This is why academization is a scandal ....

[Mischance]

Extract from a letter to The Guardian ........

Take my home town of York as an example: where once the 63 state schools were maintained by a director of children’s services on circa £110,000 and an assistant director of education on circa £80,000, we now have six Mats whose focus is increasingly drawn outside the city boundaries. Together they now employ six CEOs on salaries ranging from at least £130,000 to more than £160,000, six CFOs and several executive heads, and sport a combined wage bill for “key management personnel” that exceeds £7m – money the former education authority could only dream of. Meanwhile, more than a third of the city’s schools remain under the local authority.

With school attendance tanking, young people’s wellbeing in the doldrums and a special education needs system in crisis, public money that should be going into the classroom is instead going on duplicated roles and high individual salaries. This, and the lack of any meaningful local accountability, is the real scandal that needs addressing if we are to resolve the financial perils of an education sector that is no longer fit for purpose.

The point is that it isn’t an important role. It’s duplication. Head teachers are important. Oversight (as from an LEA) is important. MAT CEO? Shouldn’t be a role. It’s unnecessary and hasn’t improved anything.

The trouble is though this has affected the education budget as a whole as the services still need to be funded one way or another. What we have seen happen in our area, that has a high level of academies is that schools have converted probably for the reasons you state. The la services that were previously provided like Ed psych, speech and language, specialist autism service etc are no longer provided for free schools have to pay the la for them or obtain same service from private sector. Schools choose not to spend their money on these services, children thst would have previously received these services to enable them to remain in mainstream school no longer receive this support. The children deteriorate which may result in behaviour or mental health issues and the mainstream school can no longer meet needs. It is good for the mainstream school when that child leaves as they no longer have a child that is a drain on their resources and in general such children are most likely to be lower performing so pull down the schools average results, it’s a win for the school not to be able to meet their needs so they leave. As this has effected so many children la specialist schools are now full so independent specialist schools have set up to fill the gap for these children thst have no school places. These schools charge £100k a year plus which the local authority has to fund and as many are run as private companies it is perfectly legal for a large percentage of the fees to go to ceos and shareholders. The fact that more or more children are in these high cost placements (of which a large percentage is synohoned off legally) means that there is less money in education overall, so in the long run 15 years down the line the academy who though there were better off as they don’t use la services so why should they have to pay is now worse off than they would have been

Our MAT CEO is brilliant and indispensable. The idea that he is unnecessary is laughable and just shows you don't understand how (good) MATs work.

You miss my point. Your MAT is unnecessary as evidenced by PPs (and logic). Therefore the CEO position is also unnecessary. MATs should not exist. They are a disaster for teachers, pupils and the public purse. The fact that one or two do ok/well is irrelevant. The actual concept is flawed. It’s a reboot of LFM which I remember from the 90s and which similarly was advantageous for the first schools then when it became almost all, the benefits went away.

Good luck convincing the Government then. You can come back here and celebrate when they announce the wholesale reversal of accommodation. I won't hold my breath.

They won’t. That doesn’t mean I’m not right though.

Then hopefully you will make the best of the system we have and not let your political resentments get in the way of our children's education. Onwards and upwards!

I’m in Wales. We don’t have academies here. I’m also a retired teacher of 35 years, so I’ve done more than most to advance education. It’s not a ‘political resentment’ it’s an informed, practical observation.

To suggest that the whole academy system should be reversed to match your inaccurate rose-tinted view of the past is just naive and silly.

No rose-tinted glasses here. The LEA system was in need of reform - above all else it needed more cash investment.

My argument is that, instead of looking at how to improve what we had, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater and it has cost us dear, both in terms of cash, local accountability and also teacher morale.

@prh47bridge
I think you have not read any of the evidence I have posted.
The EPI report finds no difference in educational outcome between LEA and academy run schools and that MATs spend more on back-end functions. In fact, research shows that disadvantaged children do worse in multi-academy trusts.
The UCL report looked at evidence from other countries and said that a consistent local approach is better. This suggests that multi-academy trusts with schools across the country are not good for education as they are unable to coordinate education for SEN etc. The UCL report suggests we should have a consistent local approach to education i.e. through a local education authority.
We have a content-rich curriculum since Gove that has led to better performance in the PISA table. LEA schools have performed better in Progress 8 than academy schools. Academisation has nothing to do with performance in the PISA tests.
Linking academisation or joining an LEA to a left-wing/right-wing agenda is silly. We all need common sense. I am more right-wing politically but I also know that multi-academy trusts spend too much on CEOs and executive heads rather than frontline teachers and education resources without any improvement in educational outcomes. Whatever your political persuasion, when taxpayers'money is spent it should be discussed what model is the best value for money.

