Schools Week wasn鈥檛 the only new kid on the block in September 2014. To little fanfare, eight regional school commissioners (RSCs) were appointed to oversee academies on behalf of an overwhelmed government.
Then academies minister Lord Nash spun the new commissioners 鈥 advised by headteacher boards 鈥 as the sector鈥檚 opportunity to 鈥済et control鈥 of the academies system so 鈥測our future is in your hands and not some local bureaucracy鈥.
But ten years later, that control has gone full circle 鈥 mirroring a similar shift across academies too.
How did that happen? What can we learn? Schools Week chronicles the rise of the regional school commissioners鈥
Regulatory turf war
Tory education secretary Michael Gove put the rocket booster under New Labour鈥檚 academies programme after he took over in 2010.
Alongside academising failing schools, he opened up the route for all 鈥榞ood鈥 or better schools. There were 200 academies educating 192,000 pupils in 2010; by January 2015 that had grown to 5,000 academies educating 2.7 million pupils.
It was an 鈥渦nexpected and 鈥 unmanageable pace鈥, says ex-Department for Education adviser Sam Freedman.
EDITION 70 Clash of the knights
Gove had described his academies programme as 鈥渓etting 1,000 flowers bloom鈥. But ministers were dragged into the weeds, making minor decisions on schools now under central government control. They needed help to do the gardening.
It was awkward for the Tories to introduce a new layer of bureaucracy. It didn鈥檛 fit with devolving power to the frontline.
They had also not long triumphantly abolished the nine government offices for the regions.
This meant commissioners covered bizarre areas such as 鈥渟outh central England and north west London鈥 (the capital was split into three different patches).
The commissioners鈥 role was also unclear. Were they box-tickers, regulators, improvers? They were tasked by DfE to accelerate academisation, but also expected to make wise decisions about quality.
By 2016, the education select committee flagged the conflict and said commissioners should be judged on 鈥渙utcomes” instead of “volume of activity鈥.
Seven of the first eight RSCs had schools experience. Nash said this would 鈥渃reate a truly autonomous, school-led system owned and run by the people that work in it鈥.
Commissioners saw their role as not just making decisions when schools failed, but intervening to try and stop it.
But it led to a 鈥渢urf war between different parts of the regulatory system as they tried to make sense of an evolving landscape鈥, says Freedman.
By 2018, then education secretary Damian Hinds had to admit there was 鈥渞eal confusion鈥 for schools and ordered the commissioners to stick to commissioning.
Take back control?
Former national schools commissioner Sir David Carter says it became a 鈥減rocess job, rather than a quality of analysis of what needs to be done鈥.
The bureaucrats have taken back control. Just three of the now nine regional directors (rebranded in 2022 to follow the government regions, with London getting its own commissioner) are former school leaders. Most, as Carter says, are 鈥渄yed-in-the-wool civil servants鈥.
Carol Dewhurst, who worked in the DfE鈥檚 academies team until 2014 and is now chief executive of Bradford Diocesan Academies Trust, says: 鈥淲e鈥檝e seen a full circle. The original ambition was about enabling more sector voices to influence the shaping of the structure of the system and the academy programme.
鈥淏ut we鈥檙e back to a system where civil servants occupy the highest roles.鈥
Despite wider Whitehall spending cuts, the new middle tier鈥檚 costs have ballooned from 拢4.1 million in 2014, to 拢34 million last year.
The nine teams now employ 571 staff 鈥 the equivalent of 拢3,000 for each academy 鈥 as more responsibilities have been shoved their way.
What enabled the shapeshift?
