Agenda item
The implications of the Government's policy on academies and Free Schools in Brent
This report considers the implications of the Government’s policy with regard to expanding the number of academies and free schools as set out within the White Paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ published in November 2010 and the subsequent Education Bill 2011 published on 26th January 2011.
Minutes:
Cathy Tyson (Assistant Director Policy) presented a report to the Committee on the implications of the Government’s policy with regard to expanding the number of academies and free schools as set out within the white paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’, published in November 2010, and the subsequent Education Bill 2011, published on 26 January 2011. Along with other reforms to the education system and teaching, the white paper proposed to enable more schools to apply for Academy status and to enable groups to establish Free Schools. This policy was founded on the concept that creating a more diverse range of education providers, free from central or local government control, would increase standards of education, enhance parental choice and increase accountability for educational attainment. The proposed Education Bill 2011 added to this by significantly curtailing any statutory right of local authorities to influence or intervene in the managerial operation of their local schools. Although, it was highlighted to the committee that the local authority had performed a primarily strategic role since the introduction of local management of schools in 1988
Cathy Tyson further advised that under these proposals the local authority was still responsible for ensuring that there was a sufficient number of good quality school places, adequate special educational needs (SEN) provision and that admissions processes remained fair, with a right of appeal available to parents. The means of achieving these goals would be made more difficult by the proposals set out in the Education Bill to remove the duty on schools to cooperate with local authorities to improve the wellbeing of local children and to terminate the requirement for every school to have a local authority school improvement partner. In particular, the removal of the duty to cooperate could lead to a fragmented and unequal pattern of school provision and associated services, with the most vulnerable children being excluded from opportunities. With regard to Brent’s school improvement service, the committee was informed that it was well regarded by local schools and had helped to significantly raise the standard of local education provision and achievement. However, the removal of the requirement for local schools to be part of the schools improvement partnership, combined with the move towards the creation of improvement chains or federations between schools, will mean that in the future the school improvement service would be provided on a completely commercial basis.
Cathy Tyson highlighted to the committee that there were several incentives for schools to become academies including greater freedom from the local authority and greater funding per pupil, direct from central government. Whilst it was acknowledged that the council had an extremely good relationship with Brent’s schools, it was noted that if a significant number of Brent’s schools were to become academies, there could be financial implications for the local authority, in addition to the challenges outlined above. The Academies Bill Impact Assessment proposed interim arrangements to provide funding for academies, whilst a new national education funding formula was created. The interim arrangements saw funding for academies for the next two years provided via a top slice of £413m from the formula grant to all local authorities. Brent’s contribution to this reduced Brent’s mainstream revenue funding for 2011/12 by approximately £1m. It was felt that as the amount of contribution was not calculated on the basis of the number of schools that actually converted to academy status, the local tax payer had become liable for funding a national programme for academies and free schools, regardless of the local status and preferences of Brent’s schools and parents. The Local Government Association was currently lobbying for central government to recoup the funding for each new academy on an individual basis and Brent, along with other London authorities had sought a judicial review regarding these interim funding arrangements.
The Chair of the Brent Youth Parliament commented that via his experience as a governor at a school in Harrow, he was aware that the uptake in Harrow to become academies was significant. He added that in many schools consultation with pupils had been poor and based on the provision of biased or limited information. Rik Boxer advised the meeting that there was a big disparity across London authorities, but in Brent many schools were stating that they were not interested in converting to academies. However, it was thought that there might become a point when the number of academy schools was in the majority in an area, where those remaining schools would feel that it would be necessary to become academies to access the same advantages. Cathy Tyson acknowledged that the consultations taking places in schools could be flawed, particularly as the way the issue was presented at national level and the terminology used could be misleading. The local authority could assist by ensuring that clear and fair information was provided to governing bodies. J Cooper advised that in her experience information regarding this matter provided to pupils, staff and parents had been misleading or biased and provided an example to the committee where the views of parents were misrepresented or ignored.
Hank Roberts asserted that the key issue was that people were consulted in line with their democratic rights. He explained that the TUC was currently engaged in a struggle to ensure that this happened. He felt that an England-wide consortium of local authorities was required to offer competition to the large firms providing and managing services. He added that with respect to paragraph 3.10 which set out the intention of the council to take a pragmatic approach to balance the aspirations of schools with the local needs of children and parental preference, he felt that it would be important for the council to outline the benefits of not converting to academy status to the governing bodies and head teachers. The TUC was working very hard to advertise the benefits of local authority support to schools and they were seeking the support of the local authority in achieving adequate consultation and democratic engagement in the decision regarding whether a school should assume academy status.
During members’ discussion, Councillor Al-Ebadi raised a concern that these changes could lead to a two tier educational system in Brent.
With reference to the report, Elsie Points queried the assertion at paragraph 5.1 that there would be no staffing implications. Cathy Tyson advised that this aspect of the report referred to the implications of the recommendations but that it was possible that there could be a staffing impact on central services in the future.
Councillor Harrison sought clarification regarding the recommendation at paragraph 2.4 of the report regarding the need to develop a more commercially viable approach to the future provision of school improvement services. Cathy Tyson explained that this related to the need to move to providing traded services to schools where appropriate and highlighted that currently, services such as HR and Legal advice were provided at a cost below the market rate.
RESOLVED: -
i. That the council’s collaborative and inclusive approach to working with local schools within a mixed economy of provision to meet the needs of local children be endorsed.
ii. That the Local Government Association’s lobbying during the committee stage of the Education Bill with regard to the following points be supported:-
· the central importance of local authorities in the strategic planning of school places and the regulation of fair admissions procedures.
· the vital role of elected members as representative on schools governing bodies whatever their status.
· the need for a fair funding allocation for all schools which does not disadvantage maintained schools in favour of academies and free schools.
iii. That the work of the One Council SEN project to develop a strategic and affordable approach to the provision and commissioning of appropriate SEN places be noted
iv. That the need to develop a more commercially viable approach to the future provision of school improvement services in the light of the provisions contained within the Education Bill which will significantly increase competition in this market, be noted.
Supporting documents: