academies - what's in it for the private sector?

[morningtoncrescent62]

I feel very ignorant having to ask this. But I really don't understand what's in it for the private sector companies and individuals who run academies and academy chains. They're not allowed to be run for profit, is that right? So apart from a few lucrative chief executive-type posts in the larger chains, what do individuals and groups get out of running them? Sorry if this is a very stupid question but I'd be very grateful if someone could explain it.

There is a good posting about Perry Beechs on the Local Schools Networ by Janet Downs

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2016/03/perry-beeches-expected-to-lose-academies-but-questions-about-oversight-transparency-and-responsibility-remain

There is part of it relating directly to the issue of effective regulation.

""The Guardian cited a ‘Whitehall source’ who said action taken by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) at Perry Beeches ‘shows the academy system is working, with the EFA identifying issues and regional schools commissioners intervening and rebrokering effectively, as part of a robust system of oversight.’ This is nonsense. It was not the EFA who identified issues at Perry Beeches but a whistleblower....

It’s not, of course, the first time the alleged ‘robust system of oversight’ has failed and where action was taken only after allegations were received by the EFA: Cuckoo Hall, Barnfield, Sawtry, Durand, Bilingual Primary School Brighton, Kings Science Academy.....

Far from being robust, the EFA oversight appears to rely too much on whistleblowers.

.....serious questions remain about how the EFA can effectively monitor the annual accounts of academy trusts."

The 50 fold increase by the way is the increase in the number of exempt charities regulated by the SofS for education BEFORE Academies started at all.

Having obfuscated on the point that I made that Academies are exempt charities regulated by the SofS for education, by "disagreeing" and saying not a politician but the DfE (which is a legally meaningless distinction), you have now conceded that in fact the regulator of Academies IS Nicky Morgan

Not in the slightest. For every single one of the exempt bodies listed the regulator is legally the relevant SoS but official documents will tell you that it is actually their department. That is just how these things are expressed in law. If you take a look at this you will see that the DfE is listed as the principal regulator. I understand that you regard this as a legally meaningless distinction. You clearly prefer charities to be regulated by an unelected body that answers to parliament rather than an elected politician who answers to parliament.

As for the rest, the context of what you wrote was in no way clear that you were talking about the exempt charities answerable to the SoS for Education. Apart from anything else you referred to some of them being answerable to the HEFCE, which immediately means you are not limiting yourself to charities answerable to the SoS.

However, let us look at your statement taking that limitation into account. It is still wrong on every count. Prior to the advent of academies there were thousands of exempt charities regulated by the DfE - around 7,000 VA and VC schools. They are NOT regulated by churches. The church may be involved but the regulator is the DfE. And clearly, by your standards, none of the exempt charities answerable to the DfE has specialist, robust regulators since the DfE is the regulator for every single one of them - universities don't fall under the DfE at all. Even if we include all exempt educational charities it is still only a tiny minority that are answerable to anyone other than the DfE.

By the way, the Economist's reckoning is miles out. There are 20,147 schools in England. The DfE was already the regulator for 6,851 of them prior to academies becoming exempt charities. So we are looking at a nearly 3-fold increase, a long way short of the Economist's 50-fold increase.

And the 3-fold increase only happens if every school becomes a stand-alone academy. In reality MATs will significantly reduce the number of charities the DfE has to regulate. It is quite possible the DfE will end up with fewer charities to regulate than it had prior to academies becoming exempt charities.

So there will be lots of scope to flit money about between schools and contractors in a multi academy trust, then? Surely each school within a chain will still need to produce its own set of accounts? Why would a big trust save the regulator lots of time? The bigger the trust, the easier to hide wrongdoing from the regulator, I would have thought, and thus the more time that should be spent picking it all apart.

So there will be lots of scope to flit money about between schools and contractors in a multi academy trust, then

Not quite sure what you mean by that. But no more scope than in a stand alone academy.

Surely each school within a chain will still need to produce its own set of accounts

An MAT will produce consolidated accounts which will identify the surplus or deficit for each school and may also give details of income and expenditure for each school. It may be that individual schools have more detailed accounts by the regulator will not see them. It is, in any case, not the job of the regulator to audit accounts. That is dealt with by an independent auditor. Unless a charity is under investigation the regulator will simply make sure the accounts have been filed correctly and that they have been audited by an independent auditor.

