The government has admitted schools bill proposals to hand more power over admissions to councils “could limit the ability of popular schools to grow”.
Government has published impact assessment documents for all of its schools bill proposals.
However sector bodies have concerns. The Confederation of School Trusts told members on Friday the assessment “focuses only on benefits and costs and fails to address risks in relation to the provisions in this bill.
“We think this is a serious flaw. We will work with the government to better understand and mitigate these risks.”
Schools Week has got the lowdown on the impact on schools…
Admissions: Good schools could be stopped from growing…
The bill will give councils the right to object to any decisions by academies about their published admission number, or capacity. At present, they are only allowed to object to proposed decreases in an academy’s PAN.
The schools adjudicator will then get the power to set the published admission number – or capacity – of schools, including academies, when an objection from a council is upheld.
Where it does uphold a decision, “some schools may find that their PAN is not set for them as they would wish”, the assessment states.

“They may feel that they are able to take more pupils and thus receive greater funding. It could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow.”
Shadow education minister Neil O’Brien said: “This will rightly leave school leaders nervous about pupils being ‘shared out’ from good schools to prop up failing schools.”
The department said it was “difficult to estimate the precise number of schools that will be affected as this route is not currently available”.
But they said they saw the route being used “mainly as being a last resort where local engagement has failed to secure an appropriate solution, and even where an objection is made, not all objections will be upheld.
“We therefore expect the number of schools that will be directly affected to be small.”
Conversely, “other schools may benefit from greater financial viability due to greater levels of co-ordination on place supply across the local area”.
However CST also pointed out the assessment does not “account for the potential risks of reducing PANs at popular and successful schools”.
… but schools with many ‘hard-to-admit’ children will welcome new rule
Councils will also get the power to direct academies to admit children.
At present, only the education secretary can do this.
“The current direction powers mean that an admission authority may have to admit a child against their wishes. The proposed new direction power may mean this happens slightly more often.”
However, the DfE said improvements were “also planned to the ‘upstream’ process – the activity that happens before a case gets to direction stage – resulting in a better framework for co-operation between LAs and admission authorities”.
They acknowledged some school and trust leaders “may be concerned about any measures which reduce trust autonomy”.
“We believe the new checks and balances included with the proposed new LA direction powers will help reassure those who have such concerns that it will be an appropriate power with little room for it to be mis-used.
“Some schools which currently struggle because they have a disproportionate number of hard-to-place children are likely to welcome the changes, as it may mean they can admit a more proportionate number.”
Academy compliance directions enforced by courts (and prison even a possibility for trustees!)
The bill includes a power for the education secretary to issue a direction to academy trusts to get them to fulfil their duties.
The DfE said that, in the event that the trust does not comply with the direction, the secretary of state “will be able to apply to a court for a mandatory order to enforce the direction”.
The order will be sought against the trust and will “name the trust’s trustees on the order”. This is the same for the existing powers the secretary of state has for maintained schools.
But “if a trust continues to fail to comply with an order made by the court without sufficient reason, the trustees may be found by the court to be in contempt of court”.
This charge “may come with punishments including fines. It is also possible that in very extreme cases, individuals who are found to be in contempt of court could face a custodial sentence”.
It is “incredibly rare for a charge of contempt of court to result in a custodial sentence and would be reflective of extreme behaviour from individuals throughout the court process”.
But the department added “we do not have any reason to believe that there will ever be such extreme circumstances in relation to the conduct of trustees and, as such, the risk of any trustee receiving a custodial sentence is negligible”.
And proving this is highly unlikely to happen: The department has “never applied for a mandatory order” for council schools.
O’Brien said: “The government’s notes on the bill make it clear that there are no limits to how much micro management will happen as a result of this new power to boss academies about on any subject.”
QTS for all: ‘Some schools might struggle to find teachers’
Under the bill, teachers in academies will have to have or be working towards qualified status.
The DfE said that, if teachers without QTS are already employed in an academy prior to September 2026, “they will not be required to gain QTS, unless they move to a new academy or LA maintained school”.
From September 2026, they estimate “this could affect around 700-1,250 potential entrants to the teaching profession per annum”.
This represents “around 1 to 2 per cent of all entrants to the teaching workforce in November 2022”.
The DfE estimated that “a proportion would still enter as unqualified entrants”.
In terms of the impact on schools, it may have “an increase in salary costs” for academies – who will have to pay teachers on the higher qualified pay scales.
“Additionally, stakeholder feedback suggests that some of the reasons for employing unqualified teachers are due to lack of supply, so some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need.”
However, there are exemptions to the QTS requirement – for instance for instructors with special qualifications or experience.
And council schools “may benefit from greater freedom of movement across the workforce” with all teachers being qualified.
Curriculum: Need for additional specialists
The bill will extend the need to teach the national curriculum to academies.
In its impact assessment, the DfE said trusts may “need to hire additional or specialist teachers for any subjects not currently delivered or are underrepresented in existing curricula”.
They “may need to make adjustments in their facilities, resources and materials to meet the national curriculum standards”.
Pupils and parents “may benefit from greater consistency, clarity and assurance of core curriculum content across different schools”.
But the academy workforce “may need additional or specialised training to deliver the new national curriculum”.
Some academies “may be particularly affected if their current curriculum differs significantly from the new national curriculum but, as many already follow the current national curriculum and will likely be impacted similarly to maintained schools, we anticipate that any further additional costs are likely to be small”.
Academy orders: ‘less burden on trusts’
The draft law will remove a duty on the education secretary to issue academy orders to maintained schools which are failing, instead making it a power.
Under the new measure “there will be the option for the school (who do have leadership capacity to improve) to receive support rather than structural intervention.
The measure “will impact on trusts if it results in fewer maintained schools converting into sponsored academies.
“It would not, however, impact on their current operations and academisation will continue to be an appropriate option for some underperforming schools.”
The DfE pointed out 35 LA maintained schools that were judged inadequate and were issued with an academy order in the academic year 2023-24.
Twenty-eight of these schools were in special measures.
“Due to differences in the size, type, stage of education etc. it is difficult to give an average cost of a school becoming an academy. It is likely though, that the introduction of the interim support offer and RISE teams will take away some of the burden from trusts.”
There also “may well be an extra burden on LAs (financial and administrative) to support struggling schools who would previously have joined an academy trust. The interim support offer should help to relieve some of the burden.”
Uniform cap: potential for ‘significant’ costs on stock
The bill will cap the number of branded items schools can require to three for primary schools and four for secondaries (if one is a tie).
The impact assessment states the limit is “unlikely to change the costs incurred by schools in relation to school uniform over the longer term.
Schools currently requiring parents to purchase branded uniform items in excess of the new limit “will need to review their uniform policy and might need to renegotiate their contracts with uniform suppliers/ retailers.
“These schools will incur a small resource cost for senior staff to review the schools’ uniform policy or renegotiate uniform supplier contracts.”
Depending on the school’s existing commercial contracts, “some may have liabilities for unsold uniform stock, elements of which may become less saleable as a result of these changes”.
For schools following best commercial practices “any exposure should be small and should be managed as part of any retendering of contracts”.
However, “some schools may have more significant liabilities, but it is difficult to quantify the number of schools that may be so affected because we do not collect information on individual schools’ commercial contracts”.
As the limit will increase the number of items parents are able to purchase from a range of retailers, the “onus will be on schools to take steps to ensure uniform continues to act as a social leveller and prevent parents being subject to pressure to buy designer items in lieu of branded ones”.
Your thoughts