DOCSLIB.ORG

An Investigation of the Implementation of the Academies Act 2010 in English Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Investigation of the Implementation of the Academies Act 2010 in English Schools An investigation of the implementation of the Academies Act 2010 in English Schools: Stakeholders’ lived experiences regarding policies and practices in English Academies THORNTON, L.E. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of Staffordshire University for the degree of Doctor of Education Wider Participation in Learning EdD. 2018 i Abstract This thesis is based on a project which focuses upon academisation and its perceived impact upon the raising of standards. The study was undertaken in 2013. There were 18 participants in total. Sixteen were from 4 different schools and a consultant principal and an Executive Director for Children, Young People and Families were also part of the case study. The perceived impact is demonstrated through the lived experiences of various stakeholders in relation to the introduction of the Academies Act 2010. I adopted an interpretivist approach through the use of semi-structured interviews and analysis of policy documents. Case study was chosen to demonstrate the differing perspectives of stakeholders in the same setting and compare those to stakeholders in a different setting. Participants, all of whom had been in a teaching environment for at least 15 years, were of differing levels of seniority and roles. I am a practising solicitor but used to be a qualified teacher. I have combined my expertise in law and education to produce an analysis of how a statute which is a national policy, has been received and interpreted at a local level by a number of participants. The findings show that there was only one participant who was aware of the existence of the Academies Act as the policy which governs the environment within which stakeholders involved in this study work. They did not appear to perceive a direct link between the raising of standards and the academisation process. The perception of the stakeholders regarding the aims of the Act differed depending upon his or her role and level of seniority within the school and the position of the school academically and financially pre-academisation. The raising of attainment was only considered to be an aim by half of the principals or head teachers. Schools which were already high performing did not see academisation as a way to improve. Underperforming schools pre-academisation were in receipt of support and raising attainment was a focus in any event. Likewise, schools which were already financially stable did not see finance necessarily as an aim. However, the financial gain was seen to be an attraction which could bring with it the opportunity to be creative in the school’s use of the budget. Autonomy was the most popular response as an aim for academisation. The process of academisation touched various elements within participant schools: finance, attainment, behaviour, curriculum, staff, collaboration, professional development, intake and ethos. However, overall, these were not directly linked to academisation. Curriculum freedom to enhance pupils’ opportunity to be able to compete with pupils academically in an international arena was considered favourably to be an aim of the Act. The lack of awareness of the Act and its contents by the stakeholders minimises the potential of stakeholders to develop the schools when they do not appreciate the framework within which they work. Therefore, more attention to staff development concerning the Act could ensure that the schools are maximising the stakeholders’ potential and thus having maximum impact upon the schools. The position of a school pre-academisation and whether it was a converter or sponsored academy may affect the perceptions of those stakeholders. All schools saw an impact during the change to an academy. However, it is difficult for stakeholders to say whether the impact would have occurred or not if the school had not academised. ii Acknowledgements Thank you to the head teachers, principals and governors of schools who allowed me to undertake this research in their schools. I wish to thank all participants who gave up their time to be interviewed and made the research process enjoyable. My thanks go to my supervisors Professor T N Basit, Doctor L Machin and Professor M Lowe for their advice and guidance which kept me focused on achieving my goal. Above all, I am truly grateful to my family who has supported me and given me unconditional love and encouragement throughout the years I have been studying for this degree. Thank you for your patience and time. I could not have achieved as much as I have without you and the escapism of the beautiful views of the sea. iii Contents Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The introduction of academies 2 1.3 Research questions 4 1.4 The impact of academies 4 1.5 Structure of the thesis 6 Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 The question of policy 8 2.3 Analysing policy 12 2.4 The Academies Act 2010 14 2.5 The Drive for the Academies Act 2010 20 2.6 