In the 4th century, Saint Augustine of Hippo, a theological titan, established the foundational doctrines of the Christian Church.
This orthodoxy, deeply rooted in Platonic philosophy, allowed little room for deviation. This period in theological and philosophical history has often been referred to as the “closing of the Western mind”, as alternative Greco-Roman philosophical ideologies were relegated to the realm of heresy.
It was not until the 13th century, with Saint Thomas Aquinas’ engagement with the works of Muslim scholars such as Maimonides, that Aristotelian philosophy was rediscovered and integrated into Christian theology.
Aquinas’ synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian thought reinvigorated theological discourse, effectively opening up new avenues of intellectual exploration within Christianity.
The academies dogma
Fast-forward to 2014, the education sector experienced a metaphorical “closing of the mind” through the relentless push toward academisation. This movement propagated the belief that there was only one effective approach to schooling - the academy trust model.
While this system brought certain strengths, it was not universally embraced; approximately 11,000 schools have resisted conversion.
The introduction of academy freedoms was a government initiative designed to incentivise schools to adopt the academy model. However, this approach often felt coercive and reflected a governance strategy focused on enforcing a singular vision rather than fostering collaboration and diversity in educational practice.
The so-called “academy freedoms” created a two-tier education system. These freedoms included exemptions from the national curriculum, flexibility in setting term dates and pupil days, autonomy over admissions policies (including in-year admissions) and more.
While these may appear relatively benign, their broader implications have significantly affected non-academy schools. For instance, a maintained school that does not offer food technology (or any other subject on the national curriculum) cannot receive an “outstanding” rating from Ofsted, regardless of its overall excellence or high-quality outcomes.
In contrast, academies are not held to this standard.
Such discrepancies undermine the equity of school evaluations and distort the information available to parents. A national curriculum should provide consistency; if half of schools are exempt, it ceases to be truly “national”. This fragmented approach is non-sensical.
Admissions policies further highlight systemic inequities.
A key aspect of recent legislation is the requirement for schools and academies to cooperate with local councils on admissions. Importantly, councils would be empowered to direct academies to admit unplaced or vulnerable children, many of whom have special educational needs or disabilities.
Over the past decade, there have been reports of some academy trusts refusing to admit vulnerable children due to the perceived challenges they present or the potential impact on performance metrics.
A fair system must prioritise access for all children and eliminate any practices that enable selection based on prejudice.
Innovation in all quarters
Critics of the bill often argue that academies are the sole drivers of innovation within the school system. This assertion is both inaccurate and dismissive of the significant contributions made by maintained schools.
Many maintained schools, like mine, have pioneered transformative initiatives, including extended school days, flexible working arrangements for staff, and inclusive practices in mainstream education, all while maintaining high educational standards and outcomes.
It is essential to recognise that both academies and maintained schools can drive innovation for different reasons, and their coexistence should be celebrated and leveraged to complement one another.
The option for local authorities to establish new schools is a critical development. Local authorities, through statutory schools forums composed of elected representatives and other stakeholders, play a central role in managing the dedicated schools grant, addressing challenges related to the high needs block and planning for pupil placement.
The previous restrictions preventing councils from opening new schools, including special schools, were less about system improvement and more about advancing a politically motivated agenda favouring academies. Restoring this capability ensures a more balanced and responsive education system.
Faith and reason
Recent discussions about the bill have predominantly focused on perceived losses or reductions in authority.
However, it is imperative to shift the conversation towards equity, collaboration and innovation in the education sector to ensure that the school experience all children have is of the highest standard and quality.
By integrating Aristotelian philosophy, Aquinas was able to reimagine a doctrinal framework for Christianity that introduced greater dynamism by harmonising faith and reason.
Similarly, much of the recent discourse surrounding the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has focused on what might be lost or how academies, as entities, are perceived to be disadvantaged. However, this perspective may be misaligned.
Instead of framing the discussion in terms of loss, we should consider the factors that are enhancing the educational system.
From my perspective, this bill promotes greater dynamism and flexibility within the educational landscape, fostering opportunities for high-performing consistency.
At the same time, it seeks to mitigate the incentivisation of harmful competition, replacing it with a healthy balance of competition and collaboration between schools - whether they are academies or maintained schools.
Andrew O’Neill is headteacher of All Saints Catholic College
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
