The government has come under fire for the academy elements of its schools bill – with No 10 rattled following criticism over its lack of vision on school improvement.
But does the evidence back up those concerns? Schools Week takes a look.
Will children spend longer in failing schools?
Criticism: “We risk children spending longer in failing schools by slowing down the pace of school improvement” – children’s commissioner and former trust boss Dame Rachel de Souza

What the bill says: Schools rated ‘inadequate’ won’t automatically be handed an academy order. This will now be “discretionary” and up to the education secretary.
What the evidence shows: Many academy conversions have faced opposition. Sector leaders fear making this subjective will lead to more protests and cases ending up in the courts – delaying potentially transformative takeovers.
As we report on pages 10 and 11, many failing schools became academies amid vocal local opposition – but all of them were improved.
However, the speed of academisation for failing schools has been a long-standing issue.
In 2022, Andrew McCully, then DfE schools director general, said the department had a “five to six-month” target to re-broker academies.
The 310 sponsored academies opened since 2022 waited just over 18 months on average to convert after an ‘inadequate’ rating.
School waited 11 years
The most extreme example is Hanson Academy in Bradford. It was taken over in 2022 – 11 years after it was first rated ‘inadequate’. In that time it racked up a £6 million deficit and was rated ‘inadequate’ for a third time.
Sixty schools are now in the DfE’s “sponsor pipeline”, which features those either rated ‘inadequate’ or considered to be ‘coasting’ under the previous government.
Of these, 51 have been on the list for more than six months. Two have been waiting more than five years.
There also seems to be a different standard applied to academies found to be failing, suggesting decisions to move these schools to new trusts under ‘rebroker’ deals are already ‘discretionary’.
Analysis of Ofsted data shows just five of 11 academies rated ‘inadequate’ in 2022 have since moved to an alternative chain.
Meanwhile, in a survey of more than 9,500 teachers, conducted by Teacher Tapp, almost one in five (19.5 per cent) said the schools bill reform they were most positive about was the ending automatic academisation – higher than any other change proposed.
Schools Week conclusion: Making academisation “discretionary” will open up a new can of worms and could easily lead to long legal delays. But the idea that academisation always provides rapid improvement is false – many takeovers already take years.
Will it stop the improvement of schools?
Criticism: “The bill destroys the consensus built over two decades in England on how to improve schools” – Laura Trott, shadow education secretary
What the evidence says: Under Labour’s new system, schools needing support will get help from regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) teams.
Sir Kevan Collins, Labour’s school standards tsar, said the specialist teams “are a signal that we will immediately act to support a school”.
If schools show they “have the capacity to improve”, they won’t be ordered to convert, the government has said.
But RISE teams will only commission support from outside advisers. They are due to start this month, but no details have been published.
Sir David Carter, the former national schools commissioner, said such support schemes allowed those receiving the help to “choose the bits they liked and ignore the bits they thought would be too challenging”.
Trusts had teams of turnaround experts and successful trusts would likely have improved schools several times before, he added.
Government data shows there are 35 staff in the RISE teams nationally. Some regions have just three.
In comparison, the Harris Federation – which runs 55 schools, mostly in London – has “60 highly-skilled teachers” in its central team to help improve its schools.
But has academisation led to better schools?
The near-eradication of “sink” schools appears to provide evidence of improvement success for academies.
Education Datalab analysis found nearly 90 per cent of the “persistently low attaining” schools of the 2000s that stayed open were rated ‘good’ or better by the end of 2023. While some merged, most became academies.
But the evidence becomes less clear when you look at data outside of improving failing schools.
For instance, the previous government’s 2022 white paper stated the proportion of pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths was slightly higher in maintained schools.
But the highest-performing trusts were better than their maintained counterparts, while the lowest-performing trusts were worse.
Comparisons between the two school types are also muddied because trusts have historically taken over the most challenging schools from councils.
Academy proponents also point to England’s rise up the international league tables for academic achievement as evidence of success. Countries such as Scotland and Wales, who did not introduce academy reforms, have stagnated.
Schools Week conclusion: The best trusts have transformed failing schools. But not all have a strong track record, and capacity in some areas is still lacking.
However, most of the school improvement expertise now sits in trusts and that must not be undermined.
Commissioning support, as proposed under RISE teams, may help deliver improvement – but there are few details, and the evidence backing trusts to provide sustained improvement is much stronger.
Will academy teachers face a pay cut?
Criticism: “The bill will cut teachers’ pay – it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers” – Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition
What the bill says: The bill seeks to amend the law to extend the education secretary’s ability to “prescribe pay and conditions” to those running academies. This only applies to teachers, not trust central leaders.
However, an amendment tabled by Labour on Wednesday will require academies to observe minimum pay rates – but only have “regard” to other national conditions.