Why would a big trust save the regulator lots of time

Because it doesn't take twice as much effort to regulate a charity with two schools as it does to regulate a charity with one school. Most of the regulator's job is making sure that charity's conform with reporting requirements. This takes just as long regardless of the size of the charity. Investigations into possible irregularities may take longer with a larger charity. But regulators, regardless of whether it is the Charity Commission or the DfE, generally only go digging when there is reason to suspect irregularities.

In other words, the Regulator doesn't do much, then. It's not as if an auditor wouldn't check a MAT was filing its accounts properly, is it? So all the regulator does, then, is check something has been filed.

Sorry, prh, but I don't see how a standalone academy can transfer money to another school in its non existent chain and therefore have the same scope? Do the individual schools in a MAT get given a specific sum of money, according to national funding formulae, for which they individually have to account, or does the MAT get given the whole lot to distribute as it sees fit, or what? How aware would a MAT be of financial irregularities at specific schools?

Sorry, prh, but I don't see how a standalone academy can transfer money to another school in its non existent chain and therefore have the same scope

A standalone academy cannot transfer money to another school in its chain but nor can an academy in a chain. Once the budget is allocated to a school it belongs to that school and must be accounted for accordingly. It cannot be simply transferred to another school. It could potentially be used to buy goods or services from another school in the chain but that would be unusual and likely to attract the attention of the auditors.

Do the individual schools in a MAT get given a specific sum of money, according to national funding formulae, for which they individually have to account, or does the MAT get given the whole lot to distribute as it sees fit, or what

There are a couple of funding models. Either individual schools get their funding according to the government formula with the MAT top slicing it for central services or the whole amount for all schools in the MAT goes to the MAT for it to distribute as it sees fit. The latter approach requires the agreement of all schools in the MAT, in addition to which there must be an appeals process for schools unhappy with their allocation, including the ability for schools to appeal to the DfE if they remain unhappy after exhausting the MAT's appeals process. In all cases once the money has been allocated to the school it belongs to that school and must be accounted for accordingly. The MAT's accounts must show the accumulated surplus or deficit for each school.

How aware would a MAT be of financial irregularities at specific schools

They certainly ought to be aware. They are responsible for all money handled by any part of the MAT and are required by law to take reasonable steps to prevent and detect theft, fraud and other financial irregularities. The independent auditors would want to see that appropriate measures have been put in place. Ofsted does not inspect the MAT itself but will inspect individual schools. They will also want to see that appropriate measures are in place at the school to prevent and detect financial irregularities. If the trustees are found to have acted negligently or recklessly in this regard they are likely to be disqualified from acting as trustees and can be held personally liable for any losses incurred by the charity.

I really don't like the sound of a MAT getting to decide how to distribute the money, even if all schools in the chain have been strong armed into agreeing to it (eg schools that were forced to academise and effectively given no choice as to who would take them over, or schools unable to opt out of a MAT on a moment's notice). Is this an unusual arrangement, or a common one? How does it fit with the oft spouted notion that academy schools are better because of the increased freedoms of the teachers and headteachers that run them? That becomes a bit tricky if your budget is evenly more tightly controlled by your MAT than it was by your LA, surely?

even if all schools in the chain have been strong armed into agreeing to it

Whether or not the school is a forced conversion is irrelevant. They still have the option of refusing to enter a pooling arrangement where the MAT decides how to distribute funds. It is currently an unusual arrangement. It is possible that more new MATs will adopt this model but by no means certain.

How does it fit with the oft spouted notion that academy schools are better because of the increased freedoms of the teachers and headteachers that run them? That becomes a bit tricky if your budget is even more tightly controlled by your than it was by your LA, surely?

For LA schools the LA receives all funding and decides how to distribute it to schools with no right of appeal. Schools have no choice in this at all. So no, this does not mean that your budget is more tightly controlled than it was by the LA.

In terms of performance improvement, the important freedoms are the freedom for the school to set its own curriculum and to compete with other schools for pupils. Neither of these has anything to do with how the budget is determined.

PRH you write:

"For LA schools the LA receives all funding and decides how to distribute it to schools with no right of appeal. Schools have no choice in this at all. "

and thereby demonstrate you are seriously misinformed.

For schools supported by a Local Authority about 85 per cent of the funding goes straight to schools calculated on their pupil numbers. This is a mechanical process.

