The influential public accounts committee has demanded answers from education officials after Schools Week revealed a promise to publish academy scandal investigations had been ditched. The Department for Education has published 27 academy investigation reports since 2012 under a promise to be 鈥渇air and transparent about how public money is spent鈥�. But in October, an 鈥渙utcome鈥� report after an eight-year investigation into the Lilac Sky Schools Trust was published. Unlike full reports, the 鈥渙utcome鈥� publication had few details, totalling just three pages. Full published reports are normally at least ten pages, with some as many as 30. Government was berated by the Public Accounts Committee in 2019 for not being 鈥渟ufficiently transparent about the results of inquiries into concerns鈥� about financial management and governance of trusts. One of its commitments following the criticism was to publish the results of investigations within two months of the work being completed. But Schools Week revealed the DfE has quietly changed its policy to now only publish investigation “outcomes”. ‘Concern investigation changes hinder transparency’ Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, PAC chair (pictured above left), has now raised 鈥渃oncern that the [publication] changes hinder transparency and do not align with the view of the committee鈥� from its 2019 report. He has demanded an explanation from DfE permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood. Acland-Hood has been asked to set out how the department 鈥渃onsidered transparency against other factors, such as timeliness, when changing [its] guidance to ensure evidence-based decision鈥�. He also wants assurances on how officials will 鈥渆nsure sufficient information is available to the sector to understand gaps in practice and learn lessons with just investigation outcomes published鈥�. The additional information will 鈥渁llow my committee to consider whether publication of investigation outcomes, rather than reports, on a timely basis sufficiently complies with the substance of the Committee鈥檚 2019 recommendation鈥�. The DfE said previously its commitment was still met by publishing outcome reports. Doing so 鈥渆nables the investigation team to publish the pertinent information from these reports without an overly protracted鈥� legal process, such as allowing those criticised to provide a response. This rule, known as the Maxwellisation process, has 鈥渉istorically led to significant delay in publishing investigation outcomes鈥�, the DfE added The change also enables the government investigation team to 鈥渟pend more time on its core function of investigating fraud and financial irregularity across the academy trust and further education sectors鈥�. The DfE was approached for comment.