Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
LUCY HELLER,
FIONA MILLAR,
DR DANIEL
MOYNIHAN, ALASDAIR
SMITH AND
NICK WELLER
1 JULY 2009
Q80 Chairman: Before you go, Fiona,
you can comment on that question, but the next section, which
you will miss, is on the future of academies.
Fiona Millar: I'm tempted to stay
now. Carry on—I'll be late for where I have to go. I wanted
to make the point about admissions because that is obviously something
that I feel very strongly about. Clearly, the academies value
the freedom that they have on admissions for some reason. What
is that reason? Why do they need to have autonomy on admissions
if they are quite happy just to take the local kids?
Lucy Heller: We are absolutely
happy to take the local kids.
Fiona Millar: Not all do.
Lucy Heller: We've made a point
of saying, in every case except where we are taking over predecessor
C of E schools, that we follow local authority admission criteria.
We admit on the basis of distance. In fact, our only concern would
be that, if we ended up being over-gentrified as a result of popularity,
we would want to look at the possibility of lottery or other things.
So in our case, no, that is not an issue.
Q81 Mr Stuart: How diverse are
academies? Opponents of the academies programme say, "They
are not all doing this." Then you have people saying that
the whole point is that it is supposed to be diverse and a change.
We went to see charter schools in the United States, and the ones
we saw in New York were astonishingly different from ones that
were almost sort of against the community. In the poorest area,
there was one astonishing school—I don't know how reputable
it was—that took the kids in from the earliest point of
the day until the latest point in the evening and took them in
during the holidays and weekends as well, in a desperate bid to
educate them, despite the lack of educational values outside,
which was almost the attitude. There were also schools that were
much more community-based, working with families, but all the
schools were within this charter. There was a huge difference
in approach—left wing, right wing and so on. God knows how
many different ways you could describe the approaches, but they
were all using the freedoms to try to turn around the disadvantage
suffered for generations by local kids.
Nick Weller: They are as diverse
as the head teachers that lead them, obviously. They are a very
diverse bunch of schools and they innovate in all sorts of different
ways. Hopefully, over the next few years, there will be lessons
to be learnt from that diversity. It is a very diverse group of
schools, as it should be.
Chairman: Fiona?
Fiona Millar: I think all schools
are diverse. I have always thought that. When I was at school
in London 30 years ago, every single type of school that exists
now—probably more in fact, because there were grammar schools
as well—existed then. I think the idea of a "bog-standard
comprehensive" has always been a bit of a myth. Sorry to
say that, but there has always been diversity in the schools system.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the framework
within which schools have to operate is fair for all schools,
and that some schools don't have rules that others have. That
is my fundamental problem with the academies: they have freedoms
that other schools don't have.
Q82 Mr Stuart: Can I ask how those
freedoms are used? The school we visited in New York had very
long days, and I know that the Chairman has been to an academy
in Brixton that has very long school days.
Dr Moynihan: One area in which
they are not used, and which people referred to earlier, is freedom
in admissions. We have to abide fully by the admissions code,
so that is the first thing. It is the same code for everybody—state
school or academy. Key areas of freedom for us is in the curriculum
and in a longer day, longer year, variation in teachers' pay and
conditions, and in governance.
Q83 Mr Stuart: Could you flesh
out briefly what you do differently in curriculum and in terms
of the longer day, longer hours, holidays and so on?
Dr Moynihan: We have an increased
emphasis on literacy and numeracy. That is the key difference
in curriculum—more time for those two key subjects. In terms
of pay and conditions, we pay better school teachers' pay and
conditions and we have a series of bonuses and incentives, including
20% off at Carpet Right, which is popular with teachers. We also
have smaller governing bodies locally and we have an overarching
federation board that provides strategy. We have various innovative
things—for example, we run joint sixth forms. Three of our
schools run a single sixth form in an area where staying-on rates
are the lowest in the country. After two years, we now have 1,200
applications from youngsters who want to stay on because we have
been able to do something innovatively as academies and we have
a single exam centre number, so we have transformed the prospects
of a large number of disadvantaged youngsters in terms of progression
in an area where factually, without doubt, there were no sixth
forms before we did this.