Research questions 26 2.7 Summary 26 Chapter Three: Research Design 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Research Approach 27 3.3 Ontology, Epistemology and Paradigm 28 3.4 Positionality 30 3.5 Methodology 33 3.6 Methods 34 3.7 Sample 36 3.8 Ethics 38 3.9 Validity and Reliability 39 3.10 Procedure 40 3.11 Data Analysis 41 3.12 Summary 43 Chapter Four: Findings and Analysis iv 4.0 Introduction 44 4.1 Education stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the aims of the Academies Act 2010 45 4.1.1 Attainment 46 4.1.2 Financial opportunities 49 4.1.3 Autonomy as an aim for the Academies Act 50 4.2 Lived experiences of stakeholders in a school undergoing academisation 52 4.2.1 The financial impact of academisation 52 4.2.2 Pupil attainment 55 4.2.3 Change in pupil behaviour 58 4.2.4 Alterations to the curriculum 60 4.2.5 Participants’ Lived Experiences of Autonomy 62 4.2.6 Impact on staff 65 4.2.7 Collaborative work 68 4.2.8 Continuing Professional Development 71 4.2.9 Intake and exclusion 72 4.2.10 School ethos 75 4.2.11 Summary 77 Chapter Five: Conclusion 5.1 Reflection 80 5.2 The aims of the Academies Act – Literature and Participants’ Views 82 5.3 Conclusion of the findings relating to the overall lived experiences of stakeholders 84 5.4 Implications of research 86 5.5 Significance of the study 89 5.6 Areas of further research 90 References 92 Appendix 1 111 Appendix 2 115 Appendix 3 118 Appendix 4 119 Appendix 5 121 v Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Introduction This is a research project in which I have personal experiences of academies, which prompted me to examine this under-researched area of the education system in the UK through a case study approach. It is argued that there is a void in investigating the effectiveness of academies as far as the lived experiences of those working at a local level under the implementation of the national policy is concerned. The implementation of new policies within education and in particular an entirely new school system is based upon the notion of changing the status quo. I considered Michael Fullan’s theory of change as potentially playing a part within the study and it could have been a credible framework but I wanted to emphasise a slightly different angle and therefore chose not to use it in this research. However, a continuation of this research using Fullan’s theory may well be appropriate (Fullan, 2006). Upon closer examination of various elements of his theory I discovered that it was not appropriate to base the entire study upon this theory. However, I acknowledge that there are parts of his theory with relevance to this study. Taking into account the significance of political influences behind the introduction of academies and the subsequent changes implemented by schools that have become academies, I have focused upon the 2010 White Paper and the work of Stephen Ball (DFE, 2010). Ball is a policy sociologist who provides a critical lens in which education policy may be viewed. It should always be considered as to who funds any piece of research as to whether the researcher is impartial. A researcher may cease to be independent and become biased when the research is funded. A case study approach to conduct the study was felt to be appropriate given the emphasis upon capturing lived experiences of stakeholders at a particular instance. In 1997, the Labour Government initiated the academies as a vehicle to raise standards among other aims which are to be discussed below; in particular, the stakeholders’ perceptions of the aims of the academies being drawn together by the Academies Act 2010 (National Audit Office, 2010, The National Archives, 2010). Essentially academies were to be schools outside of Local Authority control whereby funding was received directly by the individual school as opposed to receiving it via the Local Authority as it saw fit. In principle, this notion seems simple and manageable. However, the funds, which were taken from the local authority budgets, took into account the number of academies within the area and the amount the academies would need to source the services in the private sector as opposed to being a reflection upon the amount actually being spent by the local authority, as noted by the Scrutiny Task and Finish Working Group (2012). However, this is a government organisation and thus could be swayed by the need to demonstrate the positivity of academies given the source of its funding and the importance of the success of academies for some political parties which have supported their existence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Academies on Educational Outcomes
