Complaints about Academies

[Rosebud05]

There have been a few threads recently about problems with academy schools, and I found this link about 'Complaints about Academies' on the DfE website.

www.education.gov.uk/a00208461/complaints-about-academies

Have I read this correctly? "The Secretary of State, and the EFA that acts on his behalf in these matters, cannot review or overturn the decisions made by academies about a complaint." So if you complain about an academy and the academy doesn't resolve the complaint to your satisfaction, there is no other body to go to?

This seems to be a alarming lack of accountabilty.

Is there an appeals process for decisions made by academies, does anyone know?

The point that is being made is that it is not the EFA's role to review all the evidence and substitute its own decision for that of the academy. Its job is to ensure that the complaint has been investigated properly. They will intervene if the academy has failed to follow its own complaints procedure, the complaints procedure is inadequate, the complaint has not been properly investigated, the decision is clearly at odds with the evidence and so on. However, if the procedure has been followed correctly and the decision is one that a rational person could reach on the evidence presented, the EFA will not intervene.

This is similar to what is supposed to happen with LA-controlled schools. The final decision on any complaint is with the school. Other bodies will only intervene if the school has not investigated the complaint properly or their decision is irrational.

So, in answer to your second question, yes. You appeal to the EFA. As with almost all appeals related to schools of any type, they will consider whether the decision was rational, complies with the law and any relevant codes (including the academy's funding agreement) and was arrived at correctly. If the decision made by the academy meets those requirements the EFA will not intervene, just as the LA will not intervene in any decision by an LA-controlled school that meets those requirements.

Who writes the Complaints Procedures for academies? Are they overseen by any publically accountable body? What's the process of review? Who decides whether a Complaint Procedure is adequate? Who defines what a 'rational person' is?

Is there a comparable role to that of LA ombudsman? If I have a complaint about my children's school that they don't resolve to my satisfaction, I can follow the processes provided by the LA.

So one appeals to the EFA, who are funded and work on behalf of the SoS to review a decision made by a company that the SoS directly funds?

Where is the accountability with billions of pounds of public money - I can't see it?

Any school writes its own complaints procedure regardless of whether or not it is an academy. That is entirely their own responsibility. There is no automatic review.

If a parent appeals to the EFA they will decide whether or not the complaints procedure is adequate.

Ultimately the courts define what a rational person is. Again, no differrent for LA-controlled schools.

Most LAs don't have an ombudsman. Did you mean the Local Government Ombudsman? You cannot complain to the LGO about your school. You can only refer certain specific matters to them - school admissions, school transport, some aspects of SEN, exclusions and tuition at home. Their role in these areas is identical to that of the EFA, i.e. they will only intervene if the correct process has not been followed or the decision is irrational.

If you have a complaint about your children's school that they do not resolve to your satisfaction you may be able to appeal to the LA. However, I repeat, they will only intervene if the correct process has not been followed or the decision is irrational. They will not substitute their judgement for that of the school.

If you want to make that argument about the way the EFA is funded you could argue that the entire state school system is unaccountable. After all, you complain about a school to department of the LA to review a decision made by a school that the LA directly funds. Except that they don't review the decision. They only check that the correct process has been followed and that the decision is rational. And this is, of course, quite separate from accountability for the money involved.

Apart from certain classes of decision where there is an independent appeal (primarily admissions and exclusions), the only people who can review and overturn any decision made by a school are the governors of that school, the Secretary of State and the courts. This applies regardless of whether it is an academy or an LA-controlled school.

Except that the Governors of a community school are accountable to the "community" (oddly...) There are governors elected by parents who are the largest single block on the GB, governors elected by staff, governors appointed by the LEA (Which is itself subject to the overall electorate, which is why a lot of people have elections today) Topped up by co opted governors with special expertise and involvement in the local community.

The Governors of a sponsored Academy are accountable to...THE SPONSOR

It does not seem unreasonable to suggest (and I would not do otherwise for I am a reasonable man) that complaints procedures may tend to function differently between the two classes of school.

Most of the new academies, of course, are not sponsored. Their governing bodies will be almost identical to those of community schools with the exception that there will at most be one LA appointed governor.

The requirements for complaints procedures are the same for all schools. The reality, of course, varies from school to school. And yes, procedures may tend to function differently although, since both end up in the same place (the courts) the outcome should theoretically be identical provided the parents are willing to push it all the way. Of course, most parents won't want to go that far. And even if they are willing to take it to court, the outcome may actually depend on which judge they get and how good a lawyer they engage.

That's what I was getting at nlondondad.

The fact that most the new academies aren't sponsored (yet, I would say is the key word) doesn't mitigate the lack of accountability in those which are.

Of course most parents won't want to go to court; that's why a lack of accountability further down is so alarming.

So are you going to complain about the lack of accountability for state schools as well? After all, as I've pointed out, the systems are essentially the same just with different bodies involved at some levels.

Please see nlondondad's post re differential accountability.

I am glad that people are waking up to the horror that is being visited on our education system - it's positive to see people talking about it.

I had occasion to complain to the DFES a few years ago about my LEA and they dealt with it robustly. I trust them more than my LEA quite frankly. The school is turning into an academy in September but I don't see much difference to the situation now.