Mr Stuart: Alasdair, you are shaking
you head.
Alasdair Smith: I am shaking my
head because what academies are doing is nothing more and nothing
less than what community state schools are doing. Almost all the
freedoms that academies apparently have are more or less available.
My point is: what are academies for? What are they actually doing
that is different? The vast majority of head teachers look at
the curriculum and they can change it or apply to have it changed,
but they choose not to. They can apply to have the pay and conditions
changed; they choose not to. In fact, most of the academy chains
have actually signed with the unions for national pay and conditions.
We have this bizarre world where they claim that they have got
these freedoms which make them better, but actually the freedoms
do not make them better. When we point out that academy results
are no better, they say, "Well, that's to do with the predecessor
school," but when the results are better, they say, "Well,
that's to do with the academy." My point is that the academy
movement seems to want to have it that there is some magic bullet—a
solution that they have provided. My simple argument is that there
is nothing that academies are doing that is not also happening
in community schools. Therefore, why do we need academies?
Q84 Mr Stuart: Can I put it another
way. It would be hard even for you to listen to some of the people
speaking today and not agree that they have passion and commitment
to tackling disadvantage. Not withstanding the chequered position
in different academies, the whole point of a diverse programme
in desperate places where nothing has worked before is that there
is going to be success and failure. What motivates you to get
up in the morning and want to be in the Anti-Academies Alliance?
Unless you think Daniel's a complete liar, you have just heard
him talking about how he and the people with him are desperately
trying to turn around the life chances of kids who have previously
been failed. Some authorities have turned it around and some haven't;
they go into places where they haven't.
Alasdair Smith: I'll tell you
exactly what motivates me. The stories from places like Barrow,
Tamworth, Carlisle and Southampton of parents and children having
academies imposed on them against their wishes. Why is it that
in Barrow-in-Furness, 6,000 signatures on a petition against an
academy have been ignored? They have elected four local councillors
and two county councillors against an academy. They do not want
the academy in Barrow; it is being imposed on them. That's what
I am here to represent. Why is it that there are reports in the
papers that in some of our academies and schools there are riots
by children? Those are the things that motivate me. I think we've
got a problem with the academies being imposed.
Chairman: Riots in Barrow?
Alasdair Smith: No, not in Barrow,
but in Mayfield Academy in Southampton and Richard Rose Academy
in Carlisle. In Barrow recently, the pupils walked out of the
existing schools that are being turned into an academy because
they were so dissatisfied with the process. There is a popular
revulsion to academies, and that comes back to the conception
of academies being imposed on a community for ideological reasons.
If academies could prove that they were the best solution for
education, parents would accept them, but the trouble is that
there isn't the evidence. Now we are in a situation—this
is what motivates the Anti-Academies Alliance—in which campaigns
all over the country are saying, "We're getting this imposed;
we don't want it." In Tamworth, an academy is being imposed
that will break up the sixth-form provision. The parents don't
want it, but it is being imposed. That is what motivates me, and
it is a voice that has not been heard at all today: the voice
of parents. We need to take heed of that because parents are standing
in elections against the imposition of academies and they are
winning. The Conservative mayor of Barrow was unseated by an anti-academy
candidate.
Chairman: As we now know.
Q85 Mr Stuart: There is slightly
contradictory evidence from those appearing on behalf of academies
today. On the one hand, there is the question of whether the freedoms
should be available to all, to which the answer was yes—I
think that got universal yeses. On the other hand, there is also
a, to me, contradictory position that academies should stay with
the original purpose, which was to go where everyone else has
feared to tread, so to speak, and be targeted on the disadvantaged.
Which is it? Should we have academies everywhere? That will go
to the choice model, which might be behind much of Conservative
thinking—I am not entirely sure. Or can there be a freedom
to tackle where, basically, there is nothing to lose, notwithstanding
opposition. Which is it?
