CHOICE WHAT CHOICE COVER HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE COVER HDS 12/12/07 16:04 Page 1

For nearly twenty years parents have been allowed to choose which schools their children attend. Or that is the theory. In practice, hundreds of thousands are denied their first choice and their children remain trapped in inadequate schools. School choice has failed to deliver because there is no market in education within which it can operate. Restrictions on the Choice? What Choice? supply of places in good schools mean that school providers cannot respond to parental preferences as they would do in a normal consumer market. Choice? The supply side of the education market is so constrained by administrative and even physical barriers that few new suppliers manage to surmount them. These barriers are the focus of our What Choice? report – why they occur and, most importantly, how they can be removed. On academies we show sponsors’ unease at the Brown Government’s attitude and we ask why, if freedom is good for some schools it should not be available to all schools? Supply and demand in English education On surplus places and competitions for new schools we show how reforms passed under Tony Blair to provide potential new suppliers with a number of routes to enter the state system are being ignored by local authorities keen on retaining control of Eleanor Sturdy and Sam Freedman the school system. And on planning we show how demographic growth could cause crisis for authorities who have focused on removing surplus places with little regard for competition or flexibility of demand.

Eleanor Sturdy and Sam Freedman

£10.00 ISBN: 978-1-906097-11-0 Policy Exchange Policy Exchange Clutha House 10 Storey’s Gate London SW1P 3AY www.policyexchange.org.uk CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 1

Choice? What Choice?

Supply and demand in English education

Eleanor Sturdy and Sam Freedman

Policy Exchange is an independent think tank whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which will foster a free society based on strong communities, personal freedom, limited government, national self-confidence and an enterprise culture. Registered charity no: 1096300.

Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development. We work in partnership with aca- demics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy out- comes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector.

Trustees Charles Moore (Chairman of the Board), Theodore Agnew, Richard Briance, Camilla Cavendish, Richard Ehrman, Robin Edwards, George Robinson, Tim Steel, Alice Thomson, Rachel Whetstone. CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 2

About the authors

Eleanor Sturdy their management and leadership strategy. Eleanor Sturdy read Chemistry at Eleanor was Development Director with Somerville College, Oxford. After graduat- United Learning Trust for two years and is a ing, Eleanor worked in investment banking, Fellow of the RSA and a Trustee of the St before broadening her experience to general Pancras Welfare Trust. management with McKinsey & Co. She has been involved in the education sector for Sam Freedman the past five years, initially covering educa- Sam is Head of the Education Unit at tional philanthropy during the start-up Policy Exchange. He achieved a first class phase with New Philanthropy Capital, degree in History from Magdalen College, where she co-authored Making Sense of SEN Oxford. After completing a Masters degree (2004). This meant developing a general in International History in 2004, Sam knowledge and understanding of the educa- joined the Independent Schools Council as tion system, including the interfaces a researcher. He left three years later as between public, private and voluntary sec- Head of Research, having also completed a tors. She has worked with several education second Masters degree in Public Policy and funding bodies on their grant-making pro- Management at Birkbeck. Sam joined grammes, and also with schools looking at Policy Exchange in September 2007.

© Policy Exchange 2007

Published by Policy Exchange, Clutha House, 10 Storey’s Gate, London SW1P 3AY www.policyexchange.org.uk

ISBN: 978-1-906097-11-0

Printed by Heron, Dawson and Sawyer Designed by SoapBox, www.soapboxcommunications.co.uk

2 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 3

Contents

Acknowledgements 4 Foreword by David Willets MP 5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 8

1. The Academies Programme 13 2. Demand and Supply in English Education 23 3. A Fair Competition? 31 4. Planning for the Future 36

Conclusion 43

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 3 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 4

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank James Lord Harris of Peckham, Harris Foundation

O’Shaughnessy for managing this project Lucy Heller, ARK Education for most of its life; Charlotte Leslie for her initial research and David Willetts for his Gervas Huxley, Bristol University advice and encouragement. We would also Peter Jenkins, Ernst and Young like to thank Simon Horner and Ben Deborah Knight, The Haberdashers’ Ullman for their valuable contributions. Company Finally, we would like to thank Philippa Ingram for her expert proof reading. Cheryl Lim, Policy Exchange We are also grateful to the following Mark Logan, Edison Schools people for agreeing to be interviewed for Michael Marchant, The Mercers’ Company this project, and to several others who wished to remain anonymous. Neil McIntosh, CfBT Cllr Sir Simon Milton, Westminster Council Devon Allison, Secondary Schools Campaign Thomas Moran, CBI in Lambeth and Brixton parent Richard Morris, The Society of Merchant Gideon Amos, Town and Country Planning Venturers Association Dr Dan Moynihan, Harris Foundation Carol Bates, former Principal, Harris CTC Alistair Muriel, Institute of Fiscal Studies Adrian Beecroft, Apax Partners John Nash, Sovereign Capital David Betton, KPMG Dr Mark Pennington, Queen Mary, University Andrew Billington, Petchey Foundation of London Neil Carberry, Confederation of British Tom Peryer, London Diocesan Board of Industry Schools Paul Carter, Education Excellence Oliver Piggott, Ernst and Young Martyn Coles, City of London Academy Annemarie Shillito, Experian Group Limited Chris Cook Rynd Smith, Royal Town Planning Institute Steve Chalke, Oasis Trust Tony Smith, Cambridge Education David Clark, Building Development Amanda Spielman, ARK Education Partnerships Dr Tessa Stone, Sutton Trust Chris Davies, Policy Exchange Patrick Watson, Montrose Communications Stephen Dengate, VT Education and Skills Richard Williams, New Model School Peter Evans, Prospects Company Anthony Fine, White & Case Alan Wood, Hackney Learning Trust Cllr Mike Freer, Barnet Council Inigo Woolf, London Diocesan Board of Christine Ginty, Bryanstone Square Schools

Richard Hardie, UBS Robert Whelan, Civitas

Sir Ewan Harper, United Learning Trust Stuart Whitfield, Bevan Brittan LLP

4 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 5

Foreword By David Willetts MP Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills

For years, politicians of all hues have to respond to competitive pressures as well focussed on methods of reforming the as showing how great the prize of real demand side of the public services, with reform can be. policy suggestions like tax relief for person- I first encouraged Eleanor Sturdy to al payments and choice mechanisms. undertake this research because of the But we have not given equal attention to importance of tackling the barriers which the challenge of making these choices real. get in the way of the creation and expan- They cannot be exercised without reform sion of new schools. Tackling issues such on the supply side – making it easier, for as planning law, VAT, surplus place rules example, for good schools to expand or and capital allocation are important if we new schools to be created. are to deliver real reform in education. As I said in a speech earlier this year “It For too long, the debate has been about is as if we were lovingly focusing on the how we can divide a limited number of details of exactly what free railway tickets places in adequate schools. We need to we should hand out to people without think about breaking the strictures which tackling the problem that the trains people prevent real dynamism in British educa- want to take are full to bursting already, tion and the creation of more good school health and safety regulations make it very places. hard to add extra carriages and planning The next great battle over British educa- rules obstruct the building of new track.” tional reforms will not be about central Britain has fallen behind other western control and direction, but how we free countries as they have pushed ahead with schools to respond to local demands. such an agenda which we have ignored, Supply-side reform of the public services thereby depriving generations of school- will be one of the great political issues in children of important opportunities. The years to come and I am delighted that work of Professor Caroline Hoxby, one of Policy Exchange has produced this excel- the leading experts on school choice, has lent pamphlet as one of the first serious emphasised the need for schools to be free contributions to this debate.

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 5 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 6

Executive Summary

For nearly twenty years parents have been Act 2006) provide potential new suppliers allowed to choose which schools their chil- with a number of routes to enter the state dren attend. Or that is the theory. In prac- system. However, the Government has tice, hundreds of thousands are denied been incredibly cautious about turning the their first choice and their children remain spirit of this legislation into reality. It has trapped in inadequate schools. School not been prepared to take on vested inter- choice has failed to deliver because there is ests in the form of local authorities and no market in education within which it teacher unions, which, unsurprisingly, are can operate. Restrictions on the supply of unwilling to see their traditional powers places in good schools mean that school weakened. By contrast, the alternative providers cannot respond to parental pref- school providers whom we spoke to in the erences as they would do in a normal con- course of our research feel that support is sumer market. often lacking. So far the Brown adminis- tration seems hostile to the idea of choice – the word itself has disappeared from min- “ In a free market, if a good school is oversubscribed isterial speeches and articles. Yet the laws either the school will expand to meet rising demand or remain on the books and no alternative another good school will open nearby policy approach has been provided. ” We begin by looking at the academies programme, the only concrete example of supply-side reform under Labour. In a free market, if a good school is over- Although still in their early days, acade- subscribed either the school will expand to mies are proving successful in terms of meet rising demand or another good results and are popular with parents – suc- school will open nearby; failing schools cess that can be largely attributed to their will lose pupils and be forced to close. independence. Unfortunately, that inde- Sadly, this is not what happens. Instead, pendence is being eroded. The the parents of children unlucky enough Government has forced the academies not to get a place at a good school have to back into the National Curriculum and, settle for second, third or fourth best. A more worryingly, it is encouraging local choice in which the only option ends up authorities to co-sponsor academies, which being the failing local comprehensive is no entirely defeats the purpose of providing choice at all. The supply side of the educa- greater diversity. The Government should tion market is so constrained by adminis- make it much easier for new academies to trative and even physical barriers that few be set up. For a start, it should abolish the new suppliers manage to surmount them. £2 million sponsorship fee and allow exist- These barriers are the focus of our report – ing schools to transfer to academy status if why they occur and, most importantly, they have an appropriate sponsor. how they can be removed. Next we examine the amount of unmet Fortunately, a supply-side revolution demand for good school places, which is a does not require radical or contentious direct consequence of constricted supply. new legislation. Reforms passed under The pattern that emerges is one in which Tony Blair (the academies legislation of the best schools are vastly oversubscribed, 2002 and the Education and Inspections the number of parents not getting their

6 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 7

Executive summary

first choice is rising steadily and the num- competition process; new providers ber of admissions appeals is unacceptably should be able to employ someone at gov- high. At the other end of the scale, failing ernment expense to prepare their bid; the schools are naturally undersubscribed, but local authority should not be in charge of their surplus places are used as an excuse to the consultation if it is participating in forbid the expansion of successful schools the competition; and schools adjudicators and the entrance into the market of new should be drawn from a range of back- education providers. This could be pre- grounds rather than just the education vented if only surplus places in good or establishment. outstanding schools were taken into Finally, we turn to the physical barriers account. Much more transparency is to supplying new schools. Local authori- required. Data about the level of unful- ties are selling off land that has been set filled demand should be published, so that aside for public services (D1 land) for pri- local authorities can be held fully account- vate housing development. We believe able for the lack of places in good schools. this sell-off is based on mistaken demo- Where provision is found to be inade- graphic assumptions. Although birth rates quate, local authorities should be com- declined in the late Nineties and the pelled to plan for new schools provided by number of school-age children has fallen, new suppliers and/or academies. this trend has now reversed. But because We also evaluate the process for setting there are surplus places at present, schools up a new school. The Education and are being closed and their sites sold. Inspections Act 2006 states that a compe- Without some excess capacity in the sys- tition should be held for would-be tem it will be very difficult to respond to providers with the aim of increasing rising demand in the future. We recom- diversity of supply, but the guidance is mend that land previously used for educa- full of loopholes. An authority can avoid tional purposes should be protected, as a competition if it co-sponsors a new school playing fields currently are. To academy, while the only competition to make it easier to provide new school sites, take place so far was heavily skewed in mixed-use schemes involving the private favour of the local authority bid. We rec- sector should be encouraged, and local ommend that authorities should not be authorities should not deny change-of-use allowed to co-sponsor academies and that planning permission to new independent the competition rules should be revised. schools if that would ease demand on the Academies should be included in the maintained sector.

