Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-121)
LUCY HELLER,
FIONA MILLAR,
DR DANIEL
MOYNIHAN, ALASDAIR
SMITH AND
NICK WELLER
1 JULY 2009
Q100 CHAIRMAN:
Lucy, could you deal with the stuff you do in ARK in a trust framework
rather than in an academy framework?
LUCY
HELLER: I am
not sure what you are seeing as the key differences. The issue
that Fiona has with academies is on admissions.
FIONA
MILLAR: Not
only admissions. I have been through the list of issues: where
you have freedoms that other schools don't have, or where the
rights of redress for parents, teachers and pupils are completely
different from those within the maintained sector, because they
are effectively controlled by the funding agreement, which, at
the end of the day—I think this goes to the heart of the
matter—is a negotiated agreement between the sponsor and
the Secretary of State around some areas of the law. If it was
not a negotiated settlement, you wouldn't need to be an academy,
would you? That's what you want—you want the freedom that
the funding agreement gives you that other schools don't have.
LUCY
HELLER: Admissions
are not a key area for us because, as I said, ours are done on
the same basis as standard local authority admissions. The key
things for us are about autonomy of governance, and I don't think
that there are actually many of them. Probably where I would disagree
with Fiona is that we would think it extremely important to have
parental representation and engagement with the school, and we
would certainly hold ourselves accountable to parents in every
respect for the school's performance.
FIONA
MILLAR: It could
be a trust school, with membership of the governing body that
comes from an outside body.
Q101 CHAIRMAN:
Would you have an objection to that sort of trust school, Alasdair?
ALASDAIR
SMITH: I would
have no objection to the idea of outside organisations, businesses
or universities being involved in schools. They have been—probably
not enough—and I welcome that sort of involvement. The crucial
point is Fiona's point about the status of the funding agreement.
This legal framework is the problem. That's what distinguishes
academies from maintained schools and that's what needs to be
changed. If they are brought back in within the framework of a
local authority running the admissions systems, behaviour partnerships,
etc., that is a satisfactory framework.
Q102 ANNETTE
BROOKE: If we could pick up on
that point—if we are going to move to 400 academies, clearly
there have to be changes, because central government would become
a mini local education authority, or quite a big local education
authority if you're all going to have individual funding agreements
on the same basis. My question is, what is the future if the academy
programme is expanded? I now recall that I heard Daniel give evidence
during the progress of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and
Learning Bill, and I recall that you were quite strongly against
being tied in to local authorities. Allied to my question is what
you don't like about local authorities—couldn't that be
reformed, because you clearly can't just go on having individual
funding agreements if there are going to be 400 and even more
of you? So what is the future, against the legislation that has
already gone through, and what might have to change as your numbers
grow?
DR
MOYNIHAN: Our
position is we are not against local authorities, per se. It is
just that in some of the places we've been asked to open schools,
there seems to be significant evidence that the key reason for
the failure of that school is the inability of the local authority
to step in and do anything about it, either because they have
no capacity or they don't have the heart to tackle the problem.
That is not true everywhere, but it is true in a number of the
places we have opened these schools. The local authority has been
a central factor in the failure of those schools to deliver for
the children in the schools. So we would not want to be tied in
to local authorities, because they have poor provision in some
cases, and when you overlap different services and they are below
average, the combined effect is a catastrophe. The future seems
to be increasing numbers of groups and chains. We know that the
Government are intending to set up an organisation—the YPLA
(Young People's Learning Agency)—to oversee academies. Again,
there is nothing wrong with that; it seems right that the Department
would want some kind of organisation to manage 400 academies.
As a central government department, it cannot do that directly.
But having an organisation that has a range of other interests
as well, academies being just a small part of it, and the YPLA
being an organisation that exists largely to ensure compliance
of local authorities, my fear is that that kind of ethos of compliance
will trickle down into academies, which will be the tail of that
dog and will lose the key freedoms that are enabling us to improve—so
a body to oversee academies, but not the YPLA.
FIONA
MILLAR: I am
feeling like a stuck record now, but I have to say that a lot
of schools are maintained schools but they are not controlled
by the local authority. I am the chair of a voluntary-aided school
governing body. It is a non-faith-based school, as it happens,
so it is quite an unusual voluntary-aided school, but we have
considerable freedom, yet we operate wholly within the local authority
framework when it comes to the sort of compliance that you are
saying you don't want. I think that compliance with that framework
is what is absolutely crucial. Either all schools have it, or
none, but it seems to me unfair to set up one body of schools
that don't have to comply in the same way as another body of schools.