    1 About the authors Natalie Perera is Executive Director and Head of Research at the Education Policy Institute. Natalie worked in the Department for Education from 2002 to 2014, where she led on a number of reforms, including childcare and early years provision and the design of a new national funding formula for schools. Between 2014 and 2015, Natalie worked in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office. Natalie is the principal author of the EPI’s ‘Annual Report on Education in England’ and ‘Implications of the National Funding Formula for Schools’. Jon Andrews is Director for School System and Performance and Deputy Head of Research at the Education Policy Institute. Prior to this, Jon worked in the Department for Education from 2003 to 2016, most recently leading on statistics and analysis for the National Funding Formula for schools, the 2015 Spending Review and the white paper, ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’. Jon is the principal author of EPI’s ‘The Performance of Local Authorities and Multi Academy Trusts’ report and a series of publications on the performance of grammar and faith schools. Andrew Eyles is a PhD student at University College London and a Research Assistant at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. He holds an MSc in Economics from the University of Warwick and a PGDip in Economics from the University of Bristol. His research interests cover labour and education economics and policy. Gabriel Heller Sahlgren is a PhD student at the London School of Economics and a Research Assistant at the Centre for Economic Performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard Record of the Entire Day in PDF Format. PDF File, 1
    Wednesday Volume 662 19 June 2019 No. 316 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 19 June 2019 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 219 19 JUNE 2019 220 Drew Hendry: According to every piece of the Secretary House of Commons of State’s own Government’s analysis, there is no version of Brexit that fails to harm Scotland. New YouGov Wednesday 19 June 2019 polling shows that Tory members would prefer Scotland to be an independent country, rather than stopping Brexit. Which choice should the Scottish Secretary make: The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock a devastating no-deal Brexit Britain, or giving the people of Scotland the choice to be an independent European nation? PRAYERS David Mundell: Mr Speaker, it will not surprise you to hear me say that Scotland has already made its [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] choice on whether to be independent or part of the United Kingdom. The poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred was based on a false premise. This Government are about delivering Brexit and keeping Scotland at the Oral Answers to Questions heart of the United Kingdom. John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con): Will the Secretary of State tell us how much SCOTLAND money the Scottish Government have given to local authorities in Scotland to prepare for our exit from the The Secretary of State was asked— European Union? Leaving the EU David Mundell: As far as I understand it, the UK Government have made more than £100 million available to the Scottish Government to help to prepare for 1.
    [Show full text]
  • REFORM Provided by Digital Education Resource Archive
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE REFORM provided by Digital Education Resource Archive Every teacher matters Dale Bassett Andrew Haldenby Will Tanner Kimberley Trewhitt November 2010 Every teacher matters The authors Dale Bassett is Research Director at Reform. Andrew Haldenby is Director of Reform. Will Tanner is a Researcher at Reform. Kimberley Trewhitt is a Researcher at Reform. 1 Every teacher matters Reform Reform is an independent, non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity. Reform is a registered charity, the Reform Research Trust, charity no. 1103739. This publication is the property of the Reform Research Trust. We believe that by reforming the public sector, increasing investment and extending choice, high quality services can be made available for everyone. Our vision is of a Britain with 21st Century healthcare, high standards in schools, a modern and efficient transport system, safe streets, and a free, dynamic and competitive economy. 2 Every teacher matters Dale Bassett Andrew Haldenby Will Tanner Kimberley Trewhitt November 2010 3 Every teacher matters Contents Executive summary 5 1. The importance of teachers 7 2. Central and local government have taken responsibility for teacher quality 14 3. Losing the battle 20 4. The path to performance 26 5. A new approach? 35 6. An action plan for great teaching 38 References 41 Appendix 1: Statutory teaching standards 45 Appendix 2: David Young Community Academy performance management regime 51 Appendix 3: Transcription of ‘Supporting quality teaching’ 55 Appendix 4: Model capability procedure 66 4 Every teacher matters Executive summary The new Government wants to improve the quality of teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Schools Causign Concern