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 7 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 8

Introduction

You may not realise this – but we have tentative first steps in introducing genuine school choice in England. Since the diversity of provision to the system, at its Education Reform Act 1988 parents have benefits and at the growing threats to its been able to list their preference of schools. future. We then suggest how the programme No one is guaranteed a place at his first could be expanded to make the freedoms it choice, but then no system could ever guar- offers more widely available. antee this. The problem is not the absence of choice but the absence of good schools to Chapter two examines why the current choose from. The “bog-standard” compre- system is so inflexible. We establish the hensive is still all there is for far too many level of demand for new good school places communities. Yet despite the Government’s and investigate why LAs seem so slow to occasional and cautious support of supply- respond to this demand. We discuss ways side reform, the challenges to setting up a to trigger automatically the building of a new school in order to provide choice new school if there are not enough good remain legion. This report makes a series of school places in a given area. recommendations that if implemented would offer parents real choice. Chapter three looks at the process for The argument for choice and diversity deciding who runs a new school on the within education has been made convincing- rare occasions when local authorities are ly in numerous other studies. We will briefly pressed into action. We believe that it is run through these arguments in this intro- too easy for them to avoid their statutory ducyion but our purpose here is to provide duty to increase diversity and that the practical recommendations to free up the sup- levers of competition are too weak. ply side using, in the main, existing legisla- tion. The Education Act 2002, which allows Finally, Chapter four focuses on the short- for the setting up of academies, and the age of suitable land for building new Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA) schools. We provide evidence that local provide many of the mechanisms necessary authorities are acting in a short-sighted for a supply-side revolution. But the spirit of manner by selling off school land for hous- these Acts has been largely ignored by those in ing despite forecasts of population growth charge of school planning. This is largely the in ten to fifteen years. Already in some LAs responsibility of local authorities (LAs), who there is a serious lack of land for new are still responsible for school organisation in schools and we believe that this will get their areas. That they have not embraced the worse without action from central govern- legislative changes in favour of diverse supply ment. is unsurprising –it was naïve of the Blair Government to expect that local authorities It is important to remember that all three would welcome alternative suppliers on to main parties claim to support school their patch. Many of the recommendations in choice. Although we have concerns that this report focus on both tightening the rules the Brown administration is retreating and broadening their application so that the from the Blairite reform agenda, it is leg- rhetoric of the EIA is borne out in practice. islation introduced by successive Labour governments that would enable many of Chapter one looks at the academies pro- the reforms we suggest. A genuine con- gramme, which represents the Government’s sensus in the House of Commons should

8 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 9

Introduction

lead to genuine choice for parents. It is position that all that is needed is one “good the barriers we identify in this report that local school” without necessarily under- are preventing this from happening. standing the counter-argument that “the Without the reforms recommended we good local school” is an end not a means believe that choice will continue to exist and choice is the best mechanism for deliv- in name only. ery. Despite this, though, all three political parties have used the language of choice Choice and Competition in Education over the past few years and all three have Since the publication of The Role of cited Sweden and the US as positive exam- Government in Education by Milton ples of system change. In 2004 Tony Blair Friedman in 1955, school choice has asked: “What are the key elements if we are appeared regularly on the political radar. really to put the public at the heart of pub- The principle is simple: competition lic services?…A continuous drive to between education suppliers for students increase the scope and scale of choice avail- will increase the overall quality and effi- able to public service users. Whenever the ciency of the system. As an idea it has been expansion of choice has been proposed in through cycles of popularity and unpopu- the public sector there have been the larity. However, in the early 1990s large- doomsayers arguing that such freedoms scale policy experiments in Sweden and would be exploited by the assertive few at America provided a factual base for sup- the expense of everyone else. Each time porters of choice. Since then numerous these predictions have been wrong.”2 analyses have shown that choice does have During his campaign for the leadership of a positive impact – though these are always the Conservative Party David Cameron hotly contested by opponents of choice, announced that “the Conservative party whose opposition is typically focused on must be the party of real school choice for the potential for inequality of opportunity. all, recognising that schools should be A recent report, Public Services at the accountable to the people they serve, not Crossroads, published by the Institute for bureaucrats in the town hall or Public Policy Research, claims that “as a nar- Whitehall.”3 At the 2007 Liberal Democrat rative of reform ‘choice’ has been particular- Party conference education spokesman ly unsuccessful: it has alienated the work- David Laws argued: “If we believe in force without capturing the imagination of empowering parents and pupils, part of the public”.1 To some extent this is true. The that empowerment is choice. Choice is not teacher unions have always been strongly a dirty word: it is one of the essential free- opposed to increased competition between doms in a liberal society.”4 schools because of the perceived additional Gordon Brown and his Secretary of 1. Brooks R et al, Public Services at the Crossroads, (IPPR, 2007), risk for their members. Furthermore State for Children, Schools and Families, p 8

“choice” is a pretty abstract concept for par- Ed Balls, have been noticeably less pre- 2. Blair T, Speech at the Guardian ents to grasp. In America the abstractions of pared to use the language of choice and Public Services Summit, 29 January 2004; www.guardian. choice have attached themselves to the more diversity – in the next chapter we look at co.uk/society/2004/jan/29/comm solid reality of the race debate: it is black how this negative attitude is impacting on ent.publicservices 3. Cameron D, 9 September and Hispanic parents who have seen choice the academies programme. However, they 2005; http://politics.guardian as a way to level the playing field in an oth- have offered no alternative narrative for .co.uk/toryleader/story/0,,156668 6,00.html erwise unequal system. In England, howev- school improvement and the rhetoric of 4. Laws D, Speech to Liberal er, the concept has not attached itself to any choice enshrined in the EIA is still the basis Democrat Conference, 19 concrete example of unfairness in the sys- upon which local authorities are supposed September 2007; www.libdems. org.uk/conference/brighton-2007- tem. Parents can support the anti-choice to act. Our concern is that a lack of will at david-laws-speech.7744.html

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 9 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 10

Choice? What Choice?

the top will prevent the spirit of the 2006 studies showing that public schools subject Act from becoming practice, leaving – in to voucher competition make greater aca- the absence of any alternative programme demic gains than similar schools not facing – stagnation and stasis. competition.7 More impressively, since 1991 40 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have enacted charter Choice and Competition: school legislation. There are now over 1.1 An International Perspective million children studying at over 4,000 Supply-side reforms have gone furthest in charter schools nationwide. These schools Sweden and the US. The evidence from are similar to English academies in being these countries suggests that the introduc- independent state schools run by a diverse tion of independent or charter schools range of sponsors. Like academies they improves the performance of all schools, have considerably more freedoms than including existing state schools. other state schools but are not allowed to Under the Swedish system, state and charge fees or select academically. Unlike independent schools receive public fund- academies they receive less funding per ing on more or less equal terms. Provided capita than other state schools (an average that they fulfil certain basic requirements, of 78 per cent).8 Over the past six years all kinds of schools are eligible, including there have been 70 reports on the impact religious schools and schools run by busi- of charter schools. Forty of these make nesses for profit. There are really only two some attempt to analyse student perform- serious limitations to the operation of ance over time. Of these, 21 found that independent schools: they must pledge not overall gains in charter schools were larger to charge students an additional tuition fee than other schools in their districts. A fur- and they cannot select students on the ther ten found that certain categories of basis of academic performance. A recent charter school produced higher gains (for comprehensive analysis of the effects of example, elementary schools in Arizona). school choice in Sweden found that the Five found comparable gains with other effect on average grades of a 10 percentage schools and only four found that other point increase in the private school share is schools allowed for greater student just below 1 percentile rank point. The improvement.9 5. Böhlmark A and Lindahl M, study also found that “the individual gain Even those who deny the overall efficacy “The Impact of School Choice on Pupil Achievement, Segregation from attending a private school (the pri- of charter schools would find it difficult to and Costs: Swedish Evidence”, vate-attendance effect) is estimated to be ignore the incredible success of certain IZA Discussion Papers No 2786, pp 41-42, 2007; www.iza.org only a small part of the total effect, about groups of schools under particularly innova-

6. Sandström F and Bergström F, 0.1 percentile rank point. Thus, the total tive sponsors. For example, from running School Vouchers in Practice: achievement effect is mainly driven by one Houston school in 1994, KIPP Competition Won’t Hurt You! Research Institute of Industrial other peoples’ choice of private school in (Knowledge is Power Programme) now runs Economics, 2002 the municipality.”5 Another analysis of the 57 charter schools educating 14,000 chil- 7. For an overview of these stud- ies see Forster G, Monopoly vs impact of school choice reform found no dren across 17 states. Over 90 per cent of Markets, Milton Friedman evidence at all that competition diminish- these children are black or Hispanic and 80 Foundation, p 42, 2007, es the quality of state schools.6 per cent are eligible for the American equiv- 8. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2007 Charter In the US, a number of states have run alent of free school meals. The schools’ Dashboard; www.publiccharters relatively small-scale voucher programmes results are astonishing. In the 2005-06 .org/content/publication/detail/21 47/ allowing selected children to use state school year, 100 per cent of KIPP eighth- 9. Hassel B et al, Charter School money to attend private schools. These grade classes outperformed their district Achievement: What We Know, National Alliance for Public have come under sustained attack from the averages in both mathematics and read- Charter Schools, p 9, 2007 American judiciary, despite numerous ing/English language, as measured by state

10 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 11

Introduction

exams.10 KIPP has recently received $65 Chapter one).15 However, the majority of million from a number of donors to open a schools remain highly regulated environ- further 42 schools in Houston – showing ments, absorbing valuable management how a system with genuine supply-side flex- time. ibility responds to successful innovation Hoxby’s second essential element, per from new suppliers.11 capita funding, supposedly exists in the English schools system. We regularly hear ministers talk of funding in terms of “per The Rising Tide pupil” amounts. However, in reality fund- The economist Caroline Hoxby of ing for community schools, and volun- Harvard University, the leading researcher tary-controlled schools, remains in the into school choice, has famously conclud- control of their LA and so they rarely ed that “a general increase in school pro- receive the per capita sum announced by ductivity could be a rising tide that lifted the Treasury. Councils make local deci- all boats and the gains and losses from real- sions based upon their own staffing and location might be nothing more than crests overhead costs and other developmental and valleys on the surface of a much high- priorities, frequently leading to delays for er water level.”12 Professor Hoxby’s research the schools and uncertainty in their annu- has found that the three essential elements al budget settlement. As Hoxby explains, of successful school choice reform are: a system that does not have funding that independent management, per capita relates to the pupil will not be responsive funding that follows the pupil to the cho- to demand.16 sen school and a responsive, fluid supply side.13 In England there has been some move- “ The independence of academies is cited as a key driver ment on the first two elements in recent of their early success by PricewaterhouseCoopers in its years – and research suggests that the detailed evaluations of the academies programme ” changes have made a difference, though they have not gone far enough. There is plenty of evidence that Hoxby’s first essen- tial element, independent management, So the first two of the essential elements contributes strongly to school performance. identified by Hoxby, independent manage- Research from the Sutton Trust confirms ment and per capita funding, are partially, 10. For more information see that independent fee-paying schools in haltingly, happening in English schools, www.kipp.org England perform better than state schools but the third, a flexible supply side, 11. “Charter School Effort Gets $65 million Lift”, The Washington even when the economic background of remains almost entirely constrained. This Post, 20 March 2007; their pupils is taken into account, and it means that education reforms that are www.washingtonpost.com/wp- yn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR attributes this to the autonomy enjoyed by directed towards improved choice for par- 2007031902027.html 14 the leaders of such schools. Research from ents may disappoint because they do not 12. Hoxby C, “Rising Tide”, the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust allow the full effect of the choice decision Education Next, Winter 2001 (SSAT) confirms that the independence of to be exercised and they do not result in an 13. Ibid 14. Sutton Trust, Blair’s headteachers in the city technology colleges expansion of the number of good schools. Education, an International (CTCs) was an important element of their As research from CentreForum explains: Comparison, June 2007 success. The independence of academies is “Choice requires an excess, as well as a 15. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Academies Evaluation 4th Annual cited as a key driver of their early success by diversity, of supply. Meaningful choice Review, DCSF, 2007 ,

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in its requires that supply to be of high quality. 16. Policy Exchange will be detailed evaluations of the academies pro- Until such time as the supply side has been releasing a report in 2008 calling for a thorough overhaul of the gramme. (This is discussed in more detail in liberalised, those pupils currently in under- school funding system

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 11 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 12

Choice? What Choice?

performing schools will find it difficult or school choice, in particular on the compet- impossible to access a place at a higher per- itive effects of school choice policies on forming school.”17 state schools. The UK has combined In comparison with several internation- choice policies on the demand side with al examples, the English system remains little flexibility on the supply side, which, constrained by regulatory and physical bar- as a result, has had little scope for respond- riers.18 In a comprehensive review of the ing to parental preferences. In addition the research evidence on school choice, the number of school places has declined over Social Market Foundation confirmed that time. Flexibility and capacity are therefore 17. Marshall P, Tackling Educational Inequality, school choice reforms can lead to two possible explanations for why the CentreForum, 2007 improved school quality, but that the results have been less positive than those 18. See School Reform: A Survey English system is too constrained on the from countries in which overt selection has of Recent International Experience, DfES, June 2006; “Free to supply side to be able to respond to the been restricted and, importantly, choice Choose, and to Learn”, The Economist, 3 May 2007; Hoxby parental demand that is generated by has been accompanied by new forms of papers on school choice pro- choice: “Contestability under parental provision.”19 grammes in US, NZ, Sweden and Holland: www.economic.harvard choice can work to improve the quality This report will examine the major hur- .edu/faculty/hoxby/papers.html and the efficiency of state schools, given dles that need to be overcome in the quest 19. Williams J and Rossiter A, the right policy conditions. This is the con- to open a new school, together with poten- Choice: the Evidence. The Operation of Choice Systems in clusion of a large number of the studies tial reforms that would free up the system Practice, National and looking at school choice. There is a sub- for operating schools in a more flexible International Evidence, The Social Market Foundation, October 2004 stantial amount of research relating to way.