NICK
WELLER: In admissions
and SEN, there is a statutory framework of compliance and we comply
with that; there is no difference between us. The key difference
between an academy and, say, a trust school is that an academy
gets the local authority hold-back. So, it comes down, in the
end, to whether or not you believe in a smaller role, ultimately,
for local authorities—because if every school was an academy,
they would be getting less money and would be smaller organisations—and
whether you believe that that money should be devolved more directly
to the fundamental local level, which is the school. Our budget
is 9% better than a local authority or a trust school locally,
because we get the money that Bradford would otherwise take out
of that, and we buy our own legal services, HR services and other
services that would normally come from a local authority. That
is the essential difference between an academy and, say, a trust
school. In the end, it is a choice. It is not a choice about statutory
compliance, or a choice between admissions, or a choice between
whether you follow the law or not. It is a question of whether
you see a smaller role for local authorities or a larger one.
Q103 DEREK TWIGG:
It has been interesting to listen to various issues today, but
are you clear in your own mind that the Department's policy towards
academies is not muddled? Are you clear about the long-term strategy?
Lucy and maybe Daniel might want to answer that.
LUCY
HELLER: No,
I'm not clear that the Department, or the current ministerial
regime, does not have a slightly ambivalent attitude towards academies.
DR
MOYNIHAN: I
am not clear on how the role of the YPLA will play out and whether
there has been any thinking about what is the key thing about
these academies that helps to make them successful. In my view,
it is independence and how that will rest with an organisation
like YPLA.
Q104 DEREK TWIGG:
Do you have any idea why that would be so—why you would
be clear and why there has been that particular change in attitude
in the Department?
CHAIRMAN: According
to Fiona, it was born in ambivalence, and ambivalence continues.
FIONA
MILLAR: I think
there is a lot of ambivalence in relation to Government policy.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of clarity in a number of areas,
and this happens to be one of them.
Q105 DEREK TWIGG:
Can I come back to Daniel and Lucy. For the record, what is the
difference in terms of an academy if the head teacher is failing—in
other words, is not doing the job—and a head teacher who
is failing in an LEA school? What is the difference in how the
academy would deal with that and how the LEA would deal with that?
DR
MOYNIHAN: In
some cases, there will be no difference—the local authority
will pick up the symptoms quickly and will act quickly. In the
cases of many of the schools that we have though, there is significant
evidence that the local authorities involved haven't acted quickly
and children have been failed over a long period of time, so we
would be quicker to use data to know what is happening. We have
a visible presence in the school regularly.
Q106 DEREK TWIGG:
Who would make that decision?
DR
MOYNIHAN: Which
decision?
DEREK TWIGG:
To get rid of a head teacher.
DR
MOYNIHAN: It
would be made by the federation board.
DEREK TWIGG:
The governors?
DR
MOYNIHAN: Yes.
Q107 DEREK TWIGG:
How would that work in an LEA school?
DR
MOYNIHAN: In
the schools that we have taken over—
DEREK TWIGG:
Governors will again be crucial to this.
DR
MOYNIHAN: Governors
will be crucial, but what has tended to happen—
DEREK TWIGG:
It is not necessarily the LEA then, is it?
DR
MOYNIHAN: What
has tended to happen is that there has been a culture of saying,
"Well, these are disadvantaged kids; that's the best we can
do," and people have been unwilling to address it. I agree
with you that it can be addressed, but there has often been a
tendency not to address it, and we think that is the difference.
Q108 DEREK TWIGG:
And you are 100% confident that federation governors would actually
do that in every institution?
DR
MOYNIHAN: I
am pretty confident, yes.
Q109 DEREK TWIGG:
Why would they do that rather than the governors in an LEA school?
Why would you be more confident that the governors in an LEA school
would not do that maybe as quickly as a federation?
DR
MOYNIHAN: The
evidence we have, firstly, is that's the case, because we have
taken on schools where failure has been endemic and allowed to
happen for a long time, so the evidence is that it's true.
Q110 DEREK TWIGG:
Once you have taken the schools on, not once they are up and running?
DR
MOYNIHAN: Once
we have taken them on.
Q111 DEREK TWIGG:
What about when they are up and running?
DR
MOYNIHAN: My
personal view is that it's a business approach and a business
ethos.
Q112 DEREK TWIGG:
So, basically, governors cannot be trusted to do the best thing
for the children in a school, then?
DR
MOYNIHAN: You're
saying that; with respect, I am not. What I am saying is that,
in the schools that we have taken on, it has been the case that
those governors have not acted to deal with failure in the management
team and eventually, the schools have become academies after long
periods of failure. Some governors in some schools would deal
with it; in these schools, they have not.
Q113 DEREK TWIGG:
It is early days yet, in terms of academies, so we will see how
that goes. Going back to your background, you clearly have an
excellent background, with two outstanding schools. Were they
in deprived areas?
DR
MOYNIHAN: Yes,
one was in the heart of east London and the other was in Croydon.
Q114 DEREK TWIGG:
So what would you say was the reason for the success of your schools?
DR
MOYNIHAN: That
is very difficult to say.
Q115 DEREK TWIGG:
Don't be shy—you have obviously been an outstanding head
teacher. I just wondered what you thought, given your excellent
experience.
DR
MOYNIHAN: It
is a focus on improving the quality of teaching and doing whatever
it takes to make that happen—a no-excuses culture.
Q116 DEREK TWIGG:
Who does that?