The remaining 15 per cent or so is distributed between schools using various factors, the factors are set by the DfE, with some limited discretion. The decisions as to how this money is to be divided up is made by the Schools Forum for each LA area (the council does not decide it). the composition of the schools forum is stipulated by the DfE. At present it consists of a number of Headteachers, elected by Headteachers, Governors, elected by their fellow Governors, and as the Schools Forum decisions have an impact on the funding of Academies, Academies are represented also. Apart from the electoral process which chooses the Forum, the Forum will often consult on decisions (is often required to consult, also) and any school with an objection can of course make their case to the Forum. The Governing Body of each school, which included democratically elected Parent Governors controls the budget for the school. Unless the school runs an unauthorised deficit in which case financial management may be taken over by the LA.

I should also explain that it is from the 15 per cent that things like bulge classes are funded, Also there are various rough and ready measures of social deprivation that the DfE directs the Forum to use.

Free School Meal take up used to be a very important one of these, but it has been relaced by a thing called the "Pupil Premium" whereby a child entitled under the FSM criteria attracts extra, per child, funding.

So basically a school with a load of poor children gets a bit more money than a school who are more or less completely middle class. Such variation does happen, in London.

You aren't making sense to me, prh. Are you saying that schools which have to get their children through government imposed SATs tests, and GCSEs and A-levels, all of which the DfE seems to have the final say over the content for, and which have their budgets (with which they can do interesting things with their curriculum) controlled by a MAT really have much more freedoms than other state schools? I think you are severely underestimating the freedoms of a LA school and over estimating the freedoms of a school in a MAT. Or are academy schools allowed to avoid SATs testing, and not to be assessed for effectiveness via GCSE and A-level results? I fail to see the huge freedoms, tbh. Where exactly are they? There doesn't seem to me to be that much freedom in existing budgets and with existing testing for anything particularly "free." Go too far off topic and you won't be following the exam syllabus! It's like saying you are free to do what you want, but if you don't do this, then you are wrong and will be closed down! And having the freedom to choose your own auditor seriously doesn't impress me! What a waste of time and admin to turn schools into micro-businesses, or MATs that are too important to fail! It's like the railways, banks and everything else that's essential - you find yourself stuck with the same small pool of useless, greedy buggers after a while, minus any political accountability, because the politicians supposedly overseeing them know bugger all about choosing them and can't get rid of them, because there's nothing better to replace them with. It would surely be better not to waste precious taxpayers' money on such fruitless change?...

thereby demonstrate you are seriously misinformed

I'm sorry but your post demonstrates that you are the one who is seriously misinformed.

The LA can decide how much to retain centrally for certain categories of expenditure subject to any limits prescribed by the SoS. The approval of the school forum must be obtained for certain types of deduction. The 85% figure crops up a few times in the regulations and the Operational Guide but neither gives any requirement for LAs to pass on 85% of the funding direct to schools. Both the regulations and the Operational Guide are clear that all of the funding is subject to the formula, not 15% of it.

The schools forum does NOT decide the funding formula for schools. That falls to the LA - The School and Early Finance Years Regulations (2015) paragraph 10 refers. Paragraph 9 requires the LA to consult its school forum. It is not required to obtain the approval of the school forum for its proposed formula. There is, of course, nothing to stop the LA delegating setting the funding formula to the schools forum if it wishes.

You are correct that the factors are set by the regulations and the Operational Guide but these do not dictate how that turns into funding. I don't think you are saying that they do but I just want to be clear. So, for example, the regulations dictate that the LA must take into account one or more factors based on the incidence of social deprivation but do not dictate what proportion of total funding is to be decided using that factor. The main exception is pupil numbers. The formula must include at least £2,000 per pupil for primary age pupils and £3,000 per pupil for other pupils. The Conditions of Grant also require at least 80% of the money to be allocated using pupil-led factors (single per pupil amount, social deprivation, prior attainment, English as an additional language, pupil mobility, looked after children, differential salaries of teachers near London).

By the way, the amounts stipulated for per pupil funding make it clear that the formula applies to more than 15% of the DSG. Per pupil funding in the DSG distributed by the DfE ranges from £3,950 to £8,595 with the average being £4,550.

really have much more freedoms than other state schools

Yes, I am saying that. I am not saying the freedoms are huge but the evidence from research is that they are important.