I agree with this: Linking academisation or joining an LEA to a left-wing/right-wing agenda is silly. - I only did so in my post as I was mirroring the comment about me being left wing in an attempt to show how silly it was.

I didn't think I was arguing with you. I am not saying the current model is perfect. But we know it gives academies the freedoms that are associated with high performing school systems. I am not in favour of removing those freedoms. I am in favour of anything that improves provision for SEN children and helps to close the gap between children from rich and poor families.

However, I think that "Academisation has nothing to do with performance in the PISA tests" is, at a minimum, unproven. We know that countries which give the schools these freedoms perform better in PISA. We know that England's rise up the PISA tables coincided with an increase in academies, giving more schools these freedoms.

And saying that LA-controlled schools do as well as, or even better than, academies doesn't undermine the case. The evidence from elsewhere is that the presence of academy-like schools results in improved standards in all schools. We would therefore expect the performance of LA-controlled schools to improve. And, helpfully, we have a control group - Scottish schools where academies have not been introduced. Performance in Scottish schools has deteriorated whilst performance in English schools has improved.

There is no absolute proof. I accept that it may be that academisation has not improved standards and that the improvement comes from other factors. It may be that all the research on PISA is wrong or, for some reason, doesn't apply in the UK, but the more obvious explanation is that academisation has indeed driven the UK's improved performance.

While I would want to investigate the writer and their likely biases and experience before I made and comment on the validity of their argument, this article seemed topical:

schoolsweek.co.uk/lets-put-an-end-to-the-myth-of-academy-freedoms/

But we know it gives academies the freedoms that are associated with high performing school systems.

I am not sure that is true. In theory, the ability to vary curriculum could be of use, but in practice the National Curriculum and Ofsted’s recent role in inspecting the curriculum each school offers has limited experimentation in this area. Again, in theory, the ability to vary pay for staff could be used to reward really excellent practitioners but in practice, it is used to make the teacher wage bill cheaper by offering below standard rates while attracting CEOs with very high remuneration.

@prh47bridge
The UK's rise up the PISA league tables actually coincides with Gove's changes to the national curriculum not academisation as it is a more knowledge based/content heavy curriculum.
Scotland does not follow our national curriculum. This is the most likely reason for their worse performance on PISA trsts rather than academisation especially as LEA schools are performing better than academies in England on progress 8, ofsted ratings, performance of disadvantaged students and staff retention.
The UCL report suggests that countries that manage schools at a local level have better educational outcomes. I really believe that we would not be having the current SEND crisis if the LEAs were still running all schools and provision was properly joined up at a local level.
Ultimately, academies perform worse than LEA schools and costs more money so it they do not make sense.

The UK's rise up the PISA league tables actually coincides with Gove's changes to the national curriculum not academisation as it is a more knowledge based/content heavy curriculum.

Since both happened between two rounds of PISA tests, it coincides with both.

Ultimately, academies perform worse than LEA schools and costs more money so it they do not make sense.

Whether they perform worse than LEA schools is debatable. In any event, as I've pointed out, evidence from around the world is that academy-like schools force up standards in LA-schools or their equivalent, so there is no guarantee that LA-schools would perform at the same level if academies were removed. But the second part of your sentence is clearly and unambiguously wrong. Academies do not cost a single penny more public money than LA-controlled schools. The only difference in funding is that they receive most (but not all) of the money that the LA top slices from LA-controlled schools. The total cost to the government is identical.

@prh47bridge
MATs cost more in relation to actually educating children because they take away money from frontline education. The CEOs and executive heads of MATs earn so much more than LEA leaders so that there is reduced funding for teachers, teaching assistants, photocopying, books, support for SEN children, money for trips, educational resources etc.
Teachers in MATs earn less money than maintained schools and they are more likely to leave the profession altogether. MAT CEOs and executives are literally taking money away from children and also reducing the number of teachers in the profession.