Ex-government adviser Jonathan Simons, now a partner at Public First, says there has 鈥渘ever been a clear theory of change for why [RSCs] were invented 鈥 which is why they are still controversial. Nobody wants to claim credit for inventing them and take responsibility for their massive sprawl.鈥
Leora Cruddas, the chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, adds commissioners were established 鈥渨ithout any attempt to develop a theory of regulation, or to articulate what regulation would look like if it was working well 鈥 something the sector still doesn鈥檛 have.鈥
The consequence, says Mohsen Ojja, the chief executive of the Anthem Schools Trust, is 鈥渞egional inconsistencies, it鈥檚 too bureaucratic. Directors seem to be making things up as they go along, hindering trusts鈥 ability to make necessary school improvements.
鈥淚t can feel like it鈥檚 more about who you know rather than doing what鈥檚 right for the schools and the children they serve.鈥
Too fast, too furious?
Regulation is not the only casualty of pursuing policy at breakneck speed.
Lucy Heller, chief executive of Ark Schools, describes the early academy expansion days as the 鈥淲ild West鈥. There 鈥渨asn鈥檛 capacity in the system for people to do it well鈥.
Lucy Heller
Carter, one of the first RSCs before taking on the national role, says the steer to officials was 鈥済row more academies, and let鈥檚 not worry too much about performance as school leaders will take care of this.鈥
In 2018, Schools Week found at least 91 trusts had closed in the previous four years after receiving at least 拢6 million in start-up funding. And millions more have been paid out to wipe off the debts of high-profile academy scandals.
鈥淲e didn鈥檛 think about how accountability wraps around an autonomous system, and the challenge of leading more than one school,鈥 Carter told the EDSK think tank podcast.
鈥淚t created opportunities for people to make decisions that didn鈥檛 work at scale or were ethically unsound. It鈥檚 a legacy we still deal with today.鈥
Laura McInerney, Schools Week editor from 2014 to 2017, says the secrecy around academy decisions meant there was 鈥渘o public learning鈥 from failures.
She also believes the commissioners were on a hiding to nothing. 鈥淭hey had to try and get the trust of people and make great decisions with no procedures, no trust 鈥 and hiding everything from people.鈥
Should we have gone slower?
鈥淚 think there was a point, as it were, we were going over the speed limit,鈥 recalls Gove.
鈥淪ome multi-academy trusts grew too fast. But [going so quickly] was necessary to generate momentum鈥 it was an absolute necessity.鈥
If things aren鈥檛 perfect, you 鈥渞efine as you go. We wouldn’t have reached the point of maturity that we’re at now [if we hadn鈥檛 gone as quickly].鈥
An ex-government adviser agrees. 鈥淚f you don’t move at extraordinary breakthrough speed, and have people panicking that you’re going to break things, you just don’t do anything. It’s not the way it should work, but it’s the way it does work.鈥
The great autonomy con?
The bigger problem, they say, was the reforms 鈥渘ot having an end goal in mind鈥.
But, unlike the RSCs, there was always a clear driver behind the changes. Gove said his 2010 Academies Act 鈥済rants greater autonomy to individual schools, it gives more freedom to teachers鈥.
But, like the RSCs, this has gone full circle too.
Ex-advisers say the original aims butted up against the instincts of others in the DfE, such as Nick Gibb and Lord Agnew, former schools and academies minister respectively, who were uneasy with such freedoms.
鈥淭he idea was to get good heads in 鈥 and then let them run the system,鈥 says Carter.
鈥淏ut in 20-odd thousand schools there just aren鈥檛 enough leaders who understand system or multiple school leadership鈥. And autonomy is a very expensive model if they get it wrong.鈥
And as each secretary of state 鈥済ot more angsty about 鈥榳hat are these academies doing?鈥欌, the promise of autonomy 鈥渕orphed into 鈥榙o what you like, but we鈥檙e going to check up on you disproportionately for what you do.
Decisions single school leaders had made for decades were now being scrutinised at scale by the DfE.鈥
Edition 263 Zahawi tries but fails to come up with an academy plan
McInerney says it shows 鈥渢he more liberal you are at the beginning, the more likely you are to end up with an overreaction in the end 鈥 because the only political reaction to things going wrong is to start stacking rules on top鈥.
