These briefing notes are based on recent research and reports into Academies.

What are Academies?

What are Academies for?

Why sponsors?

What motivates sponsors?

What do sponsors pay?

What are the issues?

Governance

Curriculum

Innovation 

Leadership

Pupil attainment

Impact on local schools

What are Academies?

Academies are state schools:

What are Academies for? 

The government states that Academies are to raise standards in socially-deprived areas by replacing (in most cases) existing poorly-performing schools.

But many of the schools which are being replaced (the predecessor schools) are actually doing quite well and improving, in terms of GCSE results and Ofsted inspections.

Why sponsors? 

…an external sponsor […] brings not only a financial endowment but also vision, commitment, and a record of success from outside the state school system

Tony Blair 2004

Who are the sponsors? 

• business entrepreneurs
• business charities
• private companies
• religious organisations
• Church of England (often as the United Learning Trust);
• Catholic Church
• other Christian organisations (e.g. Oasis)
• others
• private schools
• football clubs
• etc

What motivates sponsors? 

religious sponsors

• to promote their faith

business sponsors

• philanthropy
• self-promotion
• influence how schools are managed
• support New Labour
• gain influence with government
• ‘corporate social responsibility’
• promote company image
• influence the curriculum
• shape the future workforce

There is a shift in the type of sponsors. Religious organisations continue to be prominent, but there are proportionally fewer individual multi-millionaire business sponsors and more company sponsors. This relates to another development: Academies are increasingly being key elements in the government’s 14-19 vocational agenda, sponsored by local employers and geared to local labour market needs, and often acting as the hubs of local vocational networks of schools (as in Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham, for example. 

What do sponsors pay? 

They are supposed to pay £2 million, but they often pay less, or even nothing. The National Audit Office report ‘The Academies Programme’, published in February 2007, looked at the 27 academies opened by September 2005 and found that a year later only 11 had received the £2 million.  For example, the Haberdashers livery company, sponsor of the Haberdashers’ Aske’s Knights Academy in south London, have paid only £295,000. Nine had received payments of less than £1 million. Some sponsors had agreed to pay in instalments but in four cases the payments were behind schedule. 

What are the issues? 

In addition to the pay and conditions of staff, the key issues are: 

• Governance
• Curriculum
• Leadership
• Pupil attainment
• Impact on local schools

Governance 

The sponsors control the Academy governing body: they

• appoint the majority of the governors
• appoint staff
• decide pay and conditions
• decide admissions – they have to abide by Admissions code, but not necessarily the local authority’s policy
• decide on curriculum – within a broad government framework 

Academy Governing Bodies don’t represent parents and staff 

Among the principal reasons to oppose Academies are the changes in governance which they represent. Under the policy on the constitution of governing bodies published by the DfES in 2006, the allocation of places on the governing bodies of community, foundation and voluntary controlled schools must be as follows:

• Governing bodies can have a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 20 places.
• At least one-third of their places to parents, elected by the parent body.
• At least two places, and not more than one third, to staff. One place is reserved for the headteacher, the others are elected by the staff.
• One-fifth of places to LEA governors (at least one, and not more than one-fifth, in foundation schools).
• At least one-fifth in community schools and at least one-tenth in foundation and voluntary controlled schools for community governors, appointed by the governing body.
• In foundation and voluntary controlled schools, at least two and not more than one-quarter for foundation governors.

The DfES policy on Academy governance (on its website) is as follows: 

The DfES does not prescribe the numbers of governors on an Academy governing body, though it is usual for an Academy to have around 13 governors.  The Sponsor is able to appoint the majority of trustees (governors), typically around seven out of thirteen governors, and this must be agreed with the DfES.  Each Academy governing body is also made up of the principal, in an ex-officio capacity, a local authority representative, and at least one elected parent representative.  Most Academies also have a teacher governor (either elected or appointed), a staff governor (either elected or appointed) and many include community representatives.   