12 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 13

1

The Academies Programme

Academies are widely seen as the education on the skills of sponsors and other support- success story of the Blair years. Early analy- ers. They give Principals and staff new sis of results shows faster than average opportunities to develop educational improvement and they have proven very strategies to raise standards and contribute popular with parents. They have also been to diversity in areas of disadvantage. widely criticised, but usually for the con- They are all ability schools established by siderable expenditure on new buildings sponsors from business, faith or voluntary that has come hand-in-hand with an acad- groups working in highly innovative part- emy project. In this chapter we review the nerships with central Government and story so far: the early successes and the cur- local education partners. The Department rent fears that the Brown Government is for Children, Schools and Families subverting the original purpose of acade- (DCSF) meet the capital and running cost mies by increasing local authority involve- for the academy in full.”20 ment. We look at the law governing acade- So far academies have primarily been mies and show that the programme could used to replace failing schools – though go much further than it does without fur- there is no legislative reason for limiting ther legislation. We argue that if freedom is academies to areas of disadvantage. They good for some schools then surely it is fulfil two of Caroline Hoxby’s essential ele- good for all schools. ments of school choice reform: independ- In order to obtain an up-to-date view of ent management and per capita funding. the programme and its operational con- As such they have been recognised as a seri- straints we interviewed 17 sponsors repre- ous attempt to increase diversity of supply senting 50 academies. We asked sponsors in the state sector and many supporters about the help or hindrance that they have made enormous contributions of encountered as well as the changes that time and money to enable academies to be they would make to improve the situation. set up. There will be 82 academies open by Our findings are summarised throughout September 2007, with a further 100 proj- the chapter. ects in the pipeline.21 The Government is committed to opening 200 by 2010 and, so far, 400 in total. The Story So Far Academies are effectively an extension of Academies are independent schools with the city technology colleges (CTCs) that state-funding. The department website were set up during the 1980s and 1990s by describes them as follows: “Academies are the last Conservative administration. publicly funded independent schools that Fifteen CTCs were established in highly provide a first class free education to local deprived areas from 1988 to 1993 and they 20. www.standards.dfes.gov.uk /academies pupils of all abilities. They bring a distinc- have all been successful in terms of their 21. Source: DCSF Academies tive approach to school leadership drawing exam results since, as the graph below Division

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 13 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 14

Choice? What Choice?

CTC performance at GCSE compared with national average 1997-2006

% of students attaining 5+ GCSEs graded A*-C from 1997-2006

100

90 Average % of all CTCs 80 70 60 National UK Average 50 40 30 20 10

0

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998 1997

(Source DCSF)

shows. The blue line is the average of the academies in order to secure their future 15 CTCs’ GCSE results over time and the funding. black line is the national average. The The early signs are that the academies are improvements did not all happen quickly having a similar impact on achievement. or in a straight line, but the passage of time PricewaterhouseCoopers’ evaluations togeth- has shown that this supply-side education er with recent National Audit Office analysis reform was successful. have confirmed that there are strong signs of Four of the original CTCs (BRIT, progress and that standards are improving. Macmillan, Dixons and Leigh) are now in Where an academy has replaced a failing the top 50 English schools in terms of school, public exam results are included in “contextual value added” meaning that the statistics, but some brand new academies they are out-performing expectations have not yet taken GCSE exams under their when deprivation is taken into account. new management and are still filling up with CTCs have now mainly converted into students.

Summary academic performance for academies:22

2005 2006 Change

% Pupils scoring 5+ A*-C at GCSE Academies 34 40 +6 National av. 56 58 +2

% Pupils scoring 5+ inc Eng and Maths Academies 16 22 +6 National av. 43 45 +2

Contextual Value Added (KS2 to KS4) Academies na 1018.2 National av. na 1000.5

Average advanced level points Academies 541 22. The Academies Programme, National Audit Office, February National av. 722 2007

14 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 15

The academies programme

Academies’ results have improved when English as an additional language (EAL) and compared with their predecessor schools. special educational needs (SEN).”24 Taking the GCSE results of 20 academies, 40 The PwC review attributes some of acad- per cent achieved five or more GCSE at emies’ early success to their independence, as grades A*-C, which compares well with Fresh well as examples of good practice that are Start schools (35 per cent) and is catching up found in many schools, such as behaviour with Excellence in Cities schools (47 per management, focus on attendance and excel- cent), although still below the national aver- lent pastoral support, as well as to the age (58 per cent). Given the short time peri- improved social mix of the intake. od of the programme and the intense diffi- culties of the failing schools that academies “Some of the improvement in pupil perform- have replaced, both the NAO and PwC ance can be explained in terms of the fact that regard these results as highly encouraging.23 the social and educational profile of pupils The academies’ average contextual value entering academies is improving, and at a rate added score of 1018 indicates that the that is faster than other similar schools. academies are making a significant differ- However, there is also clear evidence from the ence in the areas of deprivation where they evaluation…that much of this performance have been located. (The national average of can be attributed to individual academies 1000 is the “baseline” for measuring doing things differently, and well, on the whether or not a school has achieved better ground…including using a number of critical or worse results than expected when socio- success factors, or ‘enablers’, which are key fea- economic context is taken into account. tures of the academies initiative and which, in Schools are adding value relative to expec- a sense, distinguish academies from other tations when they score above 1000.) schools. Such enablers include academies’ inde- Performance in academies is rising faster pendent status, governance and leadership, all than the national average, starting from a of which are being used to various degrees by lower base. Crucially, this is being achieved academies to improve pupil performance.”25 while they are admitting higher numbers of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) The report is clear that, “Independent status and with special educational needs (SEN) provides academies, in principle, with the than both the national average and the aver- freedom and flexibility to work outside tradi- age in their catchment areas. tional boundaries by using different The relative proportion of pupils eligible approaches to curriculum, admissions, for FSM has fallen in some academies, timetabling, recruitment, staffing and gover- attracting criticism that they are not ade- nance.” PwC found that independence was quately serving deprived areas. This criticism being used in the following ways: is based on incorrect analysis as several acad- emies have taken over from predecessor
More academies are increasing the num- schools that were not full. As they now have ber of teaching hours by extending the more pupils than their predecessor schools, school day. the relative proportion of pupils entitled to
Teachers’ pay and conditions are being FSM may fall, while the absolute number on adjusted to accommodate the longer FSM is rising. As the PwC review noted: school day. 23. PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Academies Evalution, 3rd Annual “There has been an overall increase in the There is evidence of a more flexible use of Report, DfES 2006, and 4th absolute number of pupils eligible for free support staff to strengthen learning teams Annual Report, DCSF, 2007, school meals (FSM) in academies. Similar and provide additional support to teach- 24. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Academies Evaluation, 4th Annual increases in absolute numbers, albeit on a ers in order for them to focus on their Review, DCSF, 2007 smaller scale, are also evident relation to core duties. 25. Ibid

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 15 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 16

Choice? What Choice?

Curriculum options and pathways are Crucially academies are also extremely being significantly changed in some acad- popular with parents. All but three of the 42 emies. academies opened last year were oversub-
Some principals are working in partner- scribed – 15,000 families applied and were ship with their sponsors to access turned away.27 One academy had 1,200 appli- resources which they report would not cations for just 180 places. When one consid- have been previously available. ers that they have replaced schools that nobody wanted their children to attend this is The report concludes: “Independence an extraordinary turnaround. As one academy appears to have given principals, staff, and sponsor told us: “Over 1,000 people applied governors far greater confidence to for 180 places at our academy last year, and explore new avenues of funding and new 100 of those put in appeals which it took us partnerships within the wider communi- ten days to process. Whatever the papers say, ty.”26 people want to come to our academies.”

Academies: the case of Hackney

The London Borough of Hackney is one of the most deprived areas of England. Although significant regeneration is now taking place through both public and private initiatives, it has had a history of edu- cational failure. In August 2002 the local education authority was replaced by a not-for-profit Learning Trust. The trust faced a severe shortage of school places and a school-age population growing at 6 per cent a year. It believed that the academies programme offered a way to fund and build the new schools that the borough needed. A bold strategy was agreed that includes three brand new academies. Among their sponsors are UBS investment bank, the late Sir Clive Bourne and the Jack Petchey Foundation. The two academies that have opened so far are oversubscribed and have attracted enormous parental support. The first indications of success appeared in August 2007, when Mossbourne Community Academy celebrated Key Stage 3 results of 90 per cent, well above the national average of 79 per cent. The academies will have GCSE results from 2009. Hackney’s overall ranking in London (based on the average of all value added indicators) has risen from fifteenth in 2002 to sixth in 2006. Since the arrival of the academies education standards have been rising throughout schools in Hackney. Teachers comment that the academies have made them take stock, demonstrating how choice and potential competition can “lift all boats”.

% of 15 old pupils achieving 5+A*-C (and equivalent)

2003 2004 2005 2006 % change

Hackney Average 39.2 45.1 47.2 50.3 11.1 England Average 52.9 53.7 56.3 58.5 5.6

% of 15 year old pupils achieving 5+A*-C (and equivalent) including English and maths

2003 2004 2005 2006 % change

Hackney Average 26.4 32.1 34.1 36.2 9.8 England Average 41.9 42.6 44.3 45.3 3.4

26. Ibid

27. Ibid

16 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 17

The academies programme

Are Academies’ Freedoms we take their concerns fully into Under Threat? account…At the heart of the innovation in Tony Blair was a fervent supporter of acad- the curriculum that academies make possi- emies and regularly spoke on their role in ble is flexibility, which we will maintain the English education system. While for all new academies—built on the plat- Gordon Brown and Ed Balls have not form of the core national curriculum that, stopped the programme, as some had as with most existing academies, all new feared, they have been considerably less academies will follow in English, maths, positive. Noticeably, Balls has stopped science, and information and communica- using the phrase “independent state tions technology.28 schools” – which had acted as a powerful tagline for the programme. Some of his first This announcement confirmed that local decisions involved rolling back the free- authorities now have a de facto veto over doms of academies; and more than this academies. It also withdrew one of their key there has been a clear, if subtle, change in freedoms– to follow their own curriculum. the ethos of the programme that threatens In line with the consistent opposition of its future value. Academies are subject to the National Union of Teachers to acade- increasing centralisation and standardisa- mies’ freedom from local authority control, tion in building projects, increasing co- Steve Sinnott, the NUT General-Secretary, sponsorship with local authorities and said: “I welcome Ed Balls’s statement giving tighter teaching and curriculum require- local authorities a greater say in the plan- ments. ning of academies. This is a direction of Right from the launch of the programme travel of which I thoroughly approve.”29 In the main teaching unions have campaigned fact, local authorities’ veto over academies is vigorously against academies, especially not clearly defined and can be based solely over any variation in teachers’ conditions of upon an ideological opposition to acade- employment. As a result, academies are mies. The London Borough of Tower now required to employ only teachers reg- Hamlets, for example, has refused the offer istered with the General Teaching Council, of an academy with sponsorship from even though this rule does not apply in Goldman Sachs investment bank, despite other independent schools. Ironically, acad- being one of the most deprived areas in the emy sponsors had transferred staff who country with low educational perform- were not even qualified teachers or regis- ance.30 tered with the GTC from predecessor A veto for local authorities immediately schools. constrains the programme since a number However, the real sea change happened of the more ideological authorities do not after Brown became Prime Minister. Ed favour provision of this type. One sponsor Balls, in his first speech as Secretary of State that we interviewed found the local for Children, Schools and Families, stated: authority in Hull (constituency of the for- mer Education Secretary, Alan Johnson) so All academies now actively collaborate with hostile to its plans, that it has started devel- schools and colleges in their area, just as all oping plans elsewhere. Another sponsor schools should co-operate with academies. expressed concern at the increased role of

Currently, all academies replacing local local authorities: “Where will academies be 28. Balls E, speech, Hansard, Col authority schools proceed with local author- in the Brown regime? We’ve heard rumours 1322, 10 July 2007 ity endorsement at the feasibility stage, and LEAs will have more control over them. We 29. www.teachers.org.uk/story. php?id=4052 at the funding agreement stage we already reject that. We’ll work with LEAs, but not 30. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ have a duty to consult local authorities and for them.” education/6221170.stm

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 17 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 18

Choice? What Choice?

It is important to note that there is no the policy landscape, including the impacts legislative reason why local authorities of Building Schools for the Future, should be able to veto an academy. The Extended Schools, 14-19 Curriculum, and Education Act 2002 requires only that con- Every Child Matters have all been signifi- sultations about the establishment of the cant for academies, and have resulted in school (academy) should be held with: closer links being forged between academies and their local community of schools. There (i) the local education authority in whose are challenges for academies in negotiating area the school is to be situated; and this evolving policy landscape.”33 (ii) if the Secretary of State thinks a signifi- Sponsors have also expressed concerns cant proportion of the pupils at the over the attitude towards academies at the school is likely to be resident in one area DCSF. Some, who had been involved from of another local education authority, the start, reported that an initial energy, that authority.31 freedom and zeal in the DCSF academies division seemed to have been eroded as the Even where local authorities are prepared to academy model became more mainstream, engage with the programme they are increas- and as pressure has mounted to raise the ingly doing so as co-sponsors – which defeats numbers being set up. One told us: “We their original purpose: increasing diversity of are starting to feel like the DCSF is just supply. As of July, 20 academies had been co- one big LEA.” There are also concerns that sponsored by their local authority.32 problems over budgetary control within Manchester, Sunderland and the London one or two projects have led to increasing- Borough of Camden, have recently ly stringent procurement processes culmi- announced co-sponsorship of academies. As nating in the delivery of academies becom- we will show in the next chapter at least one ing part of the national Building Schools local authority has agreed to co-sponsor an for the Future (BSF) scheme in March academy primarily to avoid having to hold an 2006. (We describe the impact this has had open competition for providers who wish to on the process of building an academy build a demographically necessary school. below.) Sponsors feel that Partnerships for This is a direct perversion of the intention of Schools, the quango responsible for the academies programme. Building Schools for the Future, is another Sponsors are certainly alarmed at this centrally controlled barrier in their path. trend. One told us “all the sponsors that are involved in the academy we co-sponsor are bemused that an LEA can be a sponsor The purpose of the academies pro- because often the LEA are part of the prob- gramme is to increase the freedom of lem. The whole point is that academies were schools and diversity of provision. As to be independent.” The PwC report which, such, academies should have freedom as we saw in the previous section, pointed to over their curriculum and they should the independence of academies as one of the be sponsored by organisations other key drivers of their success, noted: “New than the local authority sponsorship arrangements are emerging, including co-sponsorship by local authori- Recommendations: ties, which have given rise to issues that 1 Restore curriculum freedoms for 31. Section 482(3)(a) and (b) need to be further explored in next year’s new and existing academies. 32. Hansard, Col 1378W, 26 July fieldwork. These include the implications 2007 2 End local authority co-sponsor- for the independent status of academies.” 33. PricewaterhouseCoopers, ship of academies. op cit The report also comments that “changes to