And it鈥檚 much easier to police those rules when there are fewer, larger organisations 鈥 explaining some of the government鈥檚 lurch towards favouring multi-academy trusts.
Nadhim Zahawi鈥檚 2022 schools white paper 鈥 the last attempt by ministers to set out an end state for academy reforms 鈥 wanted 鈥渆very child to benefit from being taught in a family of schools鈥 by 2030.
One former adviser likened the wider shift as 鈥済oing from 鈥榓 thousand flowers blooming鈥 to the language of factory mass-production鈥, as the argument of 鈥渆fficiencies鈥 in MATs began to dominate.
鈥淭his constituted a 180 degree turn in the logic on how the policy was intended to deliver better outcomes.鈥
Jonathan Slater, DfE permanent secretary from 2016 to 2020, says: 鈥淓verybody was talking about us having a 鈥榮chool-led system鈥.
But it wasn鈥檛 鈥 it was a MAT-led system. And the power MATs had over schools was incredible. But it was also pretty unmanageable because there were just so many.鈥
Freedman has admitted the academies policy was 鈥渕is-sold. [it was] never about school-level autonomy, it was about trust-level autonomy.鈥
Recreating the LA wheel?
Sir Jon Coles, chief executive of the country鈥檚 largest trust, United Learning, says public sector organisations, with independent and autonomous governance who are highly accountable for what they do, is 鈥渁 good model鈥 for running a public service.
鈥淏ut what government got wrong was equating autonomy with autonomy of schools, and what they meant was autonomy of heads.鈥
This 鈥渢akes you into unaccountable power: 鈥榖ig beast鈥 headteachers free to do what they want is not attractive. It sets up a model in which bad things can happen, which we saw.鈥
McInerney is also worried that autonomy moving from heads and upwards into the MAT will recreate 鈥渟ome of the excesses of local authorities before 1988, where schools had to write to their council to get exercise books or windows changing鈥.
鈥淎cademy trust teachers tell Teacher Tapp they have to fill in a triplicate form to order pens, or it takes several phone calls just to give a child a paracetamol. Trusts aren鈥檛 doing it for bad reasons, they want to manage risk. But they are now in charge of every decision.鈥
Another development is the new world of academy management: MAT central teams.
Trusts say sharing experienced school improvers across their schools is a key asset. It also opens up more career opportunities and pay progression.
But Becks Boomer-Clark, chief executive of the Academies Enterprise Trust, says it is vital the role of the school principal 鈥 鈥渢he most significant role in the sector 鈥 is not denuded.
鈥淢any principals feel they exist under these layers of management, bureaucracy and accountability. What we do is create the conditions and the levels of resourcing to hopefully make that job a bit easier.鈥
Was it all worth it?
While many trusts have become 鈥渆xpert at transforming previously underperforming schools鈥 it hasn鈥檛 been as transformative as hoped,鈥 Freedman wrote in his book Failed State.
鈥淪chools that didn鈥檛 become academies perform roughly as well. There is as much variation between academy trusts as there was between local authorities when they controlled all schools.鈥
But some in the sector point to the near-eradication of 鈥渟ink” schools as evidence of academy success.
Education Datalab analysis found nearly 90 per cent of the 鈥減ersistently low attaining鈥 schools of the 2000s that stayed open were rated 鈥榞ood鈥 or better by the end of 2023. While some merged, most became academies.
Carter says continuing to academise underperforming schools for a few more years in 2010, while letting just the best set up trusts to support them, would have 鈥渂een a lot less toxic.鈥
鈥淚t would have also been easier to show that this structure worked as a school improvement strategy had the number of academies been limited to the most challenging 2,000 in the system.鈥
Boomer-Clark adds that the original programme had 鈥渟ome remarkable successes, and some absolutely abject failures 鈥 but before we had the opportunity to learn from either, we changed course鈥.