What the experts and data says: Trusts that go over and above national pay and conditions have warned they might need to cut teacher pay.
But the government has since said no teacher will face a pay cut. The amendment means trusts will essentially have to follow a pay “floor, but no ceiling”.
Use of pay freedoms seems quite rare. TES found 592 of 625 trusts surveyed still paid in line with national pay scales. Just 12 exceeded pay scales, while others had smaller difference such as providing additional benefits.
What about those that pay less?
Overall, there isn’t a huge difference between council and academy schools.
But this does change in types of academies.
At primary level, the average salary was slightly higher in maintained schools (£43,244) than in primary converter academies (£42,780). But there is a bigger difference from sponsored academies (£41,604) and free schools (£41,333).
In secondaries, the average salaries for maintained schools and converter academies are similar (£46,517 and £46,525, respectively). But again, sponsored academies and free schools had lower average salaries, at £45,347 and £44,615.
What difference could a new pay floor make?
Starting salaries for teachers are now more than £31,000.
Overall, there are 15,230 teachers earning less than £30,000 in academies, about 4.9 per cent of the total workforce.
But, interestingly, despite having to follow pay scales, there are 11,269 teachers paid less than £30,000 in maintained schools, representing about 5.4 per cent of the workforce – so little difference between the two schools types.
Those paid less than the pay scale minimum will be unqualified if they are in a maintained school.
But this could include those with an overseas teaching qualification who are awaiting qualified teacher status or in some teacher training routes.
Schools Week conclusion: Labour’s amendment will ensure that no teacher will face a pay cut because of the schools bill. But the PR damage over not working through this detail before publishing plans has feed into a wider damaging narrative for the reforms.
Will it prevent the hiring of specialist teachers?
The criticism: “The bill implies that doctors are not sufficiently qualified to teach biology, that Olympic medallists can’t teach PE. Why is the prime minister closing down routes into teaching when he should be opening up more?” Badenoch.
What the bill says: The bill seeks to amend the law to extend a requirement that teachers must have or be working towards qualified teacher status to “academies of a description specified by the secretary of state in regulations under this section”.
The DfE has since clarified that the law won’t apply retrospectively, so those already in post will not be required to work towards or get QTS when the rules change in September 2026. However, those who move to a role in a different school will have to.

What the evidence says: Analysis of government data by Schools Week and Education Datalab shows about 3.5 per cent of teachers in academies are unqualified.
But this varies. About 11 per cent of teachers in special or alternative provision academies do not have QTS.
The government has not said if these schools will be covered by the law.
But they anticipate changes will affect around 700 to 1,250 potential entrants to teaching. This equates to around 1-2 per cent of entrants.
A government impact assessment also admits that “due to lack of supply, so some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need”.
Sector leaders have said the freedoms allow them to bring in “rugby league professionals” and Olympians, as well as subject specialists at the end of other careers.
Sponsored academies and free schools hover at employing about 4.5 per cent of unqualified staff.
‘A strength rather than a challenge’
Data shows the Harris Federation employed 221 in 2023-24, 9.2 per cent of its total teaching workforce. But this will include trainees and overseas qualified teachers.
At the three-school Wembley Multi-Academy Trust, 22 per cent of teachers are unqualified.
Beth Ragheb, its chief executive, said the figures, which included Teach First trainees, was a “strength rather than a challenge”.
“We independently attract the best graduates to our trust,” she said. They all “end up” working towards QTS.
The trust has the 11th highest Progress 8 score in the country, which demonstrates “a model in which between a fifth and a quarter of staff are unqualified is not only sustainable, but highly effective.”
Proposed changes “would make it harder for us to recruit from this pool of raw talent”.
But in a response to a Teacher Tapp poll, 91 per cent said the new QTS requirement would be “important” for maintaining teaching standards.
Teachers without QTS work in maintained schools too, making up 2.7 per cent of the maintained secondary teaching workforce and 7.6 per cent in special schools and PRUs.
These figures include teachers who qualified overseas and others who are working towards QTS.
Schools Week conclusion: While any moves to make recruitment harder do seem perverse, the new requirement will not affect unqualified teachers currently in the workforce. But it could pose a challenge for those who may want to move jobs, and take away some of the flexibility academies have made use of for specialist subjects.
Working in an LA school improvement team in the days before “forced academisation”, we enacted the improvement in schools rated inadequate from day one after the inspection and nobody was distracted by the structural change. Also, to say that all school improvement expertise resides in trusts is simply not the case. The Association of Education Advisers accreditation database illustrates that there is a wealth of expertise that the current academy focused improvement approach is blind to or chooses to ignore.