A community school does not have the freedom to set its own curriculum. It must follow the National Curriculum. An academy can ignore the National Curriculum if it wishes. SATS mean that primary schools have to teach reading, writing and arithmetic. The National Curriculum dictates a much wider range of subject matter that is not included in SATS. Similarly the GCSE syllabus does not impinge significantly on what schools teach in Y7-Y9 but the National Curriculum dictates what is taught. Of course, once we get to Y10 pupils will be studying for external exams with the syllabus set by an external examining body. The research suggesting schools do better if they can set their own curriculum is looking at what happens up to the age at which pupils will start studying for external exams.

A community school cannot set its own PAN so the LA can prevent it competing with other schools for pupils. An academy can set its own PAN so can compete with other schools. Again, research suggests this is important in improving standards.

What a waste of time and admin to turn schools into micro-businesses

LA schools are already micro-businesses and have been for decades.

MATs that are too important to fail

I don't think anyone has said that an MAT is too important to fail. Far from it.

It would surely be better not to waste precious taxpayers' money on such fruitless change

If the proponents of academies are right that they produce improved outcomes for pupils that is not a waste of taxpayers money. If they are wrong I would agree that it is a waste. Of course, some academies and some MATs will fail. Academisation is not a silver bullet. The question is whether overall they will improve standards.

But evidence around the world, I thought, was that they made standards overall more variable? That some schools did better, some worse? What, exactly, is to stop the DfE letting LA schools set their own curriculum, in any event? It wouldn't be hard to change the law on that if the DfE really believed that would help standards.... Why inflict a curriculum on any school if it is proven around the world this is a bad idea? Methinks you either overstate the evidence, or the DfE is deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive (and unnecessarily wasted huge amounts of taxpayers' money on a curriculum, entirely contrary to expert advice)! Neither of these options looks too good for the DfE!!! Besides which, I think you are conflating curriculum with methods of teaching. LA schools can cover the syllabus of the national curriculum in any creative way they like. Apart from schools, eg, not teaching Darwinism, or not teaching music, what have academy schools really, in actuality, done with their freedoms that LA schools have genuinely not been allowed to do and why has the government kept those constraints in place when it didn't need to?

The PAN issue is unhelpful when there are not enough school places being created and academisation and free schools do not appear to be plugging the gap. Choosing your own PAN enables self-interest. Either of the keeping class sizes small variety, or the pack them in tight for maximum funding variety. Neither, imo, is helpful if you are a parent with children on the wrong side of it!

I am deeply opposed to academies. There is far too much leeway for incompetent people to manage academies.

Ps SATs tests test more than reading, writing and arithmetic in any event. Even academy schools have to teach, eg, what a fronted adverbial is, however bloody pointless they think that is The government is also thinking of reintroducing science SATs tests for all. Sorry, but you can't test maths, grammar and science nationally without effectively inflicting a curriculum on children. As for the Reading SATs tests... Have you seen the silly questions asked and the narrow range of acceptable answers? You have to train children to think like that for tests - it doesn't even come naturally to adults! There is little scope for intelligent answers or intelligent marking. They are silly, narrow, time wasters that waste precious school time in the preparation for, time which could be spent on something far more interesting. Except, of course, the government has no intention of giving schools genuine freedom to do much beyond prepare children for very badly designed tests. It seems quite clear to me that government wants children prepared for and tested on something in every single year of primary school, if possible, thus ensuring that some schools will interpret "freedom to set your own curriculum" as an excuse to teach only what is being tested!

There is only one primary academy near us, which chose academy status. So far, it has scrapped musical instrument teaching, scrapped Forest Schools, reduced after school clubs, and parents are complaining that their children have done nothing but prepare for SATs tests in year 6, contrary to the experiences of their older children when the school was not an academy. I have yet to meet anyone with a child in that school who is happy with the changes. So far, this has not even resulted in improved results (which were not bad, anyway - the school had been rated outstanding in its previous Ofsted), just fewer happy children and parents. Academisation is not a magic pill, it's a time consuming expense that good schools should not be forced through. If a school wants to remain a community school, who is the government to tell it that it is wrong to think it is better off that way? Academising all schools really has bugger all to do with improving standards or giving schools more freedom- it's the exact opposite of freedom to force schools down a path they would not willingly choose for themselves.

that the factors are set by the regulations and the Operational Guide

Just to be clear for anyone who is interested, the regulations and the Operational Guide set out the factors that can be used to determine school funding. Some of these factors are compulsory. Most are optional. So, for example, the LA can decide whether or not to give additional funding for LAC, EAL, pupil mobility, etc.