Q86 Chairman: Hang on. Lucy, could
you frame this in effect? Daniel mentioned our visit to New York
to look at charter schools. It is true, isn't it, that there is
an awful lot of interest in going to the United States in terms
of innovation and so on. I note that the Conservative party is
very interested in what they call the Swedish model, and setting
up more ability for local groups to set up schools. Is it just
that academies have not gone far enough in terms of innovation
and openness for local people to start their own schools? Perhaps
lots of people are coming to see the academies model. Are they?
Lucy Heller: I think certainly
a lot of people are coming to see some of our schools, but I'm
sure they are going to see others as well.
Q87 Chairman: But I am right in
saying that a lot of people who want to know about innovation
in secondary education go to the United States or Sweden. Isn't
that true?
Lucy Heller: Yes. But we're increasingly
encouraging them to come and look at the examples here, and not
just in academies.
Q88 Chairman: Fiona, has the model
been a weak model? The shaking-up that you had witnessed at No.
10 hasn't been strong enough—the ability for local people
to start up. Alasdair would like that, presumably: local people
starting up their own schools and controlling them outside the
local authority.
Fiona Millar: I am all in favour
of local people starting their own schools, if that's what they
want to do. I think it quite unlikely that many will want to do
that—what most parents want is a good local school that
is responsive to them. I do take issue with Alasdair, because
in fact, the academies have freedoms that other schools don't
have. They are bound by a totally different set of rules and regulations.
For example, if you're a parent and you're not happy with your
local academy admissions, you can't go to the schools adjudicator;
you have to go through a different route to the Secretary of State,
and likewise on special needs. There is also a different legal
framework for academies from other schools. I think that is what
unsettles parents, because they see that they won't get representation
on the governing body. I am in touch with a group of parents at
the moment who are trying to set up a parent council in their
academy, and have been told by the sponsor that it wants to chair
the parent council, because they are frightened of parents having
power. Those are very real issues for parents on the ground. The
idea of schools being started by the people is fine, but I doubt
very much that they will want to run them themselves, to be perfectly
honest. I don't think that parents want to run schools—I
have always thought that that was a bit of a myth.
Chairman: Let us listen to Lucy, then
I will come straight back to you, I promise.
Lucy Heller: As a point of fact,
parental representation on governing bodies is guaranteed under
the funding agreements.
Q89 Mr Stuart: Do you want academies
to keep their original aim of tackling disadvantaged areas—so
they have special freedoms, but also face special problems—or,
if there were a change of government, for example, would you be
happy for academies to become a universal system of independent
schools, with more spare places and a choice mechanism, so that
they provide diversity and choice as opposed to tackling disadvantage
and trying to use the freedoms, and perhaps additional moneys
and energies, to bring in the best people, who otherwise would
not go to the poorest areas?
Lucy Heller: I don't think that
we are possessive of the freedoms that academies have. Like Fiona,
I am intrigued as to why Alasdair objects so strongly to academies
if he says that they are nothing special and that they have no
particular powers that other schools don't have. We are very happy
for other schools to have those freedoms. I think that we were
talking in terms of keeping the academies programme as focused
as it was then. We muddy the water if we have something called
an "academy" that is not doing that job. It is easier
to make the case for academies if we keep that clean and simple.
Dr Moynihan: There's no question
for me that academies are a great solution in areas of social
disadvantage, where other things have been tried. We can debate
at length whether community schools have the same freedom, but
if they do, predecessor schools never used them—that is
the issue. For me, if people want to set up an independent state
school, because they are unhappy with their current provision,
I think Government should enable that and give people a choice.
I do not see it as something that should be imposed, but if people
want it, I have no objection.