18 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 19

The academies programme

What Does the Academies Government insists that this be the focus Legislation Allow For? of the programme. A section on the The legislation that allows for the creation DCSF website about the criteria for acad- of academies goes much further than the emies states: “Most of them replace exist- current government programme. As we ing weak or underperforming schools. As have seen, the programme has focused on a broad rule of thumb, the Government rebuilding failing schools in co-operating is prepared to consider any secondary local authorities, with a sponsor “paying” school where in 2006 fewer than 30 per £2 million for the privilege of providing cent of pupils gained five or more GCSEs new leadership. This is quite a restricted at grades A* - C (including English and model, which is why the Government is Maths) as a potential academy project. In still some years away from its target of 400 addition, local authorities should always academies out of around 3,350 secondary consider an academy as an option for schools. But the legislation does not dealing with a school in special measures, require that academies be built from or subject to an improvement notice, scratch or that they can only replace failing whatever its results.”36 schools. It also does not require that local The usual reason given for this is that authorities support the decision or that to focus on any schools other than the sponsors have to put up £2 million. We worst would dilute the programme. believe that such a narrow interpretation of However, this is only true because of the the academies model is an unnecessary huge capital costs involved in building a block on the original purposes of the pro- new academy. Again, although many of gramme. the failing schools replaced by academies Section 482 of the Education Act 2002 would have needed to be rebuilt anyway, simply provides that: there is no reason why academies should always be new builds. The Government The Secretary of State may enter into an has already tacitly accepted this by allow- agreement with any person: ing independent schools into the state a) to establish and maintain, and to carry sector through the academies scheme. In on or provide for the carrying on of, an September 2007 William Hulme independent school in England, and Grammar School in Manchester and the b) to make payments to that person.34 Belvedere School in Liverpool became the first independent schools to enter the There are very few limits on the character- state sector in this way. Of course, neither istics of an academy. They must have the of these schools was previously under- following characteristics: achieving academically; and neither of them has been rebuilt. As there are no a) a specialism – in that it places empha- significant capital costs attached, the sis on a particular subject area, or DCSF does not see the addition of these particular subject areas as specified in schools to the academies programme as a the agreement; dilution of focus. In a speech to the b) provides education for pupils of differ- Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ ent abilities who are wholly and main- Conference in October 2007, Schools 34. In this Section “agreement” is also known as a funding agree- ly drawn from the area in which the Minister Lord Adonis, announced that ment and “person” is also known school is situated.35 three more successful independent as a sponsor schools were on the road to academy sta- 35. Section 482(2)(a) and(b) 36. www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ It does not have to replace a failing school tus: Colston Girls’ School and Bristol acade- or be built in a disadvantaged area. Yet the Cathedral School (both in Bristol) and mies/faq/?version=1#2778527

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 19 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 20

Choice? What Choice?

Birkenhead High School. In doing so he to the academies programme Lord spoke of “embracing innovation, and Adonis also scrapped the £2 million fee combining choice and diversity with for private schools that wish to sponsor excellence”.37 academies. This followed Balls’s announcement earlier in the summer that universities were exempted from the “ Another model that could be utilised in the future is sponsorship fee. the multi-school academy where a governing trust signs Other sponsors, however, are still one contract to run several schools required to pay up. Those we inter- ” viewed felt it was a severe constraint. One said: “If a sponsor is thinking of doing it more than once, it [£2 million] It is difficult to disagree with this ambi- would be problematic.” The DCSF does tion, but it seems in stark contrast to the allow a reduced contribution of £1.5 Government’s professed focus on failing million but only after a sponsor has set schools. The teachers’ unions were quick to up three academies. Again the original see the danger of such a widening of the rationale for the fee was the large capital academies programme, denouncing Lord costs of building a new academy. There Adonis’s speech (unlike their warm praise are two points here. If sponsoring an for Ed Balls). Steve Sinnott, the NUT academy no longer meant automatically General-Secretary, rejected “the implica- being involved in a new build then this tion that somehow private schools and the would not apply. Secondly, the DCSF quality of teaching within them is better has recently announced that, in any case, than that in state schools”.38 Of course, the sponsors’ contributions will go into unions are well aware that any expansion endowment funds for the schools and of the programme threatens centralised pay the capital costs will be met entirely bargaining because academies have the from public funds. There seems little freedom to set their own pay and condi- reason why the fee should now be com- tions for teachers. pulsory; it remains solely as a barrier to We know from the PwC report that it potential sponsors. In our survey of is the independence of academies and the sponsors, a change to the £2 million ethos of the sponsors, not just the new requirement came joint second on a list building, that makes them successful. We of changes that would most encourage know that the Government is in principle them to set up another academy. As happy for successful schools to become another sponsor said: “It’s hard to find academies (albeit previously independent people to go through all the hassle. By ones). So why not allow any school that the time you’ve finished, you want them signs up a reputable sponsor and has a to pay you £2 million!” 37. www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/ clear plan of action to become an acade- There is nothing in the law to prevent media/documents/hmcbournemo uth.doc my? If freedom works for the existing the supply of many different types of

38. www.teachers.org.uk/story. academies why should it not be available academy to respond to the varying needs php?id=4107. In 2007, 30 per to all schools? Schools Minister Jim around the country. For example, some cent of children at private schools achieved three As at A Level Knight was recently asked this very ques- primary schools may wish to become compared to 7.4 per cent in com- tion and replied bluntly: “My depart- academies. Another model that could be prehensive schools, see “GCE/VCE A/AS and Equivalent ment has no plans to extend these free- utilised in the future is the multi-school Examination Results in England, doms more widely.”39 He gave no reasons. academy where a governing trust signs 2006-07 (Provisional)”, DCSF

39. Hansard, Col 890W, 15 In the same speech that announced the one contract to run several schools. October 2007 entry of three new independent schools Although a number of sponsors have

20 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 21

The academies programme

gradually added schools to their portfo- academies, the sponsors that we inter- lios there is no reason why the DCSF viewed were especially worried by this cen- could not enter one funding agreement tralising shift. with a sponsor for a group of schools. One spoke of the “invidious nature” of Central services like human resources the programme: “It dictates physical lay and finance could be provided from a out and everything follows from that. The share of the funding for each academy. BSF programme is locking the door on any genuine diversity for decades to come. It is completely top-down. There is in effect no If more freedoms are good for some parental decision-making on how it is schools they will be good for all spent. The role of the consumer is virtual- schools. There is no reason for every ly non-existent…the Government dictates academy to be a new build or for in ever increasing detail; a surrogate for retaining the compulsory £2 million for parental choice.” any sponsor. In announcing this change the DCSF stated: “…integration of academies with Recommendations: BSF will bring about more cost-effective 3 Allow any school with a suitable procurements and will maximise the value sponsor and a viable plan for for money that the programme can deliv- using its new powers to apply er…it will create a more integrated for academy status. approach to estate planning – as academies 4 Remove any obligation to pay a will be included in local authorities’ estate sponsorship fee. If organisations planning this will allow more integrated are prepared to provide a finan- implementation of their strategic vision for cial endowment for their acade- secondary education provision across the mies this will obviously be wel- local authority.”41 The last point highlights comed. the move towards standardisation and cen- 5 Engage large sponsors in multi- tralisation of the academies programme. school funding agreements. The independent management of the buildings aspect of academy development has effectively been removed. Guidance to sponsors from the DCSF Building Schools for the Future confirms their more limited role: Perhaps the most significant change to the “Sponsors will have a limited role during academies programme since its inception the academy construction, but will be kept was the decision in mid-2006 to bring the informed of progress and will be consulted procurement of all buildings within the when required. However, sponsors will government’s Building Schools for the need to promote the construction work as Future (BSF) scheme.40 All new academies an important part of the academy’s vision are now managed by Partnerships for to contribute to the overall needs of the Schools (PfS), the quango that delivers local community.”42 As a result of this BSF. This was publicised as a move to sponsors’ risk is actually increased since greater cost-effectiveness by using procure- they will have little say in the construction 40. www.bsf.gov.uk ment mechanisms that BSF will provide, process but are being asked to sign-off and 41. “Response to the Third Annual Report from the and followed a number of cost overruns on take forward the ownership of the land and PricewaterhouseCoopers the first series of academy builds. Although buildings. Liabilities from building work Evaluation of the Academies Programme”, DfES, July 2006 there certainly were lessons to be learnt can take years to emerge and years to be 42. “Guidance to Academy from the project management of the first resolved. Sponsors on PfS”, DCSF

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 21 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 22

Choice? What Choice?

Under the new BSF framework, acade- were taken away from them. One sponsor my sponsors are not allowed to meet their told us that the Specialist Schools and project managers before selection, despite Academies Trust had published a pamphlet, the crucial role that the project manager On Time, On Budget, which mapped the plays in the delivery of such a complex ideal procurement process based on his project. Two sponsors have described as experience in Walsall. Unfortunately, he “ludicrous” and “crazy” this new barrier in said, “we can’t now follow the procedure we the delivery process. As in any profession- followed in Walsall, or use the same archi- al appointment, meeting the person who tect, because the regulations have changed!” will be so germane to the success of the Another sponsor expressed frustration that project is a standard practice and one way they were not able to transfer knowledge of reducing risk. The sponsors we inter- from one build to the next: “Sponsors are viewed had particularly strong views on only allowed to use architects and so on this aspect of academies’ delivery, agreeing who are on their [local authorities’] books. that they should have the freedom to be, Previously we were able to transfer our proj- or employ, their own project managers. ect team from the first academy to the sec- One sponsor told us that it was “extreme- ond. We can’t do that now.” ly unhelpful to have a project manager. We could have done it better ourselves.” Another said: “We’ve tried to avoid proj- It makes sense for new sponsors to ect managers. It’s an awful system. We be helped in building their first acade- have people here who could do it. We had my; it makes little sense to prevent to sack some before and they were charg- existing sponsors from using their own ing lots of money…Only one or two PMs people and acquired knowledge. had any competence and we had to train them.” Recommendations: When asked in our questionnaire to 6 Devolved capital and project name “the top three things you would management to established change to make you most likely to open up groups should be actively another academy” improvements in project encouraged. management, procurement and standards 7 Refurbishment budgets should of consultancy came first. The irony is that be given to academy sponsors the major academy sponsors were really get- to use as they see fit once they ting to grips with the processes of develop- have established themselves. ing a new site when the powers to do so

22 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 23

2

Demand and Supply in English Education

You may think that there is a set procedure gain a place at their parent’s first choice for deciding when a new school is necessary school and the quantity of subsequent –perhaps a formula or a statutory planning appeals are indicative of this. Recent polls process that takes into account parental reveal serious dissatisfaction among parents, demands, the existence or lack of projected more of whom are moving to the private sec- surplus places and the performance of exist- tor or using private tutors.. Those parents ing schools. It is, however, left entirely to the who cannot afford these options are, of judgement of local authorities. Changes course, disproportionately affected by the brought about by the Education and lack of good school places. Inspections Act 2006 mean that LAs have to There are an estimated 1.5 million chil- respond formally to unhappy parents who dren applying for a school place in any given want a new school, and must have “regard” year – split between those aged 4 aiming for to increasing diversity and choice in their primary school and those aged 10 aiming for area; but this means little in practice. secondary school places. Local authority sta- Moreover there is DCSF and Audit tistics for admissions reveal that 31 (out of Commission guidance (the Government has 150) authorities have more than 20 per cent persistently denied that this amounts to of parents failing to get a place at their first rules) on surplus places, which focuses entire- choice of school: a fifth of all education ly on the economic costs rather than the edu- authorities are disappointing at least a fifth of cational costs of a lack of good places. Simply the pupils in their area (33 authorities did not put, there are no effective mechanisms to provide information).43 make local authorities respond to demand Parents are entitled to appeal against the when it is not in their ideological or econom- admission decisions made by their local ic interest to do so. authority when they are dissatisfied with the In this chapter we examine the evidence school place allocated to them. In 2006, for unmet demand and review the school there were 78,670 appeals, representing 5.2 planning process. At the end of the chapter per cent of admission decisions. The level of we make a number of recommendations dissatisfaction is higher for secondary school designed primarily to enforce the spirit of the admissions, where parents appealed 8.3 per 2006 Act and give parents a genuine voice. cent of decisions. More than 20,000 of all the appeals were successful (36 per cent), which appears to be a relatively high success rate. It Is There Unmet Demand? is not clear why so many appeals succeed, but The current English system suffers from an it may mean that admissions processes are imbalance of demand for good school places not being conducted completely correctly or over supply, especially in those parts of the fairly. In 1997, there were 76,971 appeals country where the population is growing. and the level remains around 80,000 every 43. “Myth Behind School Admissions Claims Exposed”, The The sheer number of children who fail to year: they have not been declining over the Daily Telegraph, 10 March 2007