    Schools causing concern Statutory guidance for local authorities January 2015 Contents Summary 3 Section 1: Introduction 8 Section 2: Schools causing concern 10 1. Schools eligible for intervention as a result of a warning notice 10 2. Schools eligible for intervention as a result of having been judged as “requiring significant improvement” or “special measures” 12 Section 3: Warning notices 13 1. Giving a warning notice 13 2. Making representations against the warning notice 14 3. Power of the Secretary of State to direct the local authority to consider giving and to give a warning notice 15 Section 4: Local authorities’ powers of intervention 17 1. Power to suspend the delegated authority for the governing body to manage a school’s budget 17 2. Power to appoint an Interim Executive Board (IEB) 17 3. Power to appoint additional governors 20 4. Power to require the governing body to enter into arrangements 21 Section 5: Secretary of State's powers of intervention 22 1. Power to appoint additional governors 22 2. Power to direct the closure of a school 22 3. Power to provide for the governing body to consist of interim executive members 23 4. Power to make an academy order 23 Section 6: Governance 22 Further sources of information 26 Associated resources (external links) 27 Other departmental resources 27 2 Summary About this guidance This is statutory guidance given by the Department for Education, on behalf of the Secretary of State, relating to maintained schools causing concern. Section 72 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 places a statutory duty on all local authorities in England, in exercising their functions in respect of schools causing concern as set out in Part 4 of the 2006 Act, to have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening a Studio School a Guide for Studio School Proposer Groups on the Pre-Opening Stage
    Opening a studio school A guide for studio school proposer groups on the pre-opening stage August 2014 Contents Introduction 3 Section 1 - Who does what - roles and responsibilities? 5 Section 2 - Managing your project 10 Section 3 – Governance 12 Section 4 - Pupil recruitment and admissions 21 Section 5 - Statutory consultation 33 Section 6 - Staffing and education plans 36 Section 7 - Site and buildings 42 Section 8 – Finance 56 Section 9 - Procurement and additional support 63 Section 10 - Funding Agreement 67 Section 11 - The equality duty 71 Section 12 - Preparing to open 73 Section 13 - Once your school is open 80 Annex A - RSC regions and Local authorities 82 2 Introduction Congratulations! All your planning and preparation has paid off, and the Secretary of State for Education has agreed that your application to open a studio school should move to the next stage of the process – known as the ‘pre-opening’ stage. This is the stage between the approval of your application and the opening of the school. The setting up of a studio school is a challenging but ultimately very rewarding task and it will require significant commitment and time from sponsors and partners. Your original application set out your plans for establishing the studio school, from the education vision and the admission of pupils to the recruitment of staff and the curriculum. Now your application has been approved, you must begin work to implement these plans. The letter of approval you received from the Department for Education (DfE) sets out important conditions of approval. It is vital that you consider these conditions carefully in planning your priorities and what you need to focus on next.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashdown House School V JKL & Anor HS1322.2019
    IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. HS/1322/2019 (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) ON APPEAL FROM THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (HESC) (SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS & DISABILITY) Tribunal Ref EH845/19/00048 BEFORE JUDGE WEST Appellant THE PROPRIETOR OF ASHDOWN HOUSE SCHOOL and Respondents (1) JKL (2) MNP APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF A TRIBUNAL DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ON APPEAL FROM Tribunal SENDIST Tribunal Case No: EH845/19/00048 Tribunal Hearing Date: 17/5/2019 HS1322/2019 ORDER Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the child in these proceedings. This order does not apply to (a) the child’s parents (b) any person to whom the child’s parents, in due exercise of their parental responsibility, disclose such a matter or who learns of it through publication by either parent, where such publication is a due exercise of parental responsibility (c) any person exercising statutory (including judicial) functions in relation to the child where knowledge of the matter is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions. DETERMINATION The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (SENDIST) dated 22 May 2019 (after a hearing on 17 May 2019) under file reference EH845/19/00048 does not involve an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is dismissed. The orders of 20 June 2019 and 4 July 2019 suspending the effect of the decision of the First- tier Tribunal cease to have any effect from the date of this decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Academy: the Magna Carta School URN: 137116 Predecessor School: the Magna Carta School URN: 125258
