Government officials have been tasked with drawing up proposals to balance out a school system that currently heavily favours academies. One idea under consideration is to let councils open schools again. Labour has said loud and clear that trusts are no longer the only school improvement show in town. But running a two-tier system is beset with problems, experts say. Sector leaders are already calling for urgent clarity on the roles of responsible bodies in the new government鈥檚 emerging system. As officials now try to get to grips with some of these issues, Schools Week 颈苍惫别蝉迟颈驳补迟别蝉鈥 鈥楽moothing the difference鈥 Sir Kevan Collins Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has previously said she is 鈥渘ot interested in wholesale structural reform鈥 as the distinction between schools means 鈥渕ostly nothing to parents鈥. Sir Kevan Collins, , has said he is 鈥渁gnostic鈥 on school structures. Instead, Phillipson wants to 鈥渟mooth the differences鈥 between academies and maintained schools. But rather than come in with a plan, the new team has asked the civil service to come up with options of how this could look in practice, sources say. Schools Week understands that Department for Education officials have been tasked with exploring policies that will balance out the school system. The free school ‘presumption’ Currently, many elements favour academies and multi-academy trusts, the last government鈥檚 route to school improvement. For example, when a council identifies the need for a new school in its area, it has a legal duty to seek proposals to set up an academy via the 鈥渇ree school presumption process鈥. This is understood to be one of the policies that officials are discussing, paving the way for councils to open their own schools again. Labour has already committed to forcing academies to teach the national curriculum and making them co-operate with councils on place planning and SEND. They will also not be allowed to employ unqualified teachers. However, officials are believed to have looked at other academy freedoms as part of their broad scoping into reshaping the system. The work is at an early stage, but a paper with potential options is believed to be being drawn up. However, David Thomas, a former government adviser, said: 鈥淭he risk is this could entirely absorb the department capacity for a few years.鈥 Clarity sought on school groups plan? The move once again puts the local authority鈥檚 role in the system back in the spotlight. Officials have been briefed that Labour鈥檚 view is that struggling schools should be part of a group of schools 鈥 but this could, for instance, be a local authority federation. Leora Cruddas Previously, underperforming schools were automatically ordered to join an academy trust. Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, said it is not about 鈥渟tructures for their own sake, but rather how we build a strong and sustainable school sector鈥. She added: 鈥淭he resilience of the school system is really fragile right now with funding, the pandemic, global shifts, child poverty.鈥 And she warned that the government must be 鈥渕uch clearer in the system about the roles and responsibilities of responsible bodies鈥, usually the relevant local authority, academy trust or voluntary-aided body. There is currently an imbalance. Councils ‘hamstrung’ One example is a recent learning review by two former council education chiefs, commissioned by Reading council after the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, who was in charge of Caversham Primary, a maintained school. The review stated that councils are 鈥渆ffectively hamstrung in their ability to provide high quality support for their school leaders by a combination of both policy and funding constraints鈥. While councils are the employers of maintained school staff, they 鈥渋n reality have few of the powers one would expect of an employer, which are instead deployed through the board of governors, acting as the de facto employer鈥. The review also said that, while councils have a statutory duty in 鈥減romoting high standards鈥, they rely on schools choosing to use their budget to fund such intervention work. This 鈥渉as the potential to further wither the effectiveness of the system overall both nationally and locally鈥. And Cruddas said: 鈥淚f we鈥檙e going to say, 鈥榳e have a two-tier system鈥, then you have to identify who is responsible. You have to be very specific. 鈥淭hey should write that now: statutory guidance on what that is and what it means.