Leaders in the education sector have criticised the “disappointing” make-up of a panel advising an important policy review of the government’s plans for academy trusts.
The Department for Education has appointed an expert panel to help it to redraft its plans for new powers and standards to regulate multi-academy trusts.
This move came after the government agreed to withdraw large swathes of its Schools Bill over fears voiced by both academy chiefs and lords that it could grant central government huge power over how academies are run.
But concerns have now been raised about how representative of the entire schools sector the panel is.
Stephen Morales, CEO of the Institute of School Business Leadership, told Tes that he felt “uncomfortable” with the make-up of the panel, adding that he was concerned this could lead to “draconian” regulations.
A policy review launched last month will look at the expectations set for academy trusts, how these are measured and intervened over, and how this affects decisions about trust establishment, growth and mergers.
This comes after the government withdrew a series of clauses from its Schools Bill that had set out examples of new standards that could be created to hold multi-academy trusts to account.
Academies regulation review: fears of ‘draconian powers’
The Department for Education said that an advisory group of education, academic and regulatory experts would provide “regular advice and challenge”.
But while the CEO of the Confederation of School Trusts (CST) is on the panel, other sector bodies such as the National Governance Association (NGA) and Institute of School Business Leadership (ISBL) are absent.
The DfE has said that the review will also engage with parliamentarians and representatives from unions including the Association of School and College Leaders and the NAHT school leaders’ union via working groups, visits and workshops.
However, Mr Morales has said that he believes the make-up of the panel is “not quite right”.
“I’m slightly uncomfortable with the regulatory review advisory panel. It does not feel particularly representative. I’ve taken this to officials and they have given the message that there will be an opportunity for other sector bodies to feed in but that does not feel quite right. It seems a bit odd,” he said.
Asked what he thought the outcome of a lack of sector representation would be, he said: “I’m not in any way trying to second guess the contribution of those on the panel, but my biggest fear is we end up with a quite draconian set of regulations, and you almost need a dedicated compliance person within your structure to pore over all the regulations and make sure you don’t fall foul of them.”
He added that he would be happy if the ISBL was absent from the list of advisers but other sector bodies such as the NGA were on the panel.
And Emma Knights, chief executive of the NGA, said it was ”disappointing” not to see more chairs of trust boards on the group, as trust boards are trusts’ accountable bodies, responsible for meeting the regulators’ requirements.
She added: ”The DfE’s Governance Handbook rightly emphasises the importance of ’diversity of perspectives to enable robust decision making’. The contexts, size and views of trusts are many and varied, and the National Governance Association can help provide that full spectrum of diverse feedback from trustees.
“We will, of course, be doing that in other ways; the DfE has already attended an NGA virtual meeting of over 100 trusts to seek their input, but it is still frustrating not to have a seat at the advisory group table when the issues are then debated further.”
Full membership of the panel includes Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, as well as Steve Crocker, from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and several academy trust leaders, including Sir Martyn Oliver, of Outwood Grange Academies Trust.
Amanda Spielman, chief inspector at Ofsted, and Jo Saxton, chief regulator at Ofqual, are also members of the panel.
The DfE has been contacted for comment.
Former education secretary calls for Schools Bill to be halted
The Schools Bill was debated in the House of Lords again tonight after the government’s announcement that it was preparing to withdraw and redraft large sections of its own legislation.
Former education secretary Lord Baker, who has been a prominent critic of the Bill, has said it should be blocked until a new prime minister and administration is in place.
Lord Baker of Dorking was joined by fellow Conservative peer Lord Cormack in arguing that the Schools Bill should be prevented from continuing its parliamentary passage, given the current political “vacuum” following the resignation of Boris Johnson as Tory leader.
Last month former education secretary Nadhim Zahawi stripped out swathes of the legislation that would have given Whitehall sweeping powers over autonomous academies.
Lord Baker said steps were being taken by the government to “gut the Bill”.
He said: “This House has never been asked in the past to pass a Bill, the guts of which have been taken out, and we have no idea what’s going to be placed into it later in the House of Commons.
“This has simply not happened in our history and it’s not the right way to behave. I believe we should consider not giving this Bill a third reading when it comes to it, because it is a gutless Bill.”
DfE minister Baroness Barran has told the House of Lords that the review panel’s work over the summer will help the government to develop new clauses on academy standards.
However, she said that the government would not be bringing back delegated powers it had planned to create in Clause 3 of the Bill
This clause would have allowed the secretary of state to apply existing provisions in primary legislation that relate to other educational institutions to also apply to an academy.
Baroness Barran said the government was now looking to find a way of meeting its policy objectives without seeking to create this power.