    Existing academy: The Magna Carta School URN: 137116 Predecessor school: The Magna Carta School URN: 125258 Thorpe Road TW18 3HJ Academy conversion and predecessor schools Under the Academies Act 2010, schools may apply to the Secretary of State to convert to academy status. Such schools are known as academy converters. Upon conversion to academy status the existing school closes and a new school opens in its place. Although little may have changed, the academy converter is a new legal entity. Most academy converters have yet to have a section 5 inspection. However, to assist parents and other interested parties, information about, and the inspection history of the school which preceded the new academy are available here. It is important to note that, as the academy converter is a new school, which may not yet have been inspected, the inspection judgements of the predecessor school are not those of the new academy. However, the most recent inspection judgements of the predecessor school are taken into account by Ofsted for the purpose of scheduling the first inspection of the new academy converter. Some academy converters have replaced schools which were judged to be outstanding at their most recent Ofsted inspection. Under the Education Act 2011, most schools previously judged to be outstanding will be exempt from routine inspection. This means they will not be subject to inspection at regular intervals. However, three years after the predecessor school was last inspected it will be subject to Ofsted’s formal risk-assessment process, which may lead to an inspection. Finally, under section 8 of the Education Act 2005 the Chief Inspector may decide to inspect any school in England if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, or if, based on information received by Ofsted, he judges that a school would benefit from inspection.
    [Show full text]
  • Title of Paper
    Free Schools in England: the Future of British Education? Franziska Florack University of Bradford (UK) [email protected] Abstract On the 18 June 2010, Michael Gove and the conservative party announced that they would allow ambitious teachers and community groups to start their own schools. These ‘Free Schools’ would be privately governed but state funded. In September 2011, the first 24 Free Schools opened their doors to students and by the end of 2013, 244 schools had been accepted into the program. Due to a lack of research into Free Schools (which as its best is limited and paints a very confusing picture), little is known about their attainment and motivation. Most writings on the topic are highly politicized and cause frequent storms in the media. Criticisms focus on the high expense of Free Schools, their small year groups and independence from local education authorities (LEAs). This paper gives a brief introduction to the political and historical background of Free Schools and outlines the reactions to their introduction in the UK. It argues that while some initial claims can be made about their success, more research is needed to determine their impact on the UK education landscape. 1. Introduction On the 18 June 2010, Michael Gove and the conservative party announced that they would allow ambitious teachers and community groups to start their own schools. These ‘Free Schools’ would be privately governed but state funded. One of the primary reasons for this change in the UK education system had been that Gove wanted to narrow the gap in provision between poorer families and their wealthier counterparts.
    [Show full text]
  • Toby Young Bre Eds Contempt
    TOBY YOUNG BRE EDS CONTEMPT. AFTER Thby Young's controversial AFTER Boris Johnson appointment to the board Of the Office fe"' Young walk "an Weld man for the for Students, comments he had (al leasi, he was when Lye )t, made on Radio 4 about "progressive press), reciprocating the sopporl ha eugenics" were shared far and wide. d offered in his ,rrC:u eolooms wio.LO But his interest in the area has made .11111111S0111 was London mayor, Mat h:,,.1 him some friends. Cove endorsed dial verdict rionit,• Last year Young was invited by right too"). No surprise, as t;ove and leased just before Christmas psychologist James Thompson to attend Young have a long and fond history. he shady Legatum Institute a secretive conference at UCL called the Fri on 2010 until Gove was irif ,v(.(1 intinues to wheedle its way London Conference on Intelligence (1_ CI). reshuffle in 2014, Young regularly (k "Attendees were only told the venue at the last (;five in his columns, hailing him as "thy radical education secretary since :hall meetings reveal that minute... and asked not to share the the <m,t light and arch hard- information," Young recalled. What he kept 1() World War". r Singham was welcomed himself was why the conference he attended Then. in June 2016, alter David ( resignation, Young talked up (iove's tr;(1,..ro )ffice to meet Britain's top was so secretive. feremy Heywood, on the Although a request for the invitation-only as successor to the prime minister in thr. :;11V1 .y:rri ay's Florence speech.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Teaching the Schools White Paper 2010 Department for Education