Instead, Gove let 鈥榞ood鈥 or 鈥榦utstanding鈥 schools choose to convert, with financial incentives that Freedman admits were probably too high.
Carter says the move seemed 鈥渕ore about dismantling the local authority school improvement functions鈥.
Starving councils of cash has also left their schools without access to the wider support they need, adds Caroline Barlow, head at Heathfield Community College. 鈥淐ollaborative maintained schools are now left contemplating what their future holds.鈥
Heller also suggests the 鈥渕ain improvement鈥 among converter schools 鈥渨as principals鈥 salaries, rather than outcomes鈥.
Dan Moynihan deserves 拢1,000,000 a year for what he’s done
Pay certainly has improved. At least 44 trust bosses are now paid 拢200,000 or more, up from at most a handful ten years ago.
Given a print-out of Schools Week鈥檚 most recent CEO pay league table, Gove says: 鈥淭he chief executive of Thames Water gets, what, 拢900,000 a year 鈥 doesn’t deserve a penny of it. These people are heroes and heroines and so deserve every penny.
鈥淒an Moynihan [whose 拢485,000 salary puts him top of the pay table] deserves 拢1,000,000 a year for what he’s done.鈥
ACADEMIES: THE NEXT TEN YEARS
Half of schools are now academies, rising to four in five at secondary level. Although there is big regional variation 鈥 31 per cent of schools in the north west are academies, compared with nearly two-thirds in the south west. Ninety per cent of academies are in MATs.
Labour is 鈥渁gnostic鈥 over school structures and will instead look to smooth the differences between the two school types.
While most in the sector agree it鈥檚 messy, opinions are mixed on what next.
On academy regulation, Cruddas says it should be done by an independent regulator, similar to Ofqual.
But Freedman suggests devolution could help. 鈥淗anding oversight over schools to combined authorities would relieve pressure on the DfE,鈥 he writes. 鈥淸And] it would allow authorities to build links between schools and other services like policing and housing.鈥
Boomer-Clark adds devolution would also provide a route to ensure there are democratic 鈥渕echanisms by which we can be held to account for what we’re doing on behalf of those communities.鈥
Despite the government ditching its MAT target, trusts are consolidating. One in five trusts running schools in 2019 is no longer in operation.
Coles says Labour should make it an 鈥渙bjective to proactively鈥 drive 鈥渇ewer, larger and more capable trusts. This can be done by skilful, careful implementation 鈥 and with the sector and supportively.
鈥淭he big lesson 鈥 that government keeps failing to learn 鈥 is that implementation is much more important than policy.鈥
Most agree the role of councils needs clarifying. Labour plans to strengthen local authorities鈥 hands in relation to admissions, place planning and SEND.
But trusts are here to stay. Carter says their role should be the 鈥渧anguard of education and delivery. The best trusts are already rethinking and reconceptualising how education can be delivered. More need to do the same.
鈥淒o we just want them to carry on delivering education in the same way we did in the 1990s, or should we be incentivising them to utilise their scale and capacity to think differently.鈥
Examples are starting to emerge, with United Learning planning to offer teachers a different pension and Dixons Academies Trust giving staff a nine-day fortnight.
The big lesson government keeps failing to learn is that implementation is more important than policy
But Freedman says making MATs the 鈥渂edrock of the education system鈥 requires clear direction from the education department to move away from the drift and confusion of the status quo.鈥
One ex-adviser says the problem isn鈥檛 鈥渉ow do we get everyone into a trust鈥 It鈥檚 how do we bring everyone working together in a local ecosystem which has good incentives?
鈥淧eople say 鈥榶ou just need to finish revolution鈥. But no one’s described what that end state looks like. And as soon as anyone does, they get absolutely destroyed because even the most fervent supporters of the academy movement don鈥檛 agree. It鈥檚 like a Brexiteer saying 鈥榯his is not real Brexit鈥.鈥