红桃影视

The government has all but ruled out naming individuals responsible for academy trust scandals in public investigation reports as it admits to fears that it could be sued.

The published five investigation 鈥渙utcome鈥� reports on Tuesday into academy controversies stretching back 14 years.

The reports revealed one trust spent 拢26,000 on gift cards for staff. Another flagged conflicts of interests relating to 拢570,000 spent with a company related to a staff member.

But no identifiable information for the individuals or companies involved were included.

Reports are now 鈥渙utcomes鈥� of investigations, as opposed to investigation reports.

Susan Acland-Hood, the DfE鈥檚 top civil servant, said a review into the government鈥檚 investigation policy concluded that 鈥渧ery detailed reports which included named individuals鈥� are 鈥渘ot required to support other organisations to learn lessons鈥� from investigations.

But Lucia Glynn, an academy consultant, said: 鈥淲hen you take on a role as a chief executive, chief financial officer, chair of a board, you are signing up to the Nolan principles.

鈥淭hey should name names鈥� so those working in the sector know they will be accountable for their decisions.鈥�

鈥楴aming individuals not necessary鈥�

Schools Week revealed in November that the department altered its policy to now only publish investigation 鈥渙utcomes鈥�.

The first of these, on its eight-year investigation into the now-closed Lilac Sky Schools Trust, was published in October. The report was three pages long.

After our story, the Public Accounts Committee ordered an explanation from the DfE. Members said they were 鈥渃oncerned鈥� the changes 鈥渉indered transparency鈥�.

Responding, Acland-Hood said the now-defunct Education and Skills Funding Agency had 鈥渁ssessed that the time and resource to produce a single detailed investigation report and complete the Maxwellisation process [on Lilac Sky]鈥� would be challenging [and] potentially subject to further legal proceedings鈥�. This would be 鈥渄isproportionate to the benefits of publishing a detailed report鈥�.

Maxwellisation is when an individual subject to criticism is given the opportunity to respond.

In changing its publication approach, the government 鈥減rioritised providing transparency鈥� and enabling other organisations to learn lessons鈥�, Acland-Hood said in a January letter.

She claimed that 鈥渋ncluding details on individuals is not required to support鈥� others to learn lessons.

But she did say other reports would be 鈥渕ore explicit鈥� in describing the learnings for the sector.

Lessons learned

The outcome reports released this week all contained lessons learned sections produced following 鈥減revention analysis exercise[s]鈥�. Analysis by Google Notebook suggests that just over 25 per cent of the reports were devoted to this.

But some are generic.

For instance, the report detailing the 鈥渙utcomes鈥� of an investigation at the Stephenson (MK) Trust reiterated current academy guidance trusts 鈥渕ust ensure that they make a referral to the [DfE] for prior approval鈥� of novel, contentious and repercussive transactions.

It also stated that chains should ensure spending policies contain 鈥渁 section or line that outlines that trust funds must not be used to purchase alcohol鈥�.

A probe into Griffin Schools Trust also concluded that chains should ensure 鈥減rocurement is open, fair and transparent, value for money and鈥� that they have documentary evidence of the decisions that have been made鈥�.

Glynn added that the academy trust handbook and local authority-maintained school guidance should 鈥渃apture the learnings鈥� so 鈥�it makes it easier to hold people to account鈥�.

Two-month promise

Acland-Hood said officials would now consult trust and college 鈥渇orums鈥� to 鈥渟eek feedback鈥� on how they 鈥渇urther support鈥� the sector 鈥渢o understand the gaps in practice identified and lessons they can learn from the investigations鈥�.

She also reiterated the ESFA鈥檚 commitment to publishing the 鈥渙utcome reports within two months 鈥� to provide transparency over how public money is spent鈥�.

However, the last of the five reviews released this week was completed last summer.

Meanwhile, investigations into alleged scandals, including the Bright Tribe Trust and SchoolsCompany, remain gathering dust.

Of the reports published this week, it was found 拢570,000 of payments to a company linked to an unnamed staff member at Griffin Schools Trust from 2014 to 2021 had broken rules. Almost 拢2,500 of 鈥渃ontentious鈥� payments on 鈥渁ntique furniture鈥� and artwork were identified.

At Stephenson (MK) Trust, 拢25,700 of 鈥渋rregular鈥� spend on gift cards for staff attendance between 2016 and 2022 was uncovered.

Tennyson Learning Community Trust was found to have an 鈥渋mproper recruitment process鈥� and that 拢900 of cash generated from selling 鈥渙bsolete鈥� iPhones to staff in 2019 had been misplaced for three years.