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 23 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 24

Choice? What Choice?

past ten years.44 More important than the 47 per cent felt they had an adequate say in overall level of appeals, however, is their dis- the running of their children’s school; today tribution across local authorities, indicating it’s 30 per cent.45 Teachers’ TV commissioned higher levels of dissatisfaction in some parts a poll in October 2006 which revealed that of the country. In eight authorities more than 330,000 children were not at their first 20 per cent of secondary admissions lead to choice school and that 22 per cent of parents appeals; the figure is more than 10 per cent were not happy with the school allocated by in a further 34 authorities. The table below their local authority and would prefer to use shows the LAs with the highest number of a private school.46 The poll found that dissat- secondary appeals and the number of chil- isfaction is particularly acute in London, dren affected. where more than three times as many parents A slew of recent polls has found parents want to send their children to private school increasingly discontented with the current than the national average. system. A YouGov poll for Reader’s Digest ear- A poll commissioned by the Children’s lier this year found that only 41 per cent of Society in October 2007 found that 51 per parents believe that schools catered well for cent of parents would be prepared to move all abilities; down from 61 per cent when the house to get their child into a good school. poll was undertaken 20 years ago. In 1987, One in seven (14 per cent) agreed that they

Authority No of Admissions No of Appeals % Appealed

Slough 2,085 599 28.7 Birmingham 13,765 3,711 27.0 Bradford 6,555 1,659 25.3 Havering 3,456 851 24.6 Bury 2,164 531 24.5 Lewisham 2,102 438 20.8 Manchester 5,077 1,042 20.5 Enfield 4,003 820 20.5 Darlington 1,272 245 19.3 Leeds 9,580 1,837 19.2 Richmond upon Thames 1,580 295 18.7 Barnet 4,051 704 17.4 South Gloucestershire 3,470 591 17.0 Kingston Upon Hull, City of 2,942 496 16.9 Blackburn with Darwen 1,958 330 16.9 Dudley 3,982 671 16.9 Barking and Dagenham 2,457 403 16.4 Derby 3,313 491 14.8 Lambeth 1,951 263 13.5 Hounslow 3,574 477 13.3 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,253 166 13.2 44. DCSF Admissions Appeals Poole 2,099 264 12.6 statistics: www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgate way/DB/SFR/s000728/SFR18- Warwickshire 7,206 905 12.6 2007.pdf Westminster 1,804 225 12.5 45. www.readersdigest.co.uk/ images/files/State%20School%20 Kent 19,889 2,478 12.5 Survev% 20Fu 11%20ResuIts.pdf Source DCSF 46. www.teachers.tv/node/17587

24 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 25

Demand and supply in English education

would go as far as giving false information, cent had 30 per cent or more pupils entitled such as lying about their faith or where they to FSM. Ofsted concluded that “dispropor- lived, a figure that rose to 23 per cent in tionate numbers of deprived pupils attend London.47 The problem is even acknowl- inadequate schools”.51 edged by the DCSF: in guidance to LAs on Although the most disadvantaged groups the Education Act it notes that research on are left behind in inadequate schools those parental preferences in 2001 showed that who can afford it are leaving for the private almost three in ten parents (28 per cent) did sector in ever greater numbers. The propor- not apply to their nearest state school.48 tion of children attending private schools Parents in London were over two-and-a-half remains relatively low, at around 7 per cent, times more likely not to apply for the nearest but the graph shows clearly that the trend has school than those in shire authorities.49 been rising whether the school-age popula- The Children’s Society also argued that tion has been rising or falling. Even a 0.1 per the shortage of good school places impacts cent increase in children attending private most on the most disadvantaged members school, represents 8,000 families choosing to of society. They quote research from the leave the state education service and pay for Centre for Market and Public Organisation school fees from their post-tax disposable at the University of Bristol which found that income. 44 per cent of children who are eligible for There has been an increase of over free school meals have a good school nearby 50,000 places at independent fee-paying compared to 61 per cent of their better-off schools during the past ten years.52 In cer- peers.50 This problem was recently con- tain parts of the country the flight to the firmed in Ofsted’s first annual review. private sector is more pronounced: in ten Among schools inspected in the past year, local authorities more than 20 per cent of 20.2 per cent had 30 per cent or more children attend private schools – seven of pupils entitled to free school meals. Of them are in London.53 According to a 2004 those schools judged inadequate, 36.5 per MORI poll for the Independent Schools

Comparison of total number of pupils in all schools 47. www.childrenssocietv.org.uk/ against total number of pupils in independent ISC schools (1997-2007) all+about+us/media+centre/latest +n ews/the+good+childhood+ inquirv/Good+Childhood+Learnin g+launch.htm

52 8.45 48. Parents’ Experiences of the Process of Choosing a Secondary

51 Total(millions) schools all in number School, DfES Research Report 8.40 278, 2001 50 49. Ibid

49 8.35 50. Burgess S, Briggs A, McConnell B and Slater H, School 48 Choice in England: Background 8.30 Facts, CMPO Working Paper No 06/159, University of Bristol, 2006 47 51. The Annual Report of Her 46 8.25 Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services 45 and Skills 2006/7, p 65, The 8.20 Stationery Office, October 2007

Total number in ISC schools (thousands) Total 44 52. Independent Schools Council

53. Schools and Pupils in 8.15 43 England: January 2007 (Final), DCSF:

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006 2007 www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/S FR/s000744/index.shtml

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 25 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 26

Choice? What Choice?

Council, 50 per cent of parents would schools were regarded with particular sus- choose private schooling if they could picion.55 afford to. In the YouGov poll for Reader’s Unfortunately, the function of the com- Digest this had risen to 59 per cent. mittees has now been returned to the LAs, Those not wealthy enough to afford pri- which hardly improves the situation. If any- vate education but desperate to improve the thing it makes it worse as the producer cap- life chances of their children are increasingly ture problem remains, but there is less trans- using private tuition. A comprehensive sur- parency. Additionally authorities no longer vey of the use of such additional tutoring by have to produce a school organisation plan, a the Institute of Education in 2005 showed requirement introduced in the School that 27 per cent of school-age children had Standards and Framework Act 1998. The received some form of extra private help.54 In purpose of this document was to provide a some schools up to 65 per cent of children framework for decisions about pupil-place had received extra help, indicating an under- planning. Authorities had to publish detailed lying dissatisfaction with school quality. reasons for decisions about school planning. Altogether, this adds up to a picture of Even if one did not agree with these decisions parental dissatisfaction with the current sup- at least the school organisation plans provid- ply of education services in certain parts of ed transparent data about the projections the country, particularly urban areas with LAs were using. growing populations. In such areas there is Without any apparent reason the duty to unquestionably a pressing demand for more produce this plan was repealed in 2005 as and better schools. part of the Children’s Act 2004. Along with 18 (!) other statutory plans it was replaced with the Children and Young People’s Plan School Planning (CYPP), which each authority had to pro- The Education and Inspections Act 2006 duce for the first time in 2006, and is updat- introduced changes to the way that local ed annually. This plan, however, is supposed authorities are supposed to admit new to cover the authority’s entire strategy for providers to their education services. The “discharging their functions in relation to Act abolished the old school organisation children and young people” – which covers committees (SOCs), with the aim of quite a lot.56 Unsurprisingly, there is little increasing competition and transparency. room for detail. Camden’s CYPP, for exam- As outlined in Policy Exchange’s More ple, contains one solitary paragraph on Good School Places report, the SOCs were school planning. Others contain nothing at committees of existing state education all. Some LAs, including Essex and South providers, set up in 1998 to bring grant- Gloucestershire, have continued to publish maintained schools back under govern- school organisation plans anyway, suggesting ment control. School organisation com- that they are, in fact, quite useful. Without mittees displayed the classic symptoms of them there is no way a member of the public “producer capture” by allowing existing can get any sense of the reasoning behind providers to protect their own position school planning. 54. Ireson J and Rushforth K, Mapping and Evaluating Shadow within the system against the threat of Even if we are no longer able to see the Education, ESRC Research newcomers. Through the SOCs, existing process we must assume that LAs are engag- Project, Institute of Education, 2005 state schools were able to prevent more ing in some kind of planning rather than

55. O’Shaughnessy J and Leslie popular rivals from expanding or new simply sporadic crisis management. So what C, More Good School Places, schools from entering the market, if it do they have to consider? Most of the focus Policy Exchange, October 2005 “harmed” them – ie provided competi- remains on surplus places, of which more 56. www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/em2005 /uksiem_20052149_en.pdf tion for places. New and independent shortly, but since May 2007 authorities have

26 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 27

Demand and supply in English education

had a statutory duty “to promote diversity full, leaving the surplus places in weaker and increase parental choice in planning and schools. New, potentially better, schools will securing the provision of school places”. typically not be approved by local authorities There is also an “an explicit duty” on LAs for when there are surplus places, regardless of the first time to respond formally to parents their quality. seeking changes to the provision of schools in So what is a surplus place? In 2001-02 their area, including new schools.57 What schools were measured and given a defined does this mean in practice? Well, where the net capacity, a fixed number that relates to local authority is satisfied that the communi- the number of pupils that can be fitted into cation from parents amounts to representa- the buildings based upon a formula for tion under the new duty, then they should pupils per square metre. If a school is provid- investigate and respond in a proportionate ing education to a smaller number of pupils way according to the circumstances of the than this, then it has surplus places. case. So basically the authority now has to Since local authorities control all deci- write a letter saying No. Even if every parent sions on school opening or closure, there is in the authority wrote in, the only response typically resistance to the opening of any necessary would be a polite rejection. new provision unless proven to be required Moreover, despite the EIA guidance that over and above existing surplus places, even “All LAs will need to think creatively about if these are in the worst school in the capturing the views of the full range of their authority. In guidance following the local residents” it is impossible to find any- Education and Inspections Act 2006, the where to register dissatisfaction through local DCSF acknowledged that when deciding authority websites. Most make no mention on whether to build a new school LAs of the new duties on their website despite “should take into account not only the exis- explicit guidance that “we expect LAs to tence of spare capacity in neighbouring make information available to all parents schools, but also the quality and popularity informing them of their new rights”. with parents of the schools in which spare Furthermore, the School Commissioner, capacity exists and evidence of parents’ aspi- introduced in the 2006 Act to monitor rations for a new school. The existence of choice and diversity and parental satisfaction, surplus capacity in neighbouring less popu- does not have a website at all. lar or successful schools should not in itself As for the new duty to promote diversity prevent the addition of new places.”58 and choice it is difficult to see how this means However, as with so much of the EIA anything in practice. If, if, an authority guidance, practice contradicts the rhetoric. decides to build a new school, and it is not an Every year the DCSF sends a letter to all LAs academy, it now has to engage in open com- to gather data on their surplus places. The petition with other suppliers – in the next letter is revealing in the narrowness of its chapter we look at the problems with the focus on the economic inefficiency of surplus competition process. But there has been only capacity: “the surplus places return informs one true competition so far because it is so the Department of the extent of spare capac- easy for LAs to rationalise a decision not to ity in different parts of the country. It helps build a new school on the grounds of existing us monitor whether local education authori- 57. www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg/ dataguidance surplus places. Running schools with excess ties are taking action to reduce it. For each Documents/duty%20to%20respo capacity is not economically efficient, but in school which has a surplus of 25 per cent or nd%20to%20parenta1%20repres entations%20v2%22007-07- order to give parents some choice it is neces- more (and at least 30 places surplus) the ll.doc, p1

sary to have some surplus within the system commentary should provide details of how 58. “Establishing a New at any time. Unfortunately, the schools that the school is performing and what action is Maintained Mainstream School, A Guide for Local Authorities”, p 49, are successful tend to be oversubscribed and underway, or planned, for the future of the DCSF, May 2007

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 27 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 28

Choice? What Choice?

school. Where no action is proposed the LA blocked if there are any places in other should set out the justification for maintain- schools around.” ing such schools.”59 The most recent statistics available, for Moreover, the DCSF employs the Audit 2006, show that there were 757,623 surplus Commission to provide guidance to authori- places – up by 8 per cent since 2001, in ties on surplus capacity and it has an even English schools. Some 49 local authorities narrower focus on the economic impact of had more than 25 per cent surplus places in such capacity than the department. In its more than 15 per cent of their primary response to the White Paper that led to the schools. They are under instructions to get 2006 Act the commission argued that “the these levels down and this is having a knock- expectations of users should be realistically on effect within the schools. Schools are being managed and grounded in provision which is merged and closed down, and sites are then affordable and does not result in poor value becoming available for sale or development for money. There needs to be a managed bal- (see chapter 4). ance between the supply of and demand for At the other end of the scale, 70 authorities school places. The promotion of wider choice have fewer school places than children, but overstates both what is necessary or feasible for there are still surplus places because so many all.”60 It went on to argue for explicit region- parents choose schools in neighbouring LAs. al advisory levels of acceptable places, regard- This allows the authorities to justify decisions less of the quality of those places, and that not to open new schools. So the fact that par- “the previous benchmarks of 10 per cent of ents are so unhappy with the available quality places in aggregate and 25 per cent in indi- of schooling that they travel outside their local vidual schools should be reinforced.” authority becomes a self-perpetuating justifi- Given that the commission is the auditor cation for blocking new suppliers from open- for local authorities, it would be a brave LA ing new schools. The table on the following that ignored its 10 per cent and 25 per cent page shows the 20 local authorities with the benchmarks. Indeed, a quick glance through largest number of “exports” relative to the minutes of any local authority discussion “imports”. (It is worth noting that Hackney’s on surplus places shows that these bench- number of “exports” will come down now marks are usually accepted unquestioningly. that the Learning Trust has taken over from In fact, until 2003-04 this benchmark was the local authority.) one of the Audit Commission’s “best value Some of these “exported” children are trav- indicators” by which local authorities were elling astonishing distances daily to get a good publicly judged. So it was, and remains, a school place. Detailed figures from the DCSF rule in all but name. on where children resident in London bor- Judging surplus places on quantity rather oughs go to school reveal some incredible

