management of schools: institutions will now be expected to pay for this themselves with a top slice of their budget going to academy chains. The chancellor’s changes to public-sector pensions will squeeze school budgets even further.These reforms are happening against a background of cleverly disguised cuts to the schools’ budget. The government has abolished the grant that used to pay for local authority management of schools: institutions will now be expected to pay for this themselves with a top slice of their budget going to academy chains. The chancellor’s changes to public-sector pensions will squeeze school budgets even further.
The government should be relentless in its focus on improving the quality of teaching and leadership in underperforming schools. Every child has a right to an education in a good or outstanding school: it is unacceptable that there are thousands who still do not get this. Structural reform is only important to the extent it supports teachers and heads to do their job better. But these dogmatic reforms risk distracting from the task at hand, and other immediate risks to school quality, such as teacher shortages and growing class sizes.The government should be relentless in its focus on improving the quality of teaching and leadership in underperforming schools. Every child has a right to an education in a good or outstanding school: it is unacceptable that there are thousands who still do not get this. Structural reform is only important to the extent it supports teachers and heads to do their job better. But these dogmatic reforms risk distracting from the task at hand, and other immediate risks to school quality, such as teacher shortages and growing class sizes.
The government has failed to learn the lesson of its expensive and damaging restructure of the health system. It has again been lured by the promise of ideology into a reckless, big-bang structural reform. It will achieve little for children whose education is not good enough, and will put at risk the quality of education in the thousands of already good schools.The government has failed to learn the lesson of its expensive and damaging restructure of the health system. It has again been lured by the promise of ideology into a reckless, big-bang structural reform. It will achieve little for children whose education is not good enough, and will put at risk the quality of education in the thousands of already good schools.