Academy trust leaders have welcomed the government’s decision to withdraw large swathes of its controversial Schools Bill and warned that any powers given to the education secretary when it is redrafted need to be “carefully” designed in the legislation to avoid misuse.
The government announced yesterday that it was to scrap large parts of its Bill after heavy criticism in the House of Lords.
The move comes after concerns were raised by peers and multi-academy trust (MAT) leaders about the scope of the bill to give Whitehall too much control over how academies operate.
The clauses being withdrawn relate to government plans to create new academy standards, which trusts will be expected to meet, and how it aims to intervene when trusts are underperforming.
Although they are being removed, the Department for Education (DfE) has said it would be bringing back “revised clauses” later in the Bill’s passage through Parliament and now trust leaders have explained what they want to see when this happens.
Powers need to be ‘carefully circumscribed’
Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, has said it is important that vague language be removed from the Bill and the powers of the secretary of state be “carefully circumscribed in legislation”.
She added: “The legislation must not use the word ‘example’, or say ‘for example’. This is because doing so means any future secretary of state could bring forward standards on literally anything.
“The use of the word ‘examples’ does not limit the areas in which a future secretary of state could bring forwards regulations on standards, so that must come out.”
As it is drafted at the moment, the legislation states: “The secretary of state may, by regulations, set standards in relation to academies.”
It then goes on to state 20 “examples” of what this might entail, including “the nature and quality of education provided and the curriculum followed”.
Ms Cruddas told Tes she would want to see this list “really tightened up”.
MAT leaders suggest legislation was ‘rushed’
Ms Cruddas’ comments are echoed by MAT leaders.
Writing for Tes, Marc Jordan - chief executive of the Creative Education Trust - warned that without changes, the Bill risked preventing academy leaders from taking decisions based on what they think works best for children in their schools.
Mr Jordan, whose MAT runs schools in the East and West Midlands, and on the east coast, said: “Clearly, the powers implied by the original drafting of the Schools Bill were unhelpful.
“The untrammelled powers and almost total centralisation required would have undoubtedly led to poor real-world decision making. Ultimately, this would have been to the detriment of the needs of children at a local level.”
Mr Jordan said the most successful academies and MATs have used their freedoms to drive up standards of education, to innovate in curricula and to develop strategic financial plans. He suggested that this could have been undermined had ministers not agreed to withdraw swathes of the bill.
He added: “The more contentious clauses of the Schools Bill would have given the secretary of state sweeping powers to “set standards” in all aspects of the work of academies, including length of school day, curriculum and governance; to cancel previous contractual arrangements with academy trusts; and to impose future controls and changes at will.
“This would, if enacted, undermine the status of academy trusts as independent charities and have a chilling effect on innovation, potentially replacing experienced professional choice with ministerial direction.”
Although the government faced criticism for peers and sector leaders for creating a potential power grab over schools, some leaders have suggested that the problem was that the Bill was being rushed through without the government having a firm plan in place for how it intends to regulate MATs.
Jonny Uttley, chief executive of The Education Alliance academy trust in East Yorkshire, said: “We know that the Schools Bill is attempting to cover a lot of ground. I think the issue here is that the government is drafting a Bill when its ideas on how to make academy regulation work have not been fully formed.
“The plans were being moved through too quickly and the Bill was left too open-ended, meaning there were concerns about the powers the government could be granting itself.”
Other MAT leaders have also reacted with positivity to the clauses being removed from the Bill.
Warren Carratt, chief executive of Nexus MAT in Yorkshire, said he agreed with the proposed way forward and said that the government’s updated legislation needed fewer “powers for direct control and clearer parameters for intervention”.
Meanwhile, Stuart Lock, CEO of Advantage Schools, said he was “pleased” to see the clauses were being removed.
Paul Smith, the chief executive of Future Academies said the original span of proposed intervention “felt like a sledgehammer cracking a nut”.
He added: “The academies sector is no longer the wild west and the early controversies that the academies programme faced are largely a thing of the past. Yes, the DfE must have a way to intervene when standards fall below those we would expect of publicly funded organisations, but we cannot have a system where strong MATs are deterred from taking on some of the most challenging schools and groups of schools in the future.”
He also warned that if the government create a system in which MATs are threatened with being broken up, rather than intervention to build greater strength then trusts “will be less willing to expand into difficult areas and instead pull up the drawbridges - this would be the worst outcome for the education sector”.
Seamus Murphy, the chief executive of Turner Schools said: “I think everyone is delighted that there is a rethink going on - the Bill as it stood presented very real problems for the sector. There are six main areas that the Standards should be across.
“First, strong principles on governance - robust at both a trustee level, but also at a school level. Second, evidence of school improvement capacity and being able to demonstrate the trust has actually made a difference... Third, a clear commitment to teacher and leadership development.
“Fourth, efficient use of resources and finances that follow the trust’s guiding principles. Fifth, a commitment to civic duty - both demonstrated through work with individual students but also how a trust engages with the wider sector. And lastly, and to my mind most importantly, inclusivity, with a focus on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Because if we’re not doing that, what is it all for?”
MAT review timing questioned by leaders
Education leaders have also raised questions about the timing of a new regulatory review into the standards aimed at holding MATs to account.
The DfE launched its review earlier this week and said it would look at the standards trusts are held to and the thresholds at which the government uses its powers to intervene in cases of underperformance.
This came the evening before peers were told that the DfE would be axing large parts of its legislation. The review, which will be led by academies minister Baroness Barran, will help to develop clauses that will be included in the redrafted Bill.
The former National Schools Commissioner, Sir David Carter, welcomed the announcement of the regulatory review but highlighted the timing of it, coming weeks after the first draft of the Schools Bill was published.
He has also said that the bill had been rushed and he questioned the decision to include Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman on the regulatory review panel.
Commenting on social media, he said: “The bill was so rushed, there was no time to do this, so it’s good that it’s happening now. My concern is that HMCI [Her Majesty’s chief inspector] should not be involved, as Ofsted clearly believe the answer is more inspection. Also trusts of different shape & size should be involved to get the fullest picture.”
Similarly, writing on social media, Micon Metcalfe, chief financial officer at The Diocese Of Westminster Academy, described the review as a “good thing”, but asked: “Shouldn’t this have happened before the Schools Bill was published?”
It’s currently unclear when the Bill will be return to Parliament.
It must undergo a “report” stage in the Lords - where peers can scrutinise it further - and then, after a third reading, it can pass to the Commons to be debated by MPs.
A DfE spokesperson said: “As we work towards all schools in strong academy trusts, we have been clear that the current regulatory system must evolve to retain parents’ confidence and make sure every school in every trust is helping their pupils fulfil their potential.
“We therefore remain committed to the Schools Bill putting clear academy trust standards on a legal footing, and allowing for the government to intervene directly in the rare cases of academy trust failure. The academy trust regulatory review, involving an expert advisory group and extensive sector engagement, and running in parallel to the Bill, will propose what the standards should be and how intervention should work.
“But we are listening to concerns from peers about how the provisions in the Bill would operate in practice, and will make sure the Bill protects and strengthens the fundamental freedoms academies enjoy. That is why we are supporting the temporary removal of clauses 1-18 from the Bill, in advance of bringing back revised clauses later in the Bill’s passage through Parliament.”
