WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PRIMARY PLACES SHORTFALL?

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PRIMARY PLACES SHORTFALL

Where is the funding to create new capacity?

Comment

The Government will have to do something about the chronic shortage of Primary school places.In Greater London alone, primary schools are at an average of 110% of capacity.  The problem has crept up on the DFE and it has only belatedly acknowledged the extent and scale of the problem. Figures show that more than 800,000 extra places will be needed in state-funded nursery and primary schools by the end of the decade. Demand for primary places is projected to increase by 434,000 by 2018, with acute shortages projected in cities such as London, Manchester and Bristol. According to official forecasts, the number of under-11s in the education system will rise from 4m to 4.82m by 2020 – taking the primary school population to its highest level since the early 70s. New free schools (so far just  24 are up and running)aren’t always located where demand is greatest.

Significantly increasing capacity over the medium term is not something that can be avoided. But public funding for this is in short supply.  There are three options in terms of funding the new capacity. Public capital, PFI and straight private capital. The Government looks likely to exhaust the first two options before they move onto the third, because of the perceived political risks associated with it.  But how long will they take in holding out against straight private cash, not least because PFI is  now showing  up on the books?  Clearly accessing private capital is politically problematic, but with other options limited   and so long as its seen as funding for additional schools, then maybe its manageable. One thing is for sure much more thought has got to go in to working out where new Free schools need to be established to meet surging demand. Establishing them in areas where demand is not greatest will not make much sense and will look wasteful.

Note 

In the Autumn Statement 2011, the Treasury announced an additional £600 million of capital basic need funding for schools in England. On 11 April 2012, the Secretary of State announced the allocation of this funding for local authorities. The £600m will be allocated to those authorities that show a shortfall in places as at 2013/14. 110 authorities will have a proportionate share of the £600m, based on data from the 2011 schools capacity forecast. Some  experts  believe that government funding  plans fall far short of what will be  needed  to cover the additional places that will be required. There are also concerns that many  Primary schools will increase very significantly in size, which will be unpopular with parents.Independent schools may see this as a marketing  opportunity as small class size and good pupil teacher ratios  are seen as   key attractions of  the independent sector.

THE NEW ADMISSIONS CODE

SHOULD THE CHILDREN OF SCHOOL STAFF BE GIVEN ADMISSIONS PRIORITY?
WON’T IT MAKE THE LABOUR MARKET LESS EFFICIENT?
Comment
Rebecca Allen and Simon Burghes of the Centre for Market and Public Organisation raise an important question on their blog regarding whether or not teachers and other school staff should be given priority when it comes to admissions to schools where they are employed. The admissions code is currently under review following consultation. Paragraph 1.33 of the code says: “If admissions authorities decide to give priority to children of staff, they must set out clearly in their admission arrangements how they will define staff and on what basis children will be prioritised.” This, Allen points out, suggests that admissions authorities are to be allowed to prioritise the children of staff, reversing the policy of recent Admissions Codes. On the face of it one has some sympathy for teachers wanting their children to be in the school where they teach. It makes their lives much easier for one and allows them to keep a close eye on their child’s education. One group very likely to be included in most definitions of “staff” are teachers. For those teachers with children, this will add a new aspect to their decision on which school to seek a job at. Like many other parents, teachers will be keen for their children to attend high-performing schools. Following the White Paper “The Importance of Teaching”, one of the leading education policy issues is how to attract  particularly effective teachers into the more challenging schools. Research evidence does not tell us whether teachers who are parents are on average more effective teachers, but there are two points to make:
This policy change will differentially increase the flow of applicants to high-performing schools. If the Headteachers of those schools are skilled at spotting effective teachers, then simply having access to a much bigger applicant pool will raise the average effectiveness of teachers  hired at those schools. They are less likely to be novices, which is one of the few clear findings on teacher effectiveness, so in that sense alone teachers who are parents are likely to be more effective. Given that, claim Allen and Burghes, this policy change is very likely to work against any efforts to attract effective teachers to challenging schools, and thus set back the Government’s stated educational policy goals of narrowing the outcome gap between affluent and disadvantaged pupils. The proposed code change could also complicate disciplinary procedures because firing a teacher from a school would also have implications for her/his children. This is likely to make it even less likely that headteachers will engage in robust performance management. They write ‘We know that any work-based privileges that are specific to particular establishments tend to cement people in that job and reduce turnover. Such privileges include health insurance, pension rights, and so on. This reduces labour mobility and typically will make the labour market less efficient. This proposed change will have the same effect in the teacher labour market as teachers will be less willing to move as it will disrupt their children’s education.’ They make a compelling argument but if you are a  parent and teacher you might not share their view.