Most of the governors at DD2s school are ruling party appointees whether LEA or "community". The parent governors just rubber stamp whatever the HT wants and don't interact much with the rest of the parents or even bother turning up at open evenings etc.

The school dispensed with the PTA a few years ago. They have recently appointed a "parent leadership group"; totally unelected - appointed at the whim of the leadership team!

I wonder how the DFE will cope when thousands of complaints about academies come flooding in......

(Given that LEAs deal with these complaints now, not even that there will definitely be more).

I am a governor at a community school and I have to agree with ph47 - when parents have a complaint, the buck pretty much stops with us. Parents can go on to the Secretary of State if they're not happy with the governors' decision, but that is such an enormous step, they rarely do. Also, we are mainly there to ensure that the school has followed its own policies correctly, not to decide on the original issue and/or overrule the head. Parent governors cannot be lobbied by the complainant or they would have to exclude themselves from the panel (usually 3 governors). As a parent myself, if I have a problem I would try to sort it out with the teacher/headteacher in letters/meetings and leave the official complaint as a very last resort.

No-one wants to make a formal complaint if it can be resolved informally.

That's the point - what if it isn't.

It depends on what the complaint is about. However, for general complaints if it is an LA-controlled school you may be able to refer the matter to the LA but you may find that your only option is to go to the Secretary of State or the courts. For an academy you can always refer the matter to the EFA. If you are still unhappy you can go to the Secretary of State or the courts. However, if the school has handled your complaint correctly and its decision on your complaint is not irrational it is extremely unlikely that anyone will overturn their decision. Of course, if its decision means the school is failing to meet its statutory responsibilities or is in breach of its funding agreement that is automatically an irrational decision.

The whole point of the system is that the governors are accountable. That is why any reference to a higher authority will result in a check that the correct procedure has been followed, the relevant codes and legislation have been complied with and that the decision is rational but will not substitute the higher authority's judgement for that of the governors. If the higher authority could overrule the governors simply because they disagreed with them it would reduce or remove the governors accountability in law.

The same rules apply in many areas of life. For example, suppose your employer wrongly thinks you are guilty of theft and sacks you. If you take your employer to court for unfair dismissal the courts will check that the correct process has been followed and that the employer's conclusion that you are guilty is one that could rationally be reached on the evidence. The court may be convinced you are not guilty but they will not substitute their judgement for that of your employer.

It is not the case that the sponsor appoints all the governors for a sponsored academy. All academies still have parent governors and staff governors. But to suggest that any governor is only accountable to whoever appointed them is clearly wrong. Governors are accountable to and can be held accountably by:

• independent appeal panels for some matters (primarily admissions and exclusions)
• the LA if it is an LA-controlled school (but that doesn't necessarily mean you can escalate complaints to the LA - many LAs and schools don't allow that)
• the diocesan authorities or similar for a faith school
• the EFA for an academy
• Ofsted
• the Schools Adjudicator
• SENDIST
• the Secretary of State
• the courts

The above list may not be exhaustive.

prh, that is exactly the point - the EFA are currently telling parents that it isn't their job to address problems in academies. (see Indie article).

This is interesting. This particular academy chain seems to be very reluctant to give out FOI information. LA's don't charge for this.

www.harrisfederation.org.uk/uploads/document/Freedom%20of%20Information%20Charging%20Policy_1.pdf

The distinction here is between the formal framework on which, I agree, everything ultimately depends, and the informal aspects of the situation.

In my experience Formal Complaints are rare, and are usually resolved at an early stage of the process. They would NOT be so rare, if the process were not there. In community schools if things are working right then as LocalSchoolMum has experienced the issue never gets beyond the school anyway. If it does, it is usually an indication something has gone wrong.

So, in community schools we have a framework which has evolved over the years, has been incrementally tweeked as problems came up, and which, bye and large, works.

My objection to the Sponsored Academy structure, is that it sweeps most of this framework away, and takes us in the direction of things depending on the character, disposition, and generally good behaviour of the sponsor.

Not all sponsors will be the same. No doubt most are well intentioned people possessed with a modicum of common sense and perhaps even wisdom. Some will not. Such is life. And that is where the trouble starts.

No they are not (at least, not universally). The published information on their website is clear. What I suspect has happened is that some junior staff have given incorrect information, although it is also possible that the complaints were ones that should have been directed elsewhere. Unfortunately junior staff giving incorrect information happens all the time with both central government and local government. I've had arguments with junior staff at the Local Government Ombudsman as to whether or not they take on admissions cases following a failed appeal. I've also come across state schools and even LAs that believe they can ignore decisions by the Schools Adjudicator. It is not how it should be but to suggest it is worse for academies is wrong. Remember that for many LA-controlled schools there is no equivalent to the EFA as the LA don't deal with complaints so your only recourse is to the Secretary of State or the courts.

LAs do indeed charge for FoI requests. I thought you lived in Haringey. They charge for any FoI request where the disbursements exceed £5. Most LAs charge for disbursements, i.e. photocopying, printing and postage. Note that Harris do not charge for staff time. The figure of £25 per hour is used to determine the cost of complying with the request. It is not charged to you. They only charge you the disbursements.