59. than quality allows local authorities to journeys. Perhaps the greatest, in terms of dis- www.dfes.gov.uk/netcapacity/doc ignore demand for more good school places tance, is that of four children resident in s/LA%20Guidance%201etter%20- %202006.doc as economically inefficient. As the chair of a Lambeth but attending school in 60. www.audit-commission. South London education foundation told Hertfordshire. But there are thousands of less gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL - REPORT /FC8B4B31-C278-4987 us: “In Merton, three schools are only half extreme examples of children travelling out- -8EFADAOF2 C20A6DB/ full and yet none are being closed. The qual- side London to get to school; like the 130 ACResponseHigherStandardsBett erSchoolsforAll.pdf, p 4 ity is not good enough but they don’t want children travelling daily from Islington to

61. “School Destinations of new ones in.” An education consultant told Hertfordshire or the 109 travelling from Secondary School Pupils us: “There won’t be any new schools around Greenwich to Kent.61 Resident in London Boroughs”, DCSF, 2007: www.dfes.gov.uk/ here while there are still any places in failing It is only once a council has a pressing rsgate- way/DB/SBU/b000739/contents.s schools available…You have to prove that deficit of school places, even within its less html there is a need for any school and this gets successful schools, that decisions start to

28 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 29

Demand and supply in English education

favour new provision. In the cases of as their first preference. A breakdown of the Lambeth, Hackney, Camden and other quality of surplus places by Ofsted category is London boroughs with a shortage of places, not publicly available but many of our inter- this can be after many months or even years viewees have told us that local authorities use of delay. A Guardian article on the problem the schools with spare places for those pupils in 2004 reported that in Enfield “three years that are excluded from other schools, harder ago, the situation was so bad the authority to place, or for those who have arrived in the had to provide emergency teaching in Bowes UK as asylum seekers or the children of eco- Road library for youngsters without a place. nomic migrants and who do not speak At its peak nearly 100 children were being English. Some excess capacity is useful for an taught in the library, mainly pupils who were LA in case it needs to place a new arrival, and newly arrived from other countries or from the level of excess capacity that is required other parts of London, many of whom need- can never be predicted accurately. Those ed specialist one-to-one teaching.”62 schools that are oversubscribed and popular Of course, where surplus places remain will be full and so unable to take any more they are often found in schools that are not pupils once the school year has started. performing well. These schools are, by defini- We argue that the clear failure of local tion, the ones that fewer parents are choosing authorities to respond to parental demand in

Local authorities with the largest exports of students as a percentage of school population 2007 (secondary schools)

Local authority Net difference between Net difference between imports and exports* imports and exports as a % of school population

Hackney -3,600 -52.5 Lambeth -3,950 -49.4 Reading -2,313 -46.9 Knowsley -1,922 -21.9 Bristol, City of -3,239 -21.5 Lewisham -2,398 -21.3 Harrow -1,669 -18.4 Nottingham -1,759 -12.4 Wolverhampton -1,591 -11.4 Ealing -1,604 -11.3 Leicester -1,828 -10.9 Merton -806 -10.2 Thurrock -836 -9.5 Manchester -2,124 -9.3 Bracknell Forest -495 -9.1 Bradford -2,637 -8.9 Greenwich -1,091 -8.9 Haringey -921 -8.4 Kingston Upon Hull, City of -1,215 -8.1 Stoke-on-Trent -1,083 -7.9 62. “Battling to Meet Demand for School Places”, The Guardian, 26 * Negative figure indicates LA is a net exporter of pupils. Source: DCSF January 2004

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 29 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 30

Choice? What Choice?

many parts of the country indicates a need ing in its statutory duty to provide suitable for more stringent rules to trigger the cre- choice and diversity for parents. Authorities ation of new schools. The focus should not failing on at least three measures should be be on the economic cost of surplus places, forced to include provision for new school but the educational cost of failing to have competitions in their plan. Only by forcing enough good school places. The system is recalcitrant LAs to respond to clear demand currently overstating its capacity by including can central government enforce the spirit of all school places, regardless of how weak they the 2006 Act. may be. Only 51 per cent of secondary schools inspected by Ofsted since September The spirit of the Education and 2006 have been judged good or outstand- Inspections Act 2006 is being ignored by ing.63 If surplus places in these schools only those who have responsibility for school were counted, the total would be consider- planning. Local authorities must be held ably smaller. to account in a transparent way for their For a start local authorities should, once response to demand for good school again, have to publish a school organisation places. plan every five years. Unlike the previous plans, however, they should not focus exclu- Recommendations: sively on minimising surplus places across the 1 Restore the responsibility for local system but on increasing the number of good authorities to produce school school places. There should be an explicit organisation plans every five focus on measures of unmet demand, such as years. the number of surplus places at good or out- 2 These plans should include standing schools. Others could include: the details not only of surplus places number of children unable to go to their first projections, as previously, but also choice school; the number of appeals against measures of parental demand: the failed applications; and the percentage of par- number of surplus places at good ents who registered a desire for new provision. or outstanding schools; the num- Central government could set limits across ber of parents failing to get a these categories – for example: place for their child at their first choice schools; the number of
There should be a minimum of 5 per appeals and the number of par- cent surplus places in good or outstand- ents registering a desire for new ing schools. provision.
The number of parents failing to get their 3 If any authority is failing to meet first choice of schools should be fewer demand measured in this way than 10 per cent. they should be compelled to
The number of admissions appeals include provision for new school should be fewer than 10 per cent. competitions or academies in
Fewer than 10 per cent of parents should their plan. have registered a desire for new provision. 4 Each local authority should have a clearly navigable section on its While there could be exceptional reasons for website for parents to register a failing on any one of these measures (for desire for new provision and all example, areas with grammar schools will parents should be made aware of naturally see higher levels of appeals) if any their right to register such a desire 63. Annual Report of Her authority failed on three of these four meas- Majesty’s Chief Inspector 2006-7, during the admissions process. p 25, Ofsted, 2007 ures it would be a clear sign that it was fail-

30 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 31

3

A Fair Competition?

We have seen how the focus on keeping that there is little enthusiasm to do so. down the number of surplus places works Thirdly, the school’s adjudicator does not against the aims of the Education and appear to have been impartial in their sole Inspections Act 2006 to increase diversity judgement between a local authority and of supply in the school system. As the other suppliers. In this chapter we will population of young people is falling in look at each of these problems in turn, most parts of the country at the moment while offering policy recommendations to (see Chapter 4 for figures), local authori- solve them. ties are able to justify the status quo on economic grounds. In some areas, howev- er, the numbers of young people are Building a New Maintained School increasing because of internal migration With effect from 25 May 2007 a new and immigration. So occasionally the statutory framework was applied to the pressure to build a new school becomes so establishment of any new maintained overwhelming that even the most recalci- school in England. Where the local trant local authority cannot ignore it. authority wishes to see a new school When this happens the LA has two established it must either: options. It can either build an academy or start a competition between alternative
invite proposals for the school as pro- suppliers for the right to build and run vided for in Section 7 of EIA 2006 the new school. Some will choose the for- and the School Organisation mer simply to avoid the latter. If the (Establishment and Discontinuance) authority decides to go for a competition (England) Regulations 2007 (SI: 2007 it can offer its own entry. If it does then No 1288). The process is generally the competition will not be judged by the referred to as a “competition”. This is authority but by the Office of the Schools expected to be the route by which Adjudicator. most new schools will be established; As this is a fairly new process, and or authorities have been less than enthusias-
apply to the Secretary of State for con- tic about embracing it, we have only one sent to publish proposals for a new real competition to critique. school, without running a competi- Nevertheless, it is already clear that the tion, as provided for in Section 10 of process is flawed in a number of ways. EIA 2006.64 First, authorities can avoid competitions

by opting for an academy and then “co- The only way an authority can avoid run- 64. www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg sponsoring” it. Secondly, it is so costly for ning a competition is where it is working /data/guidance_Documents/New SchoolGuide per cent202007-09- a new supplier to enter a competition with sponsors to establish a new academy. 05.doc, p 2

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 31 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 32

Choice? What Choice?

This can provide a perverse incentive for lack of a competition seems to work supporting the academy programme. As against parental choice. One letter in a we saw in Chapter one, there is an local newspaper argued: “How can the increasing trend for local authorities to council think it can provide the best new co-sponsor academies, which defeats the school if it only looks at one of the purpose of the programme: to increase options?”66 It is not in the interests of the diversity of supply in the school system. academy programme to be used as a Where an LA actively wishes to avoid defence against open competition. increasing diversity of supply through Changes recommended in the first chap- competition it can use the co-sponsorship ter that would prevent local authorities of an academy to retain control over a from co-sponsoring academies would new school. In these circumstances the help to close this loophole. Even so it academy programme can work against seems odd that academies are exempt increasing diversity. from competition; it devalues them by The London Borough of Camden making it seem as if they are something recently had to organise new school pro- imposed upon communities. Of course, vision to address its growing deficit of in a situation where an academy were school places. The council decided replacing an existing failing school or against holding a competition, however, where academy powers were being given as it was nervous about the way such a to an existing school, there would be no process might go and was reluctant to need for a competition. lose control of school provision. An inter- nal briefing paper drawn up by officials at Camden council to explain why council- Preparing for Competition lors should support co-sponsoring an If a competition does take place the pro- academy with University College London posers (potential suppliers other than the (UCL) made plain the desire to avoid local authority) have four months to pre- competition: pare a bid. Government guidance insists that the sorts of proposers it wants to There is a significant risk that because of come forward include: the emphasis in the…guidance on diversi- ty, a community school bid would not
parents and community groups win the competition and one of the spon-
universities and FE colleges sors would then be asked to set up an
education charities and business foun- alternative school to a community dations school…The outcome of the competition
voluntary and religious groups, could be a sponsor that the council does including church and faith communi- 65. Extract from London Borough of Camden internal memo, quot- not approve of or that would not want to ties ed in “UCL Lead in School Race”, work as part of the family of schools in
those offering distinctive educational Camden New Journal, 12 July 2007 the way that University College London philosophies 66. “Five Good Reasons to be has indicated it does.65
existing schools or consortia of Suspicious of UCL bid for Swiss 67 Cottage School”, Hampstead & schools. Highgate Express, 20 July 2007 So the council decided to approve the 67. www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg/ academy project with UCL. This has led It is extremely difficult to see, though, data/guidance_Documents/New per cent20school per to local outcry – partly because of a how some of these groups, especially cent20competitions per NUT-inspired campaign against the prin- those without previous experience of the cent20guide per cent20final per cent202007-10-30.doc, p 2 ciple of academies – but also because the education sector, could hope to fulfil the

32 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 33

A fair competition?

demands of the bidding process. For a prepared to invest a relatively small start the guidance is 51 pages long. The amount to allow any group to put togeth- appendix listing information that must er a serious proposal. Every proposer be included in proposals runs to 35 dif- should be eligible to draw funds to sup- ferent categories. These include detailed port the bidding process. This should be information on subjects as diverse as enough to allow one member of the extended services; how the proposals will group (or a bought-in consultant) to contribute to enabling children to be work full time researching and preparing healthy; and the proposed arrangements the bid, and then shepherding it through for travel of pupils to the school. public consultation and the competition. Proposers are also expected to outline the The whole process is supposed to take staffing arrangements and provide seven to eight months so bidders should detailed financial plans.68 One intervie- be able to apply for up to £50,000 fund- wee who participated in the first compe- ing. There would need to be vetting to tition observed that the information new prevent fraudulent bids and also a limit entrants are required to provide should on the number of times one organisation really be drawn up once the project is in could access funding (it will learn the progress rather than beforehand. ropes over time). The cost would, howev- In order to negotiate this complex er, be minimal. If ten authorities held a process the DCSF graciously offers pro- competition in any given year (remember posers “up to three days free consultancy only one has been held so far) and five support from an educational specialist with suppliers entered each one, the total knowledge of preparing proposals and the annual cost would be £2.5 million – relevant legislation”.69 This is unlikely to be around a hundredth of the amount that of much value to a parent or community the DCSF spends on central administra- group. In fact the bidding process violates tion every year. It would be a small price three out of the five rules for effective com- to pay for a genuine commitment to petition in local government markets as diversity of supply. explained by PricewaterhouseCoopers in a In addition to offering financial support 2006 paper for the Department of to bidders, the process could be redesigned Communities and Local Government. to involve the public at an earlier stage. These are, first, that the competition Currently decisions on crucial issues of should involve “effective commission- provision (like extended schooling) have to ing…elaborate processes and high bid be made before any public consultation has costs are unlikely to positively affect out- been held. The first (and only) public comes”. Secondly, there should be low meeting required by the guidance takes entry and exit barriers. And thirdly, there place after the four-month process of con- should be “competitive neutrality…There structing the bids. Surely it makes sense for needs to be a level playing field for all types there to be a meeting early on so that pro- of provider, including across the private, posers can gauge opinion of their general in-house and third sectors.”70 In this plans before embarking on extensive process the local authority has an in-built research. This would allow them to modi- 68. Ibid pp 30-34 advantage because of its knowledge of edu- fy their plans if necessary – or even drop 69. Ibid p 28 70. PricewaterhouseCoopers, cation bureaucracy and the local area and out of a time-consuming process if their “Developing the Local because its has the funds to finance a bid. plans were unwelcome. A second meeting Government Services Market to Support a Long-term Strategy for Any government genuinely committed could be held once the full proposals had Local Government”, DCLG, May to the principle of competition should be been completed. 2006

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 33 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 34

Choice? What Choice?