Q90 Mr Stuart: The best educational
systems, regardless of the structures they have, seem to attract
the highest quality people into teaching. So it seems to me that,
notwithstanding everyone's obsession with structures, the most
important thing is that the system attracts the best people in,
and retains and motivates them. Maybe it is too early to say,
but does the academies programme help to attract better people
into teaching and help to retain and motivate them? Furthermore,
does it also move in gifted people who otherwise might not have
come into the most disadvantaged areas? So there are two questions.
Is there, overall, a healthy pool of quality people in the teaching
work force, and does the academy programme direct more of those
top people—the best possible people—into the poorest
areas, creating a more equal and better society?
Alasdair Smith: There is no evidence
that it does at all. I keep coming back to this point: there is
no evidence that head teachers are better in academies, and there
is no evidence that the teaching is better in academies. That
is the point. So what does the academy movement exist for? If
it is not providing a better model, what does it exist for?
Q91 Mr Stuart: If it pays over
the odds, has new energy and—this may be temporary—looks
pretty interesting to the most committed people who want to make
a difference, and it attracts those people, with the addition
of pay and bonuses, to go into the poorest and most challenging
areas where there is a history of failure, it must be doing something,
mustn't it?
Alasdair Smith: So we are paying
extra money for no benefit?
Mr Stuart: No, no.
Alasdair Smith: But that's what
the conclusion is.
Q92 Mr Stuart: You've said they're
paying over the odds. That must mean that they can get that head
teacher who wouldn't have previously gone into the worst part
of London, or wherever.
Alasdair Smith: But that's the
whole point, Graham; we are paying over the odds for no benefit.
That's the trouble. In an age of austerity—educational austerity—that
is a dodgy thing to be doing, paying over the odds for the academy
programme.
Mr Stuart: You keep saying there is no
benefit.
Alasdair Smith: There's no evidence
of any benefit. There is no improvement. There is no substantial
improvement in attainment in academies that community schools
are not already achieving. So where's the benefit to us?
Q93 Mr Stuart: That's true. The
great thing is that time will tell. We are at a very early stage,
so we are getting conflicting stuff and the independent people
are looking at it and saying, "Oh, it's a bit too early to
say." Time will tell. In a few years' time, it will be a
lot clearer, won't it? But the Ofsted view, which might be the
best predictor—that is certainly a reasonable inference—is
that 90% of these academies are good or outstanding. They are
not all uniform—
Fiona Millar: Leadership is the
key.
Mr Stuart: But if leadership is the key
point, which we all think it is, then they are bringing in the
best leadership and they are bringing it into the worst areas.
How can you be against that, Alasdair?
Alasdair Smith: I am for good
head teachers in every school. I want a good local school for
every community and I want every academy to succeed. My point
is that to create a separate model of academies, in opposition
to and in competition with the maintained sector, including giving
them freedoms, creates a diversity—choice and diversity—and
one of the dangers of the choice and diversity agenda, which the
OECD has pointed out, is that the greater the diversity, the greater
the social segregation. We are talking about the long-term future—where
we want this to go. Do we want a more segregated education system?
If we have more diversity of types of school, we will have greater
social segregation. That is the danger that we face.
Chairman: Let's leave that and move on.
Derek and Annette are going to lead. Annette, you will start.
Q94 Annette Brooke: Could we just
start with Daniel and Lucy. This is something I don't know. Have
you set up any academies that take over a secondary modern school
in a highly selective area—in other words, in an area where
the selection is going on already? Could you just give me some
background on that, Daniel?
Dr Moynihan: We have taken over
a school that is on 17% five A to C with English and maths, in
an area with at least four grammar schools. Interestingly, it
is a school where on a Friday everybody finished at midday and
went home; that is another issue. Now, people work five days a
week.
Q95 Annette Brooke: Yes, I have
experience of that—of finishing at lunchtime on Friday in
a secondary modern school. I asked that question because obviously
secondary modern schools probably make up quite a high proportion
of the National Challenge list now. Therefore, that might be an
area where academies, if they are sticking to their original mission,
might be looking at picking up disadvantaged pupils. Against that,
however, obviously the Government keep coming up with more and
more initiatives. For example, this week there is the super-heads
of the chains of schools. Apologies to Fiona, but we have to work
with grammar school systems when they're there and a lot of children
are missing out terribly. I am really concerned to find the best
way to give children the very best within the structure that we
have to work with. I wonder whether members of the panel would
like to comment on why the focus is on academies. Why not look
at those other initiatives, particularly for targeting secondary
modern schools at the moment?
