Academies Bill [HL]

Lord Turnbull Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Turnbull]

My Lords, I join others in welcoming the Minister to the Front Bench. He was a valued colleague of mine in No. 10 and I am confident that he has the qualities to thrive in this House, notably courtesy and a willingness to listen.

Let me also set out my interests. About four years ago, Dulwich College, of which I am chairman, agreed to become the lead sponsor of an academy on the Isle of Sheppey, in partnership with Kent County Council and the Diocese of Canterbury. I spent many hours in the laborious planning work, although that is nothing compared with the effort that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, must have put in. The Isle of Sheppey Academy opened last autumn. It is one of the largest in the country, with some 2,500 pupils, and is almost certainly one of the most complex. It is a single academy on two sites, divided into five schools. Already, less than a year into its existence, one can see changes in the spirit and energy of the place, the behaviour of pupils and the commitment of staff. This can be corroborated by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, whom I accompanied to the opening of one of the schools—it is named after his grandfather, who pioneered powered flight on the Isle of Sheppey.

While only 25 per cent or so of pupils achieved levels A to C at GCSE last year, the academy confidently predicts that there will be a significant improvement this year. This has taken place while operating in the rundown and, in places, decrepit premises that the academy inherited. A £50 million rebuild programme is two years away. The improvement has been achieved by better governance, invigorated leadership and engagement with the community. The key to success is, therefore, people issues more than the buildings. I can vouch for the power of academies to transform the quality of education provided—and to do so quickly. In general terms, I welcome the proposals to extend further the academies programme. I congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on developing this initiative in a way that enjoys extensive cross-party support.

Nevertheless, I have some significant reservations about the particular proposals before us. First, the initial phase of the academies programme was rightly focused on schools that were performing worse and in poorly served communities. It seems likely that opening the doors to a much wider range of applicants will mean that a queue will form outside the department. Priorities will need to be exercised. In my view, it is essential that the schools most in need of a lift should continue to be put at the head of that queue.

Secondly, we must not fall into what philosophers would call the fallacy of composition—believing that, because something is true of one unit, it is true of all such units taken together and that, because academies are good, the system is best if all schools are academies. It does not follow that if the number of academies increases sharply the remaining system will continue to function effectively. The optimum system does not necessarily emerge from the sum of atomistic decisions. There are some strategic obligations to ensure that there are enough places in the right places—that, for example, all the sixth-form provision does not congregate in the leafier parts of the borough—that collective facilities such as pupil referral units are provided and that there is fair and adequate provision of school transport. Most important is that children with special needs are provided for, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. None of these is guaranteed in a world of atomistic decision-making. Special needs provision needs to be looked at very carefully. Academies, while they are independent in governance terms, are still publicly funded and must accept an obligation to take their fair share of SEN children. Academies must not be allowed to turn their backs and place the burden on the schools that remain with local education authorities.

Thirdly, there is a serious naivety in the department’s description of the freedoms to be enjoyed by an academy. One is the ability to vary pay and conditions for staff, which is, of course, necessary in order to fill another of the freedoms—the ability to vary the school day or year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred. In major cities, many academies have been created by closing a failing school, dispersing pupils and staff to other schools in the area, rebuilding the school and then reopening it. Sheppey was different. The predecessor schools closed in July 2009 and reopened in September 2009 on the same site, in the same buildings, with largely the same staff, other than the leadership team. The legal advice was that this was a transfer of undertakings to a new employer. As a result, about 80 per cent of the staff remain on their old contracts, variations of which cannot be made without negotiation. It will take a number of years as staff turn over to convert staff to new conditions. While it has proved possible at Sheppey to raise the motivation of staff—I am told that absenteeism is now among the lowest in the country as opposed to the highest—it has added to costs and a number of staff have been retained on old and in some cases expensive pay rates. It seems clear that many of the new wave of academies will be conversions of existing schools and not creations of new ones, so there needs to be a recognition of the constraints that that may impose.

Fourthly, I have a great deal of concern about the haste with which the new wave is being pursued. The Explanatory Notes state that the Bill will make it possible for outstanding schools to convert to academy status very quickly, possibly by September 2010. Frankly, that timetable is seriously misguided, even if it is reinterpreted to mean giving the go-ahead by September 2010 for implementation a year later. It shows no recognition of the complexities involved. The granting of academy status is being treated as though it were school prize winning—if you have good enough marks you can just turn up and collect your reward. That is a recipe for complacency. The granting of academy status should be seen not just as a reward for past achievement but as an opportunity for future improvement.

Candidates should not be invited to write a “Yes please, me too” letter, of which we have had a thousand already; they should be required to reflect on how they can turn these freedoms to advantage. They should think about their governance structures rather than simply carrying on with existing boards that were created in a different regime. The opportunity to bring in new sponsors with new ideas must not be skipped. At present, an accreditation committee examines applicants from aspiring sponsors. Apparently, in Clause 8, it will be replaced by a new regulator appointed by the Cabinet Office. An aspiring academy also needs to think through afresh its ethos, the curriculum that it offers, its policies on a huge range of issues and how it will co-operate with the community. There are in practice six weeks left until the end of term. A school cannot do a thorough job of preparing its prospectus in that time, let alone get it approved by the department and the as yet non-existent regulator. We should not be encouraging schools to skimp on this important work.

At a more mundane level, a host of relationships with the local education authority need to be renegotiated, such as HR, payroll and property and grounds maintenance. The value of surpluses or deficits needs to be established and audited. There appear to be no obligations to consult the local authority. While I accept that the local authority should not have a veto over whether the school leaves its control, that local authority still has rights. When an academy pulls out of a local authority-provided service and turns to an alternative provider, the local authority could be left with surplus staff and it is entitled to advance notice to enable it to manage that situation.

A serious hole in the Bill is that there is no obligation to consult parents and the wider community to explain the academy’s ambitions. Nor is sufficient time being allowed to consult TUPE-ed staff. That is an omission and may prove to be dangerous judicial review territory.

The last time that I spoke in the old Parliament was on the Personal Care at Home Bill. Along with a number of others, such as the noble Lord on my left, I argued that excessive haste was leading to bad policy-making even where the underlying principle was sound. I was hopeful that we would see a more considered approach, particularly from a coalition that aspires to a five-year mandate. I hope, therefore, that more time will be taken and that the laudable aim will not be spoiled by an overhasty timetable.