The Competition three proposals from alternative suppliers The new process for entering the main- would increase the diversity of places and tained sector is in its infancy. Only one the community school proposal would competition has actually gone to judge- not. However, this argument was some- ment. However, this competition, in what undermined by the adjudicators Haringey, North London, resulted in the themselves when they admonished local authority being awarded the new Haringey for its failure to produce an school and it will be another community impartial consultation document for par- school. Of course, this does not represent ents and local groups. The consultation an increase in diversity for the Borough document insisted that “the new school of Haringey and the decision has been should be a non-denominational, inclu- greeted with dismay by those who ten- sive school, which suggests a community dered for the new school. It raises serious school”. As the adjudicators noted “this questions about fairness and the role of seems to imply, falsely, that no other type the school adjudicator in the competi- of school could be non-denominational tion. and inclusive”.72 So who are the school adjudicators? The unfairness of having one of the They are ten individuals appointed by the participants run the consultation process DCSF to deal with admissions disputes was confirmed in interviews with two of and school reorganisations. They make the external providers who entered the decisions on a huge range of planning competition. They described the suspi- issues: school closures; enlarging or amal- ciously “stony silence” that greeted their gamating schools and competitions. Yet presentations at the public consultation despite their powers they are entirely meeting, followed by “rapturous unaccountable beyond having “regard” to applause” for the Haringey submission. guidance provided by the DCSF. In the We also understand that the meeting was case of competitions for new schools this adjourned and reconvened to allow the guidance is so broad as to allow almost Haringey team to revise their presenta- any interpretation. The statuary guidance tion, and their second attempt included for the adjudicator explains that “the many good ideas gleaned from a review Government wishes to see a dynamic sys- of their competitors’ proposals. One of tem in which…new providers have the the participants told us: “The competi- opportunity to share their energy and tal- tion process was very expensive for us, ents by establishing new schools”. There and I could tell that the outcome was is a specific duty to “consider the extent going to the local authority anyway. We to which proposals…will add to the will have to think carefully before putting diversity of provision in the area” as “the a lot of resources into future competi- Government wishes to enable local com- tions.” munities to benefit from the energy and Any consultation process run by, and talents of new providers and to increase based on a document written by, one of parental choice”.71 the competitors is unlikely to be fair and 71. www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolorg/ data/guidance_Documents/NewS Yet in their judgement on Haringey the impartial, yet the adjudicators used this choolGuide per cent202007-11- three adjudicators involved more or less consultation as a reason to ignore the 06.doc, p 42 ignored this, arguing instead that a “small guidance to increase diversity. This is 72. www.schoolsadjudicator. gov.uk/upload/STP000229 per majority” of individual responses from clearly unacceptable. In future, consulta- cent20Haringey per parents were in favour of a community tions must be run by DCSF staff or by cent20competition.doc, paras 42- 45 school, despite acknowledging that the independent consultants appointed by

34 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 35

A fair competition?

the DCSF; if one of the competitors According to the latest annual report writes the rules it cannot be a fair compe- from the Office of the Schools tition. Moreover, the guidance needs to Adjudicator, although it has judged only be stronger so that the adjudicators can- one competition to date “there are likely not ignore the spirit of the EIA 2006. to be more shortly”, in which case it is There should be a presumption that a essential that the rules are fair. supplier other than the local authority will win the competition. If the adjudica- Recommendations: tor does wish to award the school to the 1 Academies should be included in LA it should have to explain why it is not the competition process so that in the interests of the local community to communities are offered a gen- increase diversity. uine choice (except where acade- Finally we need to consider if the mies are replacing failing schools school adjudicators are genuinely impar- or academy powers are being tial. All ten of the current adjudicators given to existing schools). are what could be termed members of the 2 A fund should be set up to allow educational establishment. Seven have proposers to employ someone held senior positions in local authorities. full-time to research and prepare Of the other three, two have held senior their bid and to shepherd their bid positions at Ofsted and the third was through the competition process. assistant director of planning at the We estimate a cost of around £2.5 Funding Agency for Schools. It is likely, million a year. therefore, than any given panel made up 3 Proposers should have the oppor- of three of these adjudicators will be tunity to put the general outline of broadly sympathetic to the aims of local its bid to a public meeting before authorities, even if they involve sabotag- having to prepare the full bid. ing the EIA. Given the immense powers 4 The public consultation should of the Adjudicator’s Office surely there not be run by the local authority if should be a range of backgrounds and the authority is participating in the skills represented? There are no former competition. headteachers; business leaders or “lay” 5 Guidance for the Office of the parents on the list of adjudicators. Schools Adjudicator should be Having a diverse group making decisions rewritten so that there is a pre- about school supply would undoubtedly sumption that an alternative sup- increase the diversity of supply. As plier will be chosen. PriceWaterhouseCoopers noted in its 6 School adjudicators should be paper on effective competition in local appointed from a wide range of government “within a market all the con- backgrounds so that political and ditions [necessary for effective competi- 73. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, cultural sympathies do not prevail “Developing the Local tion] may be present but cultural and Government Services Market to over the spirit of the Education political factors could impact and influ- Support a Long-term Strategy for and Inspections Act 2006. Local Government”, p 7, DCLG, ence what happens in practice”.73 May 2006,

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 35 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 36

4

Planning for the Future

In the last chapter we saw how Camden tial development – without taking into Council is attempting to avoid holding a account the impact of future population competition to build a new school by growth on public services. As one primary authorising a new academy which they will school provider told us: “The single biggest “co-sponsor”. We discussed the unpopular- obstacle to us in setting up new schools is ity of this move among local residents, getting a site. Getting a site for a new because it denies them a real choice. But school is almost impossible.” This problem there is another reason for this unpopular- will only get worse – and is a huge block ity. The school is being built in entirely the on supply-side reform. Without land LAs wrong part of Camden. There are already cannot build new schools to satisfy three secondary schools near the site – one demand even if they did wish to honour of them, Quintin Kynaston, is just 200 the spirit of the 2006 Act. yards away, and another, Haverstock, is a mile away. The increase in the number of Mortgaging the Future: children that led to the decision to build a The Sale of D1 Land new school has happened in the South of State control of industry and public servic- the borough – meaning children attending es has been steadily diminishing since its the new school will have to travel across peak in the 1970s. But one area that has Camden. Moreover, the school is being seeming immunity from this trend is hous- built on a busy junction and on too small ing and planning. Decisions on what to a site. According to current designs the build and where, be it a block of flats or playground will be on the roof. new seat of learning, are still the almost exclusive preserve of the State. In recent times, the inability of the Office of the “ One primary school provider told us: “The single Deputy Prime Minister to match soaring biggest obstacle to us in setting up new schools is housing demand with a woefully inelastic supply, has contributed hugely to unprece- getting a site. Getting a site for a new school is almost dented price rises. impossible.” ” Existing planning regulations dictate that schools must be built on D1 land. That such land be preserved for public Why is this happening? Because schools usage is essential, particularly given that can only be built on land designated for the insatiable demand for housing that non-residential purposes. This is known, exists in much of the UK will ensure that, in planning parlance as D1 land and is also if not protected, private developers will used for hospitals, museums and libraries snap it up. This situation is unavoidable among other things. Local authorities are because of vast discrepancies in purchasing increasingly selling off D1 land for residen- power between education providers and

36 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 37

Planning for the future

residential property developers. There will ing the land for future community use if it be little capacity for any growth in the wishes to. The Local Government Act future if no sites are available for expan- 1972: General Disposal Consent 2003 sion of public service infrastructure. removes the requirement for authorities to As we saw in Chapter two the mechanism seek specific consent from the Deputy for planning the provision of school places is Prime Minister and the Secretary of State almost completely opaque. School organisa- for any disposal of land where the differ- tion plans, which used to set out the pupil ence between the unrestricted value of the projections underlying school planning deci- land and the consideration accepted is £2 sions, have now been subsumed into the million or less. It therefore offers authori- children and young people’s plan – which ties some freedom to exercise discretion in covers a huge range of issues. Each authority the disposal of their land, reserving it for is under a statutory requirement to produce community or education use even if the one, but precious little of it is devoted to the residential price could have been higher. In strategic planning of school places. We also other words, local authorities could allo- saw in Chapter two that such planning as cate their land to schools or other commu- there is tends to be focused on reducing sur- nity services, rather than to developers. plus places for purely economic reasons. This has not, though, prevented the emer- Little thought seems to be given to increas- gence of a worrying decrease in the ing the number of good school places. This amount of D1 land available for public has led to a reduction in the overall number use. of schools: there are 1,000 fewer primary Statistics from the Department for schools in England than in 1998 and 225 Communities and Local Government fewer secondary schools.74 The emphasis on indicate a consistent movement of public reducing surplus places has led many author- land to residential status. Between 1995 ities to conclude that they are correct to be and 2004, on average, 253 hectares of land closing schools or amalgamating them into were changed from “community services” very large schools. to “residential”: a total of 2,530ha (6,251 Amalgamation and closure have natural- acres) over ten years.75 Only 17ha a year ly led to an increase in available D1 land. have been changed in the other direction. However, current trends do not suggest D1 This reduction in available land is already land is being protected as one would expect being felt in the education system. We of so vital an asset, rather that local author- have seen the problems it has caused in ities are acquiescing to its sale and subse- Camden. In another example, a new acad- quent change of use for private develop- emy in Hackney was allocated a primary ment. If a LA decides that a school is to school site, even though a secondary close there is nothing to stop the land being school is usually four to five times larger. sold. Land for housing or commerce will Compulsory purchase of extra space was always command higher prices and so an necessary before the academy site could authority will gain financially by changing accommodate a secondary school of the the use. Undoubtedly, if a choice has to be necessary size and, as a result, two of the

made between selling land for a high price levels are below ground. 74. www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/ today and keeping it for a possible future Statistics from the Greater London DB/SFR/s000744/UPDATEDSFR3 public use, the council’s obligations to Authority reveal that 6,500 residential 0_2007.pdf, Table 1 75. www.communities.gov.uk/ obtain “best value” on disposal are frequent- units have received planning permission on docu- ly cited as the reason for opting to sell. D1 land.76 The following table shows the ments/planningandbuilding/xls/52 8961 However, the “best value” obligation ten London boroughs where most D1 land 76. Source: Greater London does not prevent the authority from retain- is being switched over to housing use. We Authority

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 37 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 38

Choice? What Choice?

have added a third column that shows the continue to do so in the short term. Since deficit in secondary school places in certain 1998 the number of children in primary boroughs – their plans to build more school has fallen by 322,000. Secondary homes compound the existing problem of school numbers peaked in 2004, since a shortage of good school places. Those when they have fallen by 56,460.77 These boroughs which are schooling children falls are due to a cyclical drop in the birth from other boroughs may also run into dif- rate in the late Nineties that will continue ficulties if new housing boosts school to impact on school rolls. Current projec- demand in their area. We conclude that the tions suggest a further drop of 150,000 provision and planning of housing needs primary school children and 530,000 sec- to incorporate the demand for school ondary school children over the next ten places much more closely. It does seem years.78 remarkable that, according to these GLA This will lead to many more surplus statistics, Lambeth is proposing over 500 places; many more school closures and fur- new housing units on D1 land when half ther sales of D1 land. In the short term it the schoolchildren resident in Lambeth are will be harder to increase good school educated in other boroughs. Lambeth’s places through competitions. In the long shortage of school places has been a local term it could be catastrophic because the issue for many years, but seems even fur- birth rate is now on the rise again. After ther from being solved. reaching a low of 594,634 live births in 2001, it rose to 669,601 in 2006 – a level last seen in 1993.79 Projections suggest that A Rising Population rises will increase in future years. So the closing of schools to reduce surplus In addition, the Office of National places has led to the sale of school land, Statistics has consistently underestimated primarily for housing. Of course, selling the number of migrants to the UK – earli- the land implies an assumption that demo- er this year it revised projections upwards graphic trends are permanent. We believe by 45,000 annually to 2031.80 The Local that this is a spectacular misreading of Government Association has recently future trends, with serious implications for released a report on the difficulties this school choice in future years. We know underestimation causes for local authori- from DCSF information on school rolls ties, one of which is an absence of school that our national school-age population places. Using the example of Hull the has been falling in the recent past and will report explains: “Until recently there have

Borough Name Proposed Total Residential Units Level of import/export of (with change of use from D1) school children

77. www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/ Wandsworth 943 13.3% imported DB/SFR/s000744/UPDATEDSFR3 Lambeth 525 49.4% exported 0_2007.pdf, Table 1 Camden 505 14.8% imported 78. Milburn A, “Give a Credit, Islington 490 1.6% exported Save a Child”, Sunday Times, 28 January 2007 Greenwich 381 8.9% exported