But evidence around the world, I thought, was that they made standards overall more variable

The evidence on this is mixed. Certainly some opponents of academies argue that they make the gap between successful academies and unsuccessful non-academies wider. I've not come across any studies suggesting that the gap between successful academies and unsuccessful academies is wider. It is, however, true that academisation is not a silver bullet. Whilst there is evidence to suggest that on average schools perform better as academies that won't apply to every single school. Some schools won't improve and some will get worse.

What, exactly, is to stop the DfE letting LA schools set their own curriculum, in any event

Nothing. I think they should give all schools that freedom. I am not overstating the evidence. But I don't think it is about being vindictive. The NC was introduced to make it easier to compare schools and to prevent LAs from imposing their own, often politically driven, curriculum on schools (of course, the NC is also politically driven and will largely conform to the government's agenda). It has grown from something that was initially fairly lightweight into something that consumes most teaching time and dictates the syllabus outline for many GCSEs. Given the various campaigns there have been for and against changes to the NC I suspect that the DfE thinks that it is too difficult politically to drop it for LA schools.

I think you are conflating curriculum with methods of teaching

There is evidence that schools with freedom over the curriculum are more likely to take imaginative approaches to teaching. So to some extent you are right.

what have academy schools really, in actuality, done with their freedoms that LA schools have genuinely not been allowed to do

Some have stuck quite closely to the NC. Some have been more imaginative.

academisation and free schools do not appear to be plugging the gap.

That is down to the LA. They are responsible for ensuring an adequate supply of places. They can commission new schools. However, they must attempt to find an organisation who will run it as a free school rather than run it themselves.

Choosing your own PAN enables self-interest. Either of the keeping class sizes small variety, or the pack them in tight for maximum funding variety

Trying to keep class sizes small will fail when the attempt comes into contact with an admissions appeal panel. They will be concerned about the number of pupils the school can physically hold. They won't be interested in the school's desire to have small classes. And a school that tries to pack them in tight is likely to become unpopular with parents rapidly as well as falling foul of Ofsted.

Even academy schools have to teach, eg, what a fronted adverbial is, however bloody pointless they think that is

That is a recent development which I don't think is a good idea.

Sorry, but you can't test maths, grammar and science nationally without effectively inflicting a curriculum on children

That is still only a small proportion of teaching time, whereas the NC takes up almost all teaching time.

It seems quite clear to me that government wants children prepared for and tested on something in every single year of primary school

I have no idea where you get that from. I have seen nothing to suggest any desire to introduce SATS in additional years.

Academisation is not a magic pill

I have said that myself. Some academies will fail, just as some community schools fail. The question is whether or not it generally improves standards.

it's the exact opposite of freedom to force schools down a path they would not willingly choose for themselves

I do have reservations about forcing all schools to become academies.

There is far too much leeway for incompetent people to manage academies

I don't think there is any more leeway in academies than there is in community schools. The LA does not appoint the head or the teachers in a community school and only appoints a minority of the governors.

The academies near to me that were more imaginative curriculum-wise have both recently been described as 'requiring improvement' by OFSTED. The one that followed a more traditional curriculum has improved but not quickly enough. Neither has delivered real benefits to parents who don't have any more choice than they did previously.

It would as a pp says be much easier and cheaper and lower risk to say that the NC was no longer compulsory for maintained schools than force all the happy successful schools that don't want the freedom to choose their own auditor, manage their own pension deficit, 'compete' with other local schools rather than collaborate to ensure equal access for all children including what this administration likes to call 'the most vulnerable' etc to embrace those liberating 'freedoms'.

I disagree. By abolishing the requirement to teach the NC and to appoint qualified teachers, you remove huge safeguards to good management.

But, prh, the government did not have to throw out the Rose reforms and enforce a new curriculum on schools that went contrary to professional advice from universities, school leaders and even future employers! If it was a bit meh about the need for a national curriculum, then what is not unnecessary and vindictive about that? There was huge opposition to the changes from the very people the government pretends it wants to have more freedom. It's illogical to the point of insanity. As for the "evidence" does this come from the narrow, badly designed tests I was talking about?! And finally - in what way does deciding it's own PAN help a school, then??