    The Importance of Teaching The Schools White Paper 2010 Department for Education The Importance of Teaching Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty November 2010 Cm 7980 £19.75 © Crown Copyright 2010 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus. This publication is also available on http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/ ISBN: 9780101798020 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID P002401441 11/10 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. 1 Contents Foreword by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister 3 Foreword by the Secretary of State for Education 6 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction – the future of schools 16 2. Teaching and Leadership 19 3. Behaviour 31 4. Curriculum, Assessment and Qualifications 39 5. New Schools System 50 6. Accountability 65 7. School Improvement 72 8. School Funding 78 Endnotes 91 2 The Importance of Teaching 3 Foreword by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister So much of the education debate in this country is backward looking: have standards fallen? Have exams got easier? These debates will continue, but what really matters is how we’re doing compared with our international competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Sir / Madam LETTER BEFORE CLAIM UNDER
    Chief Regulator, Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation BY EMAIL ONLY: [email protected] Dear Sir / Madam 23 August 2020 Rook Irwin Sweeney LLP LETTER BEFORE CLAIM UNDER THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 107—111 Fleet Street London Re: Public First Contract EC4A 2AB We act for the Good Law Project Limited (“GLP”) which seeks to challenge the Our Ref: PS:AMI:117 lawfulness of the decision of the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) to award a Public Service Contract within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 to Public First Limited (“Public First”) to assist Ofqual with communicating its A-level and GSCE results plan to help secure public confidence in the strategy (“the Contract” / “the Communications Services”). From the information available to us (which is extremely limited absent any contract award notice or contract having been provided by Ofqual), it appears that Ofqual entered into the contract with Public First on or around 13 June 2020 without any prior advertisement or any competitive tender process. It is understood that the Contract was let by direct award on grounds of urgency but to date no notice of award has been published on Contracts Finder nor any other procurement portal. It is understood that the value of the Contract is worth in excess of the applicable threshold for a Public Service Contract but Ofqual has, to date, refused to confirm the precise value of the award. The GLP first learned of this award through reporting in a national newspaper on 20 August 2020,1 no prior notice of the award of the Contract having been published by Ofqual before 20 August 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Academies, Autonomy, Equality and Democratic Accountability: Reforming the Fragmented Publicly Funded School System in England’
    West, A. and Wolfe, D. (2019) ‘Academies, autonomy, equality and democratic accountability: Reforming the fragmented publicly funded school system in England’. London Review of Education, 17 (1): 70–86. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.1.06 Academies, autonomy, equality and democratic accountability: Reforming the fragmented publicly funded school system in England Anne West* − London School of Economics and Political Science, UK David Wolfe − Matrix Chambers, UK Abstract This article focuses on the transformative academies policy in England. Based on an analysis of documentary evidence, we argue that the policy has resulted in the fragmentation of the state-funded school system and stark variation between academies, with those within multi-academy trusts (MATs) having no legal identity. We examine the variation between funding agreements, the control by central government, the role of MATs and the governance of academies. We propose policy options to improve the current incoherent and fragmented set of provisions, including restoring the legal identity of schools in MATs and allowing academies if they so wish, to convert to maintained schools. Keywords: academies; multi-academy trusts (MATs); funding agreements; law; governance; finance Introduction Since 2000 there has been a rapid and radical transformation of publicly funded school- based education in England: over a third of schools – and nearly three-quarters of secondary schools – are now ‘academies’ rather than ‘maintained’ by local authorities. Academies are owned and run by not-for-profit private trusts (exempt charities) that register as companies with Companies House and are subject to company law. They are controlled and funded directly by central government by means of a contract – a funding agreement – between a trust (that is, a legal entity) and the Secretary of State for Education (DfE, 2018a), rather than being run by a governing body in accordance with statutory education law, as is essentially the case for maintained schools.
    [Show full text]