Fiona Millar: The first point
must be to get rid of the 11-plus. It seems to me to be mind-boggling
that everyone is now agreed that academic selection is not best
for society, for the school system or for kids, but it still exists.
If we got rid of the 11-plus, it would be quite interesting to
see what would happen to some of those National Challenge schools
that are now effectively becoming secondary modern academies.
Again, the solution lies not with the academy movement, but with
other systemic change in the system outside of that.
Dr Moynihan: The school in the
borough that we took over had benefited, if that is the right
word to use, from all those initiatives, but they made no difference
at all. The local authority in the end determined that it would
be an academy, because it had tried everything available and the
quality of teaching, exam results and attendance were very poor
and the school was undersubscribed. The academy solution was the
best hope of regenerating that community, and we are looking already
this summer at results going from 17% to nearly 30%, including
English and maths. If that happens, we think that we will have
started to fulfil the need.
Q96 Annette Brooke: Right, but
is this not just a matter of putting a spotlight on the school,
as it is possible to raise standards or output in all situations
when a spotlight is shone on something? A super-head might be
brought in as one of the earlier initiatives, certainly for secondary
modern schools, but then when they go everything collapses because
you still have the fundamental selection there. It is really a
question of whether academies can actually beat the structure
left by a selective system. Can they do that over time?
Dr Moynihan: We are confident
that we can do really well there.
Lucy Heller: Dan's point is the
key one. In most of the schools that we are talking about those
other spotlights have been trained on the school without success.
I agree that some change comes just as a result of paying attention,
but we are talking mostly about schools that have had a series
of initiatives foisted upon them that do not necessarily produce
any results.
Q97 Annette Brooke: But does that
take account of the scale of the money that is invested, because
some of those other initiatives do not bring money?
Lucy Heller: We should talk about
that, because it seems to be a common misconception. There is
certainly money attached to the capital project, but as we all
know, that is all now coming under Building Schools for the Future
and every school in the country will get that money. If the academies
jumped the queue and got first place, originally, I have no objection
to that, because we are talking about the 200 most deprived and
worst-performing schools in the country, so it seems fair enough
that they should be first in the queue for good buildings. Other
than that, academies are funded on the same basis as any maintained
school. The only difference is that they get access to the money
that the local authority would otherwise have retained at the
centre. There is no difference in the funding, and that is very
important to us. When trying to make the case for academies on
the whole, one point to consider is that things can be done better
with the same money.
Nick Weller: If you are interested
in academies working with local grammar schools, Leigh CTC, now
a city academy, might be one to look at, because it has been doing
that for a number of years. Just to emphasise that point, one
of the key freedoms an academy has is that it gets the local authority
hold-back money. That is the only difference in funding, and it
is the extent to which you spend that money better and more efficiently
than you would do if you handed it over to the local monopoly
of services that normally comes with that funding.
Q98 Chairman: Can I hold you on
that point on the "local monopoly" of services, which
is an interesting phrase. Fiona, do you have objections to trust
schools?
Fiona Millar: Not if their admissions
are sorted in alliance with the other local schools. The only
thing that worries me about autonomy for schools is in the area
of admissions, exclusions, special needs and so on, but I have
no objection to schools being autonomous within this framework
of local regulation, which I think is what some of my colleagues
here object to.
Q99 Chairman: So if the academies
were merged into trusts, would that meet your objections?
Fiona Millar: They would then
come back into the maintained sector, which I think would be much
better. I think that they could have many of the freedoms I have
heard today and that other schools could then share with them
within the maintained sector. I think that that would be preferable,
going forward.
| 
