The children’s wellbeing and schools bill has started its journey through parliament with some controversy. Former schools minister, Nick Gibb even described it as an “act of vandalism”. I strongly disagree. The bill is vital, and it should go further still.
I was academies minister under the last Labour government. Now, I am chair of E-ACT, a 38-school multi-academy trust (MAT). I am proud of what many academies have achieved in raising standards and turning around schools.
However, I am not blind to reality; there is as much variability in the performance of academies as that of local authority schools.
I see little evidence of academy freedoms being used to any significant extent. Where MATs work well, it is because governance and leadership are strong. The Gove/Gibb acceleration of academies did not properly understand the importance of governance and we quickly saw the consequences with a series of financial scandals and trust failures.
Many of those problems have been ironed out through tighter central regulation, but such levels of centralisation are not sustainable. It is time to look again at governance as the first line of defence on standards.
There is also an increasing need for schools to work more closely with their communities to better serve children with growing mental health and attendance problems.
Bridget Phillipson is right to talk about the importance of ‘belonging’. The last OECD PISA results showed our scores in English and maths falling back, but not as much as most around the world.
She has clear determination to prevent a further slide in those core subjects, but she is equally concerned that we were second from bottom in the same PISA tables for pupils’ life satisfaction. This can only lead to disengagement and falling pupil outcomes.
What this bill rightly does is tie academies and local authorities together more closely to improve outcomes for all children. This is right, and there are two key ways the government can build on its provisions.
Smarter accountability
First, with most secondary schools and swathes of primaries now in MATs, these should be accountable through inspection. The law should clarify that MATs and local authorities alike are “responsible bodies” and should both be inspected on the same basis and with the same regulatory sanctions.
Such a move should be part of an effort to get local authorities to manage their schools in ways that learn from the best practice in the MAT sector. MATs at their best have excellent governance and we need the same for LA schools, where too many councils have placed school governors by political patronage rather than because they have the skills needed to support and challenge school leadership.
The introduction of “responsible body” inspections would also be an opportunity to look at a more risk-based approach to individual school inspections. Inspection of the school group, alongside report card data, should give a good indication of where more detailed school inspections should take place and where they are not necessary.
Pay and conditions
Second, we must tackle excesses in the pay of senior executives running MATs. My preference would be for trusts to have to abide by a mandatory pay ratio for new appointees. This would ensure the highest-paid cannot receive more than a set multiple of the lowest-paid working in their schools.
The other related change should be to the trust members – the people who represent the ‘shareholder’ interest in MATs and hold trustees to account for governance.
Currently, they are unelected and appointed for an unlimited period. This should be replaced by members appointed by the DfE and the local authorities covering the schools that belong to the trust.
The effect would be to make trustees accountable to the communities they serve without returning the running of academies to councils.
These changes would complement those the government have already put in motion, and would bring about a more consistent improvement in the way schools are led and governed.
Governance may sound dull, but it is at the heart of sustained high-performing leadership.
When the bill gets to the Lords, these will be my focus.
Your thoughts