Comparison of a typical Community School governing body of 13 with an Academy governing body of 13 with 1 Local Authority governor: 

• A Community School has a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 parents by right, all elected.
• A Community School GB of 13 has a majority of parents and staff governors (7/13), all elected.
• An Academy has 1 parent elected by right.
• An Academy GB of 13 has a majority of sponsor governors (7/13), a maximum of 1 elected parent, and no elected staff governors by right.

The 2^nd annual report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on Academies, commissioned by the government and published in 2005, found that many teachers in Academies were critical of the governing body (p11).

“The governing body is not accessible and responsive to parents and students”

Agree: 52%

Disagree: 48%

 

“The governors do not represent the cultural backgrounds and interests of the parent group”

Agree: 60%

Disagree: 40%

 

“Teachers are well represented on the governing body”

Agree: 48%

Disagree: 52%

 

“Teachers do not participate on a regular basis in the development of Academy policies”

Agree: 59%

Disagree: 41%

 

“Teachers are afraid to make constructive criticism of the Academy

Agree: 43%

Disagree: 57%

The 3^rd Annual Report on Academies by PricewaterhouseCoopers, published in 2006, commented on the governance of Academies where more than one of them were controlled by the same sponsor (pp25-6): 

In these Academies, the governance arrangements were primarily collective,with strategic decisions being taken on behalf of the group of Academies bya central governing board. In addition, each individual Academy had a localgoverning body, which tended to be responsible for day-to-day decisions. 

In other words, in the increasing number of chain-store Academies the key decisions are being taken by the sponsors far removed from the parents of staff of the schools they control.

Curriculum 

Sponsors are not just figureheads, they make the key strategic decisions – the headteacher merely implements them, as the 2005 PricewaterhouseCoopers report confirms (p13): 

The evidence shows that the vision is set and defined by the sponsor, and then operationalised by the principal.

According to the same report, 46% of Academy teachers felt that sponsors were directly involved in planning the curriculum (p15)

This raises concerns about sponsors using their position to exercise religious influence – not just the handful of fundamentalist Christians like Vardy and Edmiston who advocate creationism but the large number of schools sponsored by other religious organisations, including the Anglican church, which are using Academies as a backdoor way of getting more ‘faith’ schools.

Another area of concern is business sponsors using Academies to promote business values. It is no coincidence that the specialism the majority of them favour is ‘business and enterprise’. But the government’s 14-19 agenda takes this much further, enabling local employers to use Academies from age 14 as training schools for the future workforce of the local economy, at the expense of a broad and balanced education till 16.

Innovation 

The government claims that Academies will be beacons of innovation. The 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers report questions this. It found that not all Academies are innovative and many are less innovative now than they were when they opened. (What needs to be added is that many ordinary secondary schools have been far more innovative than Academies anyway.)

 4.14 there was also interesting evidence from the evaluation to suggest that some Academies were beginning to pull back on some of the more innovative approaches that had been implemented in their first year. (PcW 2006) 

4.16 This development, evident in the data, of Academies beginning to withdraw a little from innovation is an interesting one. Based on the interviews with sponsors and principals it reflects the fact that in the early stages of the initiative there was a strong expectation within the sector that Academies would universally adopt radical, innovative approaches to teaching and learning. The evidence suggests that some of the initiatives that were implemented were not particularly well founded, and were regarded as having a very limited impact on pupil performance. 

4.17 Finally, it is also important to note that, whilst there are clear examples of good, innovative practice amongst Academies, it is not universally the case that all Academies are successfully adopting such approaches.  

Leadership 

The government claims that the headteachers of Academies demonstrate exceptional leadership. The 2006  PricewaterhouseCoopers report asked Academy heads about their leadership strategies:

 Key dimensions of Academy leadership – what the principals say

• Adopting a strategic approach
• Raising pupil aspirations
• Ensuring the curriculum is flexible and responsive
• Balancing innovation with the ‘basics’
• Creating leaders for tomorrow (“Our vision has always been based on the notion of leaders, the kids being leaders for tomorrow within their own community”) (p24) 

This list is completely banal – any headteacher would agree, and many would have much more interesting things to say.