FREE SCHOOL MEALS

Big Attainment gap between those pupils eligible for Free School Meals and those not
Comment
New figures deposited in Parliament highlight the significant attainment gap between those pupils who are eligible for free school meals and those who are not. Attainment is measured by the number of pupils gaining A*-C Grades in GCSE subjects. In 2010 77,419 pupils were eligible for FSM compared to 78,087 in 2006 In English, in 2006, 31.2% of FSM pupils met the benchmark, moving up to 42.9% in 2010. However for non-FSM pupils the 2006 figure was 61% moving to 69.8% in 2010. In Maths, in 2006, 27.1% of FSM pupils achieved the benchmark, improving to 39.6% in 2010, but this compares to 56% in 2006 and 65.9% in 2010 respectively for pupils not on FSM. The attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils has not actually narrowed over the period 2006-10. Alarmingly for linguists, just 14 % of FSM pupils met the grade in modern languages in 2006, with this percentage actually dropping in 2010 to 13.5% The Education Secretary Michael Gove, when he was in opposition, through a series of parliamentary questions, established that those pupils on Free School Meals have not appeared to benefit much from the significant investment in education over the period of the last Government. Which is why he has made disadvantaged pupils his major priority and why he has introduced such policies as the Pupil Premium.So to some extent, at least, his policies will be judged on whether they improve the performance of pupils eligible for FSM, and whether the gap between them and non-FSM pupils closes over the next two or three years.

http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-1305.xls

COMMUNITY COHESION-SCHOOLS STILL HAVE A DUTY TO PROMOTE IT

 

COMMUNITY COHESION

New Research identifies different approaches in schools and authorities to Community Cohesion

Comment

Community cohesion is about ensuring different groups of people share a common vision and sense of belonging, where similar life opportunities are available to all. It is defined as working towards a society in which there is a common vision and sense of belonging by all communities; a society in which the diversity of people’s backgrounds and circumstances is appreciated and valued; a society in which similar life opportunities are available to all; and a society in which strong and positive relationships exist and continue to be developed in the workplace, in schools and in the wider community.

Since September 2007, schools have had a legal duty to promote community cohesion and their inspectorate, Ofsted has had to check that they are doing so. The requirement – enshrined in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 – was introduced in part to combat fears of a rise in support for the British National Party and Islamophobia. But the coalition government is now scaling back Ofsted’s role and confining its remit to inspecting what it sees as core elements- the quality of leadership in schools, teaching , pupil behaviour and child safety and achievement. The plans seek  to reduce the bureaucratic burden on schools and this in effect  means an end to Ofsted inspections of the duty, but, importantly,  the duty itself  remains.

Research on community cohesion, just published by CfBT Education Trust, was conducted in English schools in 2010.

The research uses an opportunity sample of 27 primary and secondary schools in three local authorities to generate insights on how the duty to promote community cohesion has been interpreted, enacted and accounted for since its beginning in 2007. The significance of this report is not in the sample size or spectrum but in the themes that emerged from  the semi-structured interviews.

The researchers found that, overall, the duty to promote community cohesion received an ambivalent response from school leaders and teachers. Yet most regarded it as important, not only for their students’ wellbeing but as essential to the building of a successful school. The schools also see a focus on community cohesion as an opportunity to improve relations with and between parents – and  it provides a chance to draw on resources available within the local authority and wider community.

Tony McAleavy, director of education at CfBT Education Trust, wrote in the