See this article on how other people can see why it is taking money way from children.
www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/21/questionable-value-of-school-executive-roles

"The CEOs and executive heads of MATs earn so much more than LEA leaders"

No they don't. As pointed out up-thread, the op's quoted letter has compared LEA leaders salaries from several years ago with the school leadership salaries of today without taking inflation into account.

"so that there is reduced funding for teachers, teaching assistants, photocopying, books, support for SEN children, money for trips, educational resources etc"

This is because school budgets have reduced in real terms across the board. That isn't due to MATs. The same reductions exist in LA-run schools.

MAT top-slices are generally lower than LA top-slices.

There is a complete logic failure there. MATs may pay more to CEOs, etc. than maintained schools (note that I'm not doing an analysis to check if that is actually true), but that doesn't mean they cost more. The cost to the taxpayer is exactly the same. The taxpayer is not pumping in extra money to fund this alleged shortfall in money for teachers, etc.

Where is your evidence that teachers in MATs earn less money? A study by TES last year found that, of the 625 trusts for which they got data, 592 pay in line with the national pay scales, 12 exceed the national rates and the remainder differentiate on small points or provide additional benefits for staff. Top of the scale was United Learning, which runs 90 academies and pays teachers 5.6% above national pay rates. Ark Schools pay approximately 2.5% above national pay rates.

It is also the case that many MATs use their status as charities to raise additional funding. Harris Federation, for example, received £326M from the government in its last financial year but was able to spend £381M on its schools. ARK Schools received around £248M from the government and spent £288M. United Learning received £480M from the government and spent £571M. I cannot say that is true for every single MAT, but certainly the 10 largest MATs by number of schools are all able to spend significantly more on their schools than they receive from the government.

@prh47bridgeDo you think schools should waste money on a film crew and a marketing video and leather sofas? It is a travesty and even if it takes 20-30 years. I hope it is found out for the scandal it is.

Schools need to attract pupils. Marketing is a fact of life. Most schools do it. My local primary school (which is a community school) advertises in the local press and on buses. And, in the context of a school budget, a marketing video is a fairly small expense. So no, I don't think it is a waste of money.

Criticising academies for doing the same as many community schools does not make academization a scandal or a travesty. Even less so when there is a good chance the academy hasn't spent any public money on marketing, whereas any marketing spend by community schools will almost certainly come from public money.

There is no money or appetite for full scale reform right now. It would cost far too much and cause upheaval. All anyone can hope for is better regulation at the top MAT level. The resentment of teaching staff towards higher paid MAT “officials” may lessen if the sword of Damocles that is Ofsted hangs down on them as heavily as everyone else.

“I am in favour of anything that improves provision for SEN children and helps to close the gap between children from rich and poor families.”

Yes so am I.
What I envisaged was SEND hubs in the most modern comps in all cities, so repurposed light buildings with up to date tech so every child has a computer based specific learning programme, daily exercise etc and specialist staff on hand. It would be great if kids who are stuck at home could access a similar provision in an actual school building. I think that needs to be the aim and focus on wellbeing etc and no school rules/uniform etc and perhaps forest school type areas/gardening on site as well. And if children struggle in mainstream they go there for a year or two before they have a full breakdown. It needs to cater to children with high academic ability too as well as challenging learning needs.

Very topical!

CEO pay has increased to a whopping minimum of £245,000 – a 75 per cent increase in four years. ( no LA leader would be getting that huge, swift rise)

Academy staff strike planned regarding MAT financial mismanagement.

"The CEOs and executive heads of MATs earn so much more than LEA leaders"
No they don't. As pointed out up-thread, the op's quoted letter has compared LEA leaders salaries from several years ago with the school leadership salaries of today without taking inflation into account.

They really DO! Personal experience also tells me this @aprilwotson. LEA staff earn no where near MAT CEO’s. The Director CYPS’s role is also so much wider and has serious levels of accountability too.

In fact, some MAT CEO’s earn more than the Prime Minister!

"CEO pay has increased to a whopping minimum of £245,000 – a 75 per cent increase in four years."

That is not the minimum. Our trust CEO certainly doesn't earn that much.