79. Merton 355 10.2% exported www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ Havering 330 3.5% imported theme_population/Table_1_Summ Barnet 320 5.6% imported ary_Table.xls Sutton 307 16.0% imported 80. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ Southwark 299 1.1% exported main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/2 8/nimm128.xml

38 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 39

Planning for the future

General fertility rate: all live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 (1986-2006)

6.6

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987 1986

Source: Office of National Statistics

been surplus places in many schools in cy. Lord Nolan’s Committee on Standards Hull and parts of the East Riding, but in Public Life found planning obligations these are being reduced through reorgani- “were the most intractable aspect of the sation. There were already difficulties find- planning system with which we have had ing places for children in certain year to deal…[and that they] have a tremen- groups, and this could make it difficult to dous impact on public confidence”.83 place children, especially if they arrive dur- Indeed, with respect to education, there ing the school year.”81 Other authorities, is no specific provision that guarantees that such as Leicester and Slough, report simi- appropriate schools will accompany new lar problems. residential developments. As we saw in Additionally there seems to be a lack of Chapter two the situation has already co-ordination across the country between reached crisis point in inner London, with housing plans and school closures based on vast numbers of children “exported” daily to reductions in current surplus places. outer London or even surrounding coun- Infrastructure to accompany housing is ties. However, problems are now developing supposed to be governed by Section 106 of nationwide. In June 2007, officials from the Town and Country Planning Act Hertfordshire County Council were forced 1990.82 Section 106 obligations are effec- to arrange for temporary classrooms to be tively negotiated agreements between installed at three St Albans primary schools. developers and local planning authorities, Despite parents having warned it that there which determine what the effects of devel- might not be enough school places, the 81. www.lga.gov.uk/Documents/ opment will be and, consequently, what council was apparently surprised by the level Publication/estimatingthescaleofm additional provision is required. The end of applications for primary schools this year. igration.pdf, p 90 82. The Town and Country result of this process ought to be some- In recent years new housing has been built Planning (Use Classes) Order thing approaching sustainable develop- in and around St Albans, but the education- 1987 (statutory instrument no 764): www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1987 ment. Unfortunately the efficacy of such al demand that this would create has not /Uksi_19870764_en_2.htm

agreements has been repeatedly called into been correctly predicted or provided for. 83. Standards of Conduct in question. Developers criticise them for There are still no plans for a permanent new Local Government, Third Report of the Committee on Standards in their inconsistency and lack of transparen- school to be built. Public Life, July 1997

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 39 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 40

Choice? What Choice?

In Colchester the local authority is in permitted. Similar protection could enable the process of amalgamating two local school sites to be preserved. schools, reducing the number of school Authorities should also have access to places by 500 while 2,500 new houses are information about non-educational public being built on the site of the former land that could be used for school places. Colchester garrison.84 There are similar English Partnerships runs a register of the concerns across the country, wherever new national surplus of public sector land.88 The housing developments are springing up, purpose is to ensure that wider government from Ilkley85 to Hampshire.86 With three objectives are factored into land disposal million new houses promised by 2020 this decisions, including housing needs and problem is only going to get worse. regional economic and housing strategies. So local authorities are being encour- This is a valiant effort at joining-up areas of aged to reduce the number of surplus the public sector that have previously places in schools by the Government and known little about each other’s assets. A the Audit Commission in response to cur- wide cross-section of public sector organisa- rently falling school rolls, when we know tions have supplied information to the reg- that pupil numbers will start rising again ister about their surplus land. Local author- due to rising birth rates, when we know ity land is not yet included on the register, that the ONS has drastically underestimat- but English Partnerships is pressing for this. ed the number of immigrants and when we First refusal for sites is offered to public sec- know that pressure on housing is leading tor: once the disposing agency has provided to more and more new developments. This English Partnerships with details of the site is staggeringly myopic. If we continue to for inclusion on the register, there is a 40- ignore these demographic trends many day window for public sector agencies and other parts of the country will end up in departments to identify new uses for this the crisis situation in which inner London land. If the sites can be used beneficially authorities currently find themselves. elsewhere in the public sector they may be Our recommendations from Chapter transferred at market value and then be two would see local authorities refocus brought back into community use. So far their school planning away from the sim- about 70 public sector agencies have sup- ply economics of reducing surplus places plied details of more than 750 sites, and towards increasing the number of totalling more than 5,000ha of land. good school places. However, the dynamic Almost 300 sites are in the South East.89 market that we envisage, in which LAs are Although the focus of the register is the forced to open new schools, thus exposing freeing up of land for housing, there is no

84. Hansard, Col 135, 22 failing ones, will only work if there is avail- reason why the principle should not be October 2007 able land. It is essential, therefore, that the extended to education. The key is to main- 85. www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/ sale of D1 land be halted so that excess tain spare capacity that can be utilised mostpopu- lar.var.1780992.mostviewed.city capacity can be maintained. should an unexpected need arise. This _lead- Playing fields are protected by separate would be particularly useful when it came ers_to_tackle_ilkley_school_places _concerns.php guidance and receive more detailed protec- to setting up a new school. For instance, if 86. archive.hampshirechronicle tion from disposal than school sites gener- demand from parents for a new school .co.uk/2005/1/26/12768.html ally.87 There have been fewer sales of play- manifested itself in an area of failing 87. “Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for Academies”, ing field land in recent years and, under schools, it could be built on this spare pub- DfES Guidance 1017, 2004 the current guidance, any proceeds have lic land without the usual delays, to speed 88. www.englishpartnerships. generally been reinvested in community the transition of pupils. If needs be the sites co.uk/rspsl.htm sport. The Secretary of State has to be con- of failing schools could then be added to the 89. www.englishpartnerships. co.uk/rspsl.htm sulted before the sale of a playing field is register for future use. At present though,

40 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 41

Planning for the future

disappointingly little credence is given to lion, and, as a voluntary-aided school, the school provision by English Partnerships. In governors would have found it difficult to fact they report that they have not been raise their 10 per cent contribution. Their liaising with any would-be school providers. imaginative solution was to develop the site Even in the case of regenerating former jointly with UNITE, the student housing NHS hospital sites, already classified as group. The primary school takes up the viable D1 land, the focus remains on deliv- ground and first floors and student accom- ering on housing targets, and in particular modation the three floors above. The combi- affordable housing. With a waiting list for nation works well as the students can be public housing of 1.6 million, and the monitored and are not generally at home in recent assimilation of English Partnerships the day time. Key worker accommodation into the Department for Local Government can be another successful mix with a school, and Communities, it seems that education but shift workers may be disturbed by the will be consigned to the background in per- noise from the playground. Ensuring the petuity. However, local authorities estimate safety of the children means that residents in that for every house built on an estate, 0.5 such mixed schemes must be selected with school places are required. A housing estate great care. of 800-1,000 houses generates demand for at least one primary school. The focus must be holistic with respect to new develop- The focus must be holistic with respect to new ments. The flexibility imbued in English “ Partnerships must be extended further if developments. The flexibility imbued in English Partnerships good school places are to accompany these must be extended further if good school places are to ubiquitous new developments. accompany these ubiquitous new developments ”

Innovation and Flexibility As well as protecting existing D1 land bet- St Mary and St Pancras Primary is a spa- ter, we should look to allow the opening of cious, light and modern environment, schools on a greater variety of sites and which the teachers and pupils are enjoying; locations. Innovation must be encouraged pupil behaviour has noticeably improved in as available space decreases. the smart new surroundings. Excellent out- A good example of the type of innovation door play space has been included, with a necessary is provided by St Mary and St quiet garden area and a ball court that may Pancras Primary School in Camden. This be used by the community. There is also one-form entry, 220-pupil primary school space for the local Sure Start administrative was using a Victorian building with 1960s office, making the site a valuable resource for additions, where the leaking roof and other local families. Ofsted now rates the school modernisation work would require invest- “outstanding” and it is heavily oversub- ment of £2 million. The London Diocesan scribed, with three applicants per place. Board for Schools (Church of England) Significantly this turnaround occurred with- decided that a complete rebuild would be in three years, well under the five-year stan- the better long-term solution, especially dard. Such joined-up thinking in the provi- since Ofsted had placed the school into spe- sion of homes and school places is not cial measures: radical improvement was unheard of, but it is rare. The example of St needed in both the buildings and the educa- Mary and St Pancras Primary School does tion services. The estimated cost of rebuild- show that many of the problems that we ing an inner city primary school is £4-5 mil- have detailed can be circumvented.

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 41 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 42

Choice? What Choice?

Another way to increase flexibility would be to allow school providers to One of the greatest blocks on supply- develop on sites other than those strictly side reform is the absence of land. The classified as D1. There would need to be a myopic sell-off of land following school register of possible sites for school provi- closures could lead to a school places sion, and it should also be made much eas- crisis once the UK is hit with the double ier for providers to secure a change in land impact of increasing birth rates and con- use. At present this requires planning per- tinued high levels of immigration. mission. This may be desirable in most contexts, but with respect to schools a pre- Recommendations: sumption in favour of granting permisision 1 Land previously used for educa- should pertain except in exceptional cir- tional purposes should have the cumstances. The experience of the New same status as school playing Model School Company illustrates prob- fields. Local authorities should lem of planning barriers very well. It have to apply to the Secretary of already provides voluntary educational State in order to sell it – showing support services in two London boroughs that it will not prevent a dynamic and runs a primary school in West supply side. London. It charges very low fees and raises 2 D1 land owned by LAs should be revenues through voluntary donations. It added to the English Partnerships does not seek any public funding for its register of surplus public land. capital or revenue needs. According to the English Partnerships should liaise chief executive, Richard Williams, there is with authorities needing to great demand from parents in parts of increase school places and other London for new, independent schools at educational suppliers looking for reasonable prices, but the issues of sites and suitable sites. buildings, inspections and regulations are 3 The DCSF should publish guid- holding up the supply. ance on mixed-use schemes and He cited in particular that finding land help housing organisations to with the relevant D1 category of planning liaise with educational providers. permission already in place to allow a school 4 Local authorities should be pre- to operate was a major stumbling block. vented from denying change-of- Local authorities, it seems, will resist a use planning permission to inde- change of use application for a new school if pendent schools for ideological it is outside their control. Apparently this is reasons, because such schools the case even when a provider would be tak- will help to ease demand on main- ing financial pressure off the State by edu- tained sector places. cating pupils at its own or donors’ expense.

42 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 43

Conclusion

The barriers to supply-side reform in On the rare occasions that they decide England are not legislative but political. to build a new school, LAs are supposed The recommendations in this report, taken to hold a competition, although they can together, would see the spirit of the law, avoid doing so by co-sponsoring an acad- which favours diversity of supply, hon- emy – a practice that should be disal- oured in practice. lowed. Unfortunately, in the only compe- Academies demonstrate that bringing tition held to date, the schools adjudica- new suppliers into education improves tor awarded the project to the local results and is popular with parents. Much authority in defiance of government guid- of their success can be attributed to their ance. Moreover, the public consultation independence. The Government has yet to was run by the victor. Other bidders explain why, if independence is good for should be helped financially in preparing academies, it should be denied to other their proposals and a neutral organisation schools. Every school should be able to should be in charge of the public consul- apply for academy status if it has a sponsor tation. and a viable business plan. Finally, the selling-off of D1 land could Local authorities are supposed to act as lead to a shortage in new school provision commissioners of education services rather once the impact of the rising birth rate than suppliers; but it is clear that this is not starts to kick in. Land previously used for happening. Decisions on school planning education should be protected in the remain politically motivated, and based on same way that school playing fields are the economic cost of surplus places rather currently protected. In addition innova- than parental demand. We recommend tive mixed-used schemes should be that planning for future places should be encouraged and change-of-use planning considerably more transparent; that meas- permission granted more readily to inde- ures of demand should be published and, if pendent schools. these indicate a need for more good school The legislation exists to give parents a places, local authorities should plan for real choice – all we need now is the politi- new schools. cal will to make it happen.

www.policyexchange.org.uk • 43 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE HDS 11/12/07 16:40 Page 44 CHOICE WHAT CHOICE COVER HDS:CHOICE WHAT CHOICE COVER HDS 12/12/07 16:04 Page 1

For nearly twenty years parents have been allowed to choose which schools their children attend. Or that is the theory. In practice, hundreds of thousands are denied their first choice and their children remain trapped in inadequate schools. School choice has failed to deliver because there is no market in education within which it can operate. Restrictions on the Choice? What supply of places in good schools mean that school providers cannot respond to parental preferences as they would do in a normal consumer market. Choice? The supply side of the education market is so constrained by administrative and even physical barriers that few new suppliers manage to surmount them. These barriers are the focus of our What Choice? report – why they occur and, most importantly, how they can be removed. On academies we show sponsors’ unease at the Brown Government’s attitude and we ask why, if freedom is good for some schools it should not be available to all schools? Supply and demand in English education On surplus places and competitions for new schools we show how reforms passed under Tony Blair to provide potential new suppliers with a number of routes to enter the state system are being ignored by local authorities keen on retaining control of Eleanor Sturdy andSamFreedman the school system. And on planning we show how demographic growth could cause crisis for authorities who have focused on removing surplus places with little regard for competition or flexibility of demand.

Eleanor Sturdy and Sam Freedman

£10.00 ISBN: 978-1-906097-11-0 Policy Exchange Policy Exchange Clutha House 10 Storey’s Gate London SW1P 3AY

www.policyexchange.org.uk