鈥 Do LAs have the capacity? Former government adviser Tom Richmond added that it was 鈥減erfectly reasonable for the new government to seek to create a level playing field between schools and groups of schools regardless of who operates them鈥. Tom Richmond But giving more responsibilities back to councils 鈥 such as letting them open new schools 鈥 would be a 鈥渟eismic policy shift鈥, he said. It would also lead to 鈥渓egitimate鈥 questions around whether all local authorities have the 鈥渘ecessary capacity and expertise to take on such responsibilities given the significant budget cuts that they have experienced over this same time period鈥. For instance, councils currently have a combined deficit in their high needs budgets of 拢1.6 billion. The proportion of council primary schools in deficit rose from 7.6 per cent in 2021-22 to 12.3 per cent the following year. Thomas also said that this puts the role of councils back in the spotlight: 鈥淲e need to decide what role local authorities should play in the system, ensuring it doesn鈥檛 contain conflicts of interest, and give them the powers and resources to do this. 鈥淭he LA should be able to be the champion of the child and fight their corner 鈥 but they can鈥檛 do that if they are the deliverer of services鈥 it becomes an incoherent role.鈥 Inspections for all? The question of who is responsible for what will also be impacted by new regional improvement teams (RITs). The groups of school experts will be sent to help schools deemed to be struggling before a decision is made on any potential change of governance from early next year. Sam Freedman But policy expert Sam Freedman said: 鈥淭here seems to be a confusion 鈥 that Labour doesn鈥檛 understand what the purpose of a MAT is. Like, why have MATs if we have RITs? 鈥淭o me, the line that 鈥榳e aren鈥檛 going to focus on structures鈥 is a warning sign 鈥 because we can鈥檛 improve standards without structures. 鈥淎nd if they are going to take away [academy] freedoms, then there is no overarching theory about what a MAT is, or how they fit into the system. 鈥淚t鈥檚 fine to say, 鈥榳e don鈥檛 want every school to be an academy鈥 鈥 but why bother having them at all then?鈥 ‘Define what a MAT does’ Freedman believes the government鈥檚 commitment to inspect trusts will mean they have to confront this issue. 鈥淭hey talk about inspection, but inspect against what? They will have to define what a MAT does. It鈥檚 all a bit confused.鈥 In a two-track system, this level of accountability may also have to be rolled out to other responsible bodies. That seems to be Ofsted鈥檚 thinking. Its recent Big Listen consultation response said it 鈥渟trongly believes鈥 the trust inspection pledge 鈥渟hould be expanded to cover all school groups鈥. 鈥淭his would help to improve standards across the system鈥 Inspection should align with the governance structures of schools and the bodies responsible for supporting leaders.鈥 Conversation moves from all academies Either way, the potential beefing up of councils鈥 role in schools 鈥 long called for by the Local Government Association 鈥 marks a shift in the reform conversation. It has for years been dominated by how to get more schools to become academies. A recent report from Nesta warned that the current school system had 鈥渆volved without a clear end vision in mind, which is now causing significant challenges for wider policymaking鈥. 鈥淕overnment could outline a clear vision for 鈥 and path to 鈥 a single governance structure for the school system, which blends the best of the current two systems together.鈥 In the report鈥檚 suggested 鈥減lan for 2030鈥, it said the government should 鈥渟et a deadline for all schools being in a single structure and stick to it鈥. Previous governments 鈥渉ave failed to provide this, flip-flopping on whether to resolve this problem鈥. Ministers should then 鈥渞edesign the regulatory, inspection and commissioning frameworks鈥 to fit the new system. The DfE was approached for comment.
Jo Coxon 27 September 2024 It makes absolute sense. Why pay for several CEOs and Exec Heads using taxpayer鈥檚 cash when you can have one LEA head and a director or curriculum, safeguarding and behaviour across the whole authority. It鈥檚 not like they鈥檒l be spreading themselves thin as, in my experience (and my fellow teacher friend鈥檚 experience across other English schools) is that the in school Trust CEOs and Execs are never there anyway and provide little if any practical support. The money saved can be used to buy equipment, finding equipment. The Trust exec staff with teaching qualifications can go back to the classroom on a full timetable and help with the recruitment and retention gaps. It鈥檚 going to happen in some form. The current system is too expensive and money is being gouged by individuals at the top of MATs who make great pains to 鈥榗are鈥 about progress, attainment etc, particular at the expense of staff health and well-being.