sbmaker - academies as a group are no better or no worse than non-academies. They range from Outstanding to Inadequate just like non-academies do.
The difference is that academies are supposed to have more 'freedom' than non-academies. But the truth is that non-academies can do most things academies can do. Academies can, in theory, opt out of the national curriculum. But that's not very likely because the DfE has said the best way for schools to prepare pupils for Key Stage 2 tests is to follow the national curriculum. Academies do have a couple of dubious freedoms - they can hire unqualified people to teach and they can opt out of school meal standards.
With these 'freedoms' come a lot of administrative, financial and legal burdens. Academies are run by trusts which are both charities and companies so they have to abide by Charity and Company Law. Big academies might be able to cope alone but small schools don't have the staff or expertise. These small schools are likely to join multi-academy trusts (MATs). But there's already evidence that academies in MATs don't have as much freedom as non-academies because decisions are made centrally by the MAT trustees.
The Government's hoping there'll be a tipping point at which schools will feel academy conversion is inevitable and they'd rather jump before being pushed. This creates fear, and fear is NOT what you want in an education system.
And just in case you're wondering why the Government is so keen for all schools to become academies, it's because academies are technically 'independent'. They can, if they wish, outsource their running to a for-profit provider. Ex-Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said in 2010 before the election that he would let groups like Serco run schools. I wrote about it here (there's a link to the YouTube clip of him saying it) www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/10/gove-is-in-favour-of-profit-making-companies-running-state-schools/%23sthash.hzb5uyax.dpuf.