Also, I for one, have never said that the GB of a sponsored is appointed by the sponsor; but a majority of Governors are. (And that is a requirement) As for the climate on such a GB

"An Academy sponsor is a member of the sponsored Academy trust, and as such has a great level of control over the set-up of the Academy and the actions the Academy undertakes. The sponsor develops the Academy's ethos, organisation, staffing arrangements, management and leadership and curriculum. It also receives the Academy's budget and controls the school estate."

And if you want to look for your self here is the URL

www.education.gov.uk/b00204911/sponsoring-an-academy/the-role-of-an-academy-sponsor

In short the sponsor is in charge, and that, indeed, is the point.

I've made several FOI requests to both Haringey LA and the DFE and haven't been charged. One of our Cllrs made one that ran into 100s of pages and wasn't charged.

Harris "is not obliged to respond to a written request for information, where it estimates that the cost of complying with the request would be in excess of £450 (which equates to 18 hours of work at £25 per hour)"

So Harris can 'estimate' that a particular request will take 19 hours of work and refuse it on this basis.

Their own policy states that they charge for 'staff costs' but I'm sure that you're right and they're wrong .

Could you explain exactly where the accountability is in refusing to respond to FOI requests?

LAs are also not obliged to respond to FoI requests costing more than £450. I have personally been refused an FoI request relating to schools by my LA on that basis.

Haringey also charge staff costs at £25 per hour and their policy is that they will not respond to an FoI request if it costs more than £450. So Haringey can also estimate that a particular request will take 19 hours of work and refuse it on that basisn as is set out in their policy. But to correct myself, their policy is to charge when the disbursements exceed £10, not £5. As they charge 10p per sheet for b&w photocopies that means you can get up to 100 sheets without charge. You can see Haringey's policy here.

Harris' policy to which you link does NOT say they charge for staff costs. You have misunderstood it. It says, "Where the cost of complying with a written request for information is estimated to be below £450, there will be no charge unless the disbursement costs (printing copying and postage) exceed £5. Where disbursement costs exceed £5, the applicant will be issued with a fees notice and must pay the costs within a period of three months before the Federation can comply with the request. Disbursements costs applied by the Federation are shown below." So you are charged disbursement costs, not staff costs, which is in line with the FoI Act.

So, academy has almost identical policy on FoI to LA shocker!

These are the FoI rules that apply everywhere. If you think someone is breaking the rules you complain to the ICO. If you think, for example, that an academy is falsely inflating the cost of answering an FoI request in order to avoid complying you complain to the ICO. If you don't like the rules you campaign to get the law changed.

I have received several FOI requests from Haringey which have clearly entailed considerable work but haven't been charged a penny. Neither has anyone else I know who have received requests from them.

Harris' policy and actions may be in line with the FOI act but it's not in line with the spirit.

Exactly the same point applies as I made earlier -if my child was at a Harris academy and I believed something improper had occurred that was being hushed up, I could submit an FOI request. Harris could refuse to answer this because it would take 19 hours of work.

Yes, I could then complain to the ICO etc, whilst the same improprieties were continuing because they were being kept secret. I - like I presume most parents - would rather my child's school operated sufficient transparency that I didn't have to think about taking them to court every five minutes.

I'm with nlondondad on this one - there's a scary lack of accountability and transparency that comes with academy 'freedoms' which are open to serious abuse.

Haringey do refuse FoI requests on cost grounds. I have found clear evidence of this on the internet. Like most LAs they are pretty adept at refusing on other grounds as well.

Unless you have evidence of Harris routinely refusing FoI requests on the basis that they cost too much you really don't have a case against them. You are just displaying your ignorance of the FoI Act.

The FoI Act specifically states (s12) that bodies can refuse FoI requests where they estimate the cost of supplying the information exceeds the appropriate limit. That limit is set by the government and has been £450 since 2004 (although a higher limit of £600 applies to some bodies). The regulations concerned also stipulate that costs must be estimated on the bases of £25 per person hour. The Act also specifically states (s9) that bodies can charge a fee for supplying information provided they charge in accordance with regulations set by the government. I find it hard to see how doing exactly what the Act says you should do can be regarded as being in any way out of line with the spirit of the Act.

If you believe Harris' policy and actions are not in line with the spirit of the FoI then you need to complain about almost every single public body in the UK as most have almost identical policies - not surprising since they are mandated by the Act and by regulations made by the last government.

Bluntly, if you really believe LAs and LA-controlled schools are any more transparent you clearly haven't dealt with anything like as many of them as I have.

Whilst I am not a supporter of academies, I cannot agree with your last sentence. Academies are, if anything, slightly more accountable than LA-controlled schools and should be every bit as transparent (or, more accurately, every bit as lacking in transparency). The problem is that you appear to think that LA-controlled schools are accountable in ways they are not and that LA-controlled schools are more transparent than is required by the FoI Act.

I have never said that Haringey don't refuse FOI requests - just that this has not been my experience, nor that of anyone else I know in recent months (and there have been quite a few...).

I don't agree with you, either, though happy to leave it like that .