 2.22 Of the eleven academies inspected so far, four (36 per cent) were judged to have good or outstanding teaching and learning. The equivalent proportion across all secondary schools was 51 per cent.  

Pupil attainment 

The government’s main claim for Academies is that they have been more successful in raising exam scores than their predecessor schools or other comparable schools. This claim needs examining.

1. The picture is mixed 

First, not all Academies are doing better – some are doing worse. The picture is mixed. This is the evidence from the 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers Academies Evaluation 3^rd Annual Report:

3.8 Pupil performance in Academies – Key Stage 4, 2004-2005 

• Across all Academies, the average improvement in performance was 5 percentage points (pp), compared to a national average of 3pp and an average for the LEAs in which the Academies are located of 2pp; 
• In seven out of 11 Academies, pupil performance had improved between 2004 and 2005, whereas in the remainder (four Academies), performance declined;  
• Of the seven Academies in which performance had improved, the averageimprovement was 15pp, compared to the national average of 3pp; and
• Of the four Academies in which performance had declined, three had shown relatively small declines, whereas in one Academy, the decline was significant (14pp). 

3.10 In terms of Key Stage 4 (GCSE), the improvement in performance across all Academies was marginally better than the corresponding improvements at national level or in similar (comparison group) schools. For example, the average 2002-2004 increase between predecessors and Academies in terms of the per cent of pupils with five or more GCSEs at A*-C and A*-G, was 6.6 and 1.5 percentage points (pp) respectively. This compares to the national average of 2.1pp and 0.1pp. The average Academy improvements for A*-G are greater than all three comparison groups (1.5pp compared to 0.4pp, 0.3pp and 0.5pp); and in relation to A*-C they are greater than two of the three comparison groups (6.6pp compared to 4.9pp, 5.5pp and 6.8pp). [Comparison Group 1 - lowest 10% of national performance distribution at Key Stage 2;Comparison Group 2 - lowest 15% of national performance distribution at Key Stage 2;Comparison Group 3 - Overlapping Intake Schools (OIS) i.e. secondary schools whose feeder primary schools overlap significantly with those of an open Academy.] 

3.11 Pupil performance in Academies – Key Stage 4, 2002-2004 (5+ GCSEs A*-C) 

• The average improvement in performance amongst Academies relative to the predecessor school exceeded the corresponding improvements at national level by more than 4pp (6.6pp compared to 2.1pp).
• The performance improvement amongst Academies outstripped performance in two of the three comparison groups of schools.
• Six out of 11 Academies performed better than Comparison Groups 1 and 2. 

The 2007 National Audit Office report Executive Summary notes that ‘the Department also provides each academy with start-up funding for up to four years after opening, or occasionally longer. Start-up funding has averaged £1.6 million in total so far for each of the first 12 academies.’ This amounts to an extra £460 per pupil a year. The report questions whether improvements in attainment will be sustained once the extra funding stops. 

2. Government figures don’t stipulate English and maths GCSEs

The government gives blanket figures for GCSE passes. A comparison of GCSE results between Academies in 2005 and their predecessor schools in 2002, taking GNVQs and English and Maths into account, carried out by Terry Wrigley at Edinburgh University (and reported in the Guardian 22 May 2006) gives a very different picture:

According to the TES 12 January 2007, the inclusion of English and maths means that 15 of the 24 Academies for which results are available were at or below the 25% 5 A*-C threshold. The national average is one in six schools.