DR
MOYNIHAN: In
the schools I was in, it was myself and the senior team.
DEREK TWIGG:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: We
are coming to the end of our deliberations. This is a one-off.
We will go away and think about what we have heard today. Last
one from you, Helen.
Q117 HELEN SOUTHWORTH:
Can you tell us what you think the impact of the current economic
situation might be on the availability of sponsors or the continuation
of sponsorship?
ALASDAIR
SMITH: I often
wonder what would have happened to a Northern Rock Academy and
what would have been the impact there.
CHAIRMAN: I
see several leading football teams still wearing AIG on their
shirts.
ALASDAIR
SMITH: Exactly—they
can go bust and it is still fine. I think the business community
had been pulling back from academy sponsorship anyway, partly
to do with the cash-for-honours scandal and stuff like that—more
sponsors tend to come from universities—but the issue of
austerity and the excessive costs of starting up academies is
a big one.
LUCY
HELLER: We are
a charity, rather than a business, but I have to report that we
have seen no diminution in interest from potential funders or
donors. Indeed, we see increasing enthusiasm, as the evidence
comes through of what can be done.
Q118 CHAIRMAN:
Fiona, would you like a last word before you finish?
FIONA
MILLAR: On business
sponsors?
CHAIRMAN: On
what we are here for today.
FIONA
MILLAR: Just
to say that there is nothing I have heard that could not be done
within a maintained school: you could devolve all the funding
to the school and keep it as a maintained school; you could have
all this emphasis on school improvement, on getting better governance
arrangements and better governing bodies. They do not need to
be independent—just think of what could be done with all
those 400 or 500 funding agreements in the future by a government
with a different agenda. I think the fragmentation of the school
system is profoundly worrying and it is not necessary.
Q119 CHAIRMAN:
Thank you for that. May I say to everyone, do keep in touch. If
there are things we did not probe in this session, get in touch,
e-mail us, keep in touch, because we will write this up. Lucy,
a last word?
LUCY
HELLER: I remain
slightly surprised by the vehemence of the anti-academy opposition.
They say, "Any school can do this"—that is fine,
we are very happy for any school to do this. We are one small
movement that we think is making a difference, visibly. If you
look at the best-performing group of academies, they are making
huge and real differences in the communities in which they work
and all power to them. We still have to come back to the question—and
it is one of the failures of the opposition on this—of coming
up with an alternative. Since we have a national system which
allows half of children to leave without what you would regard
as a basic package of qualifications, we cannot afford to be complacent
about what we are currently doing. Academies are certainly not
the only answer, but I have seen an absolute paucity of responses
from the anti-academies group about what they want, rather than
more of the same.
Q120 CHAIRMAN:
How many academies are there at the moment?
LUCY
HELLER: There
are 139, I think.[3]
Q121 CHAIRMAN:
Out of 3,500 secondary schools?
LUCY
HELLER: Yes—this
is tiny. A huge amount of energy is being devoted to aggressive
attacks on this very small number of schools, where—I would
say, in contradiction to Paul—the evidence suggests that
people are making the difference, even though it is mixed. Why
waste time on fighting those people, who, I think you can tell,
are trying, with the best will in the world, to make a good job
of it? Spend time on the schools that are not being improved.
CHAIRMAN: Daniel?
DR
MOYNIHAN: Thank
you. For me academies are a solution for endemic failure. I agree
that other schools and other models could do it, but in these
particular cases, they have not done it. How long do we have to
wait? How many generations of children do we have to see fail
before we accept that a different model is needed? Mediocrity
is not acceptable, unfortunately we have too much of that in education
in this country. I do not think the recession will put sponsors
off. For me the threat, as the movement grows, will be the continuing
encroachment on the freedom of academies from the YPLA and the
lack of freedom in certain other respects. That will be the key
issue—whether people will want to come in with their hands
tied.
ALASDAIR
SMITH: Academies
have been imposed on communities, which is why people campaign
against them. The particular reason they are against them is that
there is no evidence that they improve educational attainment.
There is an idea that the Government are putting lots of energy
into them. One of the problems is that they are seen as taking
so much of the Government's resources over several years—Ministers
going to visit academies, extra funding has gone to academies—for
so little return. That is one of the concerns—so much has
gone in for so little return. The McKinsey report in 2007 said:
"The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality
of its teachers. The only way to improve outcomes is to improve
instruction." It is about systems, not structures.
NICK
WELLER: In all
but a few cases, so few that we could name them, academies have
succeeded in turning round schools that have failed for years.
I am sure that they will go from strength to strength. The early
signs are very good. You have started this experiment of independent
state-funded schools; at least pursue it until the evidence is
conclusive.
CHAIRMAN: This
has been a vigorous and invigorating session. We have been very
grateful for your participation and your robust views. Thank you
very much. Keep in touch; we want to make this short inquiry as
good as it can be.
3 Note by witness: The Department for Children,
Schools and Families Standards site states that there are currently
133 academies. Back
| 
