Create an Account Free Trial

Forced academisation by proxy: when schools have little choice but to convert

Image credit: Make your own #options by Frédéric Poirot - licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Forced academisation by proxy: when schools have little choice but to convert

Share this:
  • 3

by Nicola Ingram, Lancaster University.

All schools in England that remain under local authority control are now living with the threat of being forced to become academies. As the mother of a child who attends a school that chose to become an academy, rather than have its hand forced, it is painfully ironic to watch this happen. Considering the government’s rhetoric on educational choice, freedom and autonomy that supposedly accompanies its academies agenda, parents will soon have little option but to send their child to an academy.

Whether the forced academisation of all England’s schools will actually happen or not remains to be seen. Over 145,000 people have so far signed a petition calling on the government to rethink the plans announced in the recent budget, with teachers set to march in protest against the issue.

Regardless of what legal powers are introduced to make the plans a reality, the existence of the threat of forced academisation legislation is likely to colour all future decision-making of schools’ governing bodies. Under the cloud of such a threat the logical question for schools is: do we academise now on our own terms or wait to be forced under unknown circumstances and conditions?

Act now, or be forced to

I recently experienced this exact form of constrained decision-making with regards to proposals to convert my child’s school – Parrs Wood High School, Manchester – to an academy. In our case, the strongest argument in favour of academy conversion was that of the fear of being forced to do so.

The consultation period took place during the progression period of the recent Education and Adoption bill, which introduced new measures for the government to forcibly academise any school that is deemed to be “coasting”. The lack of clarity about what this term means, coupled with the uncertainty about the direction of educational policy regarding schools’ governance, is likely to fuel rumours and instil fear. This was arguably the case in my child’s school.

The following excerpt from personal correspondence with the governing body at my child’s school in December 2015 exposes the underlying principle of fear driving the decision-making process, when all other arguments in favour of conversion were exposed as weak or lacking foundation. The governors stated:

This government has made it clear that they are going to take all schools out of LA control in the life of this parliament. The greatest danger to schools is that they are forced to academise with a DfE [Department for Education] approved chain. This is currently what happens after an Ofsted report which defines the school as requiring improvement or inadequate.

In the Education and Adoption bill due to be law in January a school can be forced to become part of an academy chain if it is seen as coasting. We don’t know what that is, but it is clear a dip in results or even a lack of improvement could fit this definition. So the choice for a governing body is to wait to be academised or to academise on its own terms.

What is the agenda?

There is still no conclusive evidence to support claims that academies raise standards and any success academies may have had might be explained by increased investment in schools. Add to this uncertainty highlighted by Labour about how much turning all schools into academies will cost, and it is difficult to produce an argument of substance in favour of such aggressive change.

Arguments in favour of academisation are questionable and are increasingly undermined by evidence-based research, yet the academies agenda retains a strong foothold in educational policy. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) recently aruged for the need to articulate a clear vision of the aims of academy policy and whether it benefits pupils.

Lacklustre opposition
Lucy Powell

Lucy Powell – image credit: adapted from The Labour Party’s image, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

The strongest opposition to academisation has so far come from grass roots campaigns. Since the Conservative-led coalition stepped up the transformation of schools into academies, official lines of opposition have been delivered from the National Union of Teachers and the Labour Party, but without any robust campaigning.

Disappointingly, Labour’s shadow education minister, Lucy Powell, has been somewhat lacklustre in her responses to academisation. In the case of my child’s school in Manchester (which she coincidentally attended herself as a pupil), her response was to refuse to offer her opinion on whether the school should convert or not. She adopted the party line of the school governors – that it is better to take control of academisation than to be forced into it. She later stated that plans to remove the consultation process for schools that the government deem coasting was a problematic development that needed to be avoided.

Yet the consultation process for Parrs Wood High School highlights the redundancy of such a process when a governing body is prepared to make decisions regardless of the opinions of those with an interest in the future of the school. A freedom of information request in relation to the consultation process revealed that 81% of staff, 75% of parents and 71% of outside agencies said no to academisation, still the decision to convert was taken. This gives a whole new meaning to the notion of forced academisation.

Surely there is a better way. The debate on academisation needs to focus on the question of what the benefits are. Academisation leads to increased connection between state education and private sector businesses. Therefore the fear that academisation is another step towards the privatisation of the education system is something that can no longer be ignored.

Nicola Ingram is Lecturer in Education and Social Justice at Lancaster University.

Disclosure statement: Nicola Ingram is affiliated with the Labour Party and the Paws Off Parrs Wood campaign.

Questions for governing boards
  • Are we able to articulate our decision making processes as governors – even down to explaining where, how and why we feel ill-prepared or under political pressure regarding something such as academisation?
  • How do we engage with stakeholders at our school – and are we aware of any distinct groups within this larger body?
  • Do we have an understanding of how effective this engagement is – and which, if any, groups of parents, carers, or sections of the wider community we are overlooking?
  • If we do consult with our community, have we made a commitment to be open about the results of such a consultation?
  • As a group we may feel caught in the middle between a government policy of academisation as the only option, and a school community vehemently opposed to such a move. How will we communicate well to ensure that parents, pupils and others are involved and informed and understand our processes and decision making?

Modern Governor subscribers have access to the Communication Skills collection of modules within Core Skills, the modules within which might be helpful if your board is faced with engaging with your school’s community under new or more pressurised circumstances.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. The featured image and Questions for governing boards were added by Modern Governor.

The Conversation - logo

Read the original article.

Featured image credit: Make your own #options by Frédéric Poirot – licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Share this:
  • 3