3. Changes in pupil composition 

There is evidence that changes in the social composition of Academies is a major factor in any improvement. Stephen Gorard, Professor of Education at the University of York, studied the first 3 Academies opened in September 2002. (published as  ‘Academies as the ‘future of schooling’: is this an evidence-based policy?’ in the Journal of Education Policy Vol. 20, No. 3, May 2005, pp. 369–377.) He found 2 had significantly improved GCSE results and 1 had worse results, and is now in ‘special measures. The main factor in improvement in the two schools was that they were attracting more pupils from middle-class families. Gorard conlcudes:

Are Academies a solution to the perennial problem for school improvers? Do they deliver superior educational outcomes without changing the nature of their student intake? The answer, on the evidence available here, has to be ‘no’. (p375) 

…this relative decline in FSM students in Academies does lead to the concern that any ‘improvements’ in GCSE outcomes are attributable to a change in student intake more than innovative approaches to management, governance, teaching and the curriculum.” (p375) “All of these reservations need to be considered in the light of the higher funding for Academies (both capital and revenue, just like specialist schools), their ability to select by aptitude or religious preference, their potential (long term) to alter the local housing population, their reported high level of exclusions even of GCSE-age students (BBC, 2004), and their marketing practices such as targeting leaflet campaigns only in more affluent areas (NUT, 2004). […] 

Sleight-of-hand school improvement involves schools changing the nature of their intake, often as an unintended outcome of a change in admission procedures, and then claiming that an ensuing rise in test scores is due to an improvement in teaching or management. The early Academies show signs of already doing this. Perhaps instead they should be bold enough to claim instead success precisely on the basis of changing their intake (or at least the ones in Bexley and Middlesbrough could). (p376) 

There is evidence in the latest PricewaterhouseCoopers report (2006) that Academies are admitting more pupils from middle-class families and fewer from working class families, and that the rate of change is greater than in other comparable schools:

3.3 …there has been a decline in the corresponding proportion of pupils eligible for FSM from 44.5% to 41.6%. This decline has on average exceeded the corresponding declines amongst comparison schools (32.1% to 30.2%), and amongst English schools as a whole (14.9% to 14.4%). 

One element in this is the high rates of exclusion at many Academies, sometimes 4 times as high as neighbouring schools. According to the 2007 national Audit Office report, permanent exclusion rates in Academies are nearly 4 times higher than the national average.

 4. Academies should be compared with comparable programmes 

Other programmes aimed at raising standards in schools in socially deprived areas are having as much success as Academies, or more, without handing schools over to private sponsors. One example is the Keys to Success programme in London. The 2 Academies which opened in London in 2004 improved their GCSE results by 4% and 5%. A group of the 68 lowest performing London schools in the Keys to Success programme improved by 4% in 2003 and another 4.5% in 2004. The total cost of the programme is £3 million a year. (TEN Policy Briefing, 2005, p11.)

Anther example is the Excellence in Cities programme. According to the 2007 National Audit Office report (p10):

…for three main measures of GCSE performance (five or more grades A* to C, grades A* to G, and grades A* to C including English and maths) in 2006, academy pupils gained on average better results than Fresh Start schools but not as good as those of Excellence in Cities schools in deprived areas. 

The conclusion of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, March 2005 was that:

We fail to understand why the DfES is putting such substantial resources into Academies when it has not produced the evidence on which to base the expansion of the programme. 

Impact on local schools 

There is widespread concern that Academies can have a negative impact on neighbouring schools, in a number of ways:

• Increases market competition – and competition may encourage other schools to select
• Creams other schools
• Non-admission / Exclusion of SEN and ‘challenging’ pupils
• all-through Academies may mean closure of primary schools
• Academies till 18 may undermine  local sixth forms and sixth form colleges

The government claims that, on the contrary, Academies will help neighbouring schools by sharing expertise and facilities. But the 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers report stated: 

LINKAGES WITH THE WIDER COMMUNITY OF SCHOOLS

5.10 Last year’s research highlighted a mixed picture in relation to perceptions around Academies’ links with other local schools, and the evidence from this year’s research is broadly consistent with previous findings. For example, less than one half of staff surveyed both this year and last year thought that their Academy proactively supported schools within the local community by sharing expertise and resources. 

Similarly, the 2007 National Audit Office report ‘The Academies Programme’ found that ‘there has been little collaboration between most academies and neighbouring secondary schools’.

In short, it is not surprising that, for all these reasons, 44% of heads oppose Academies and only 7% support them (Education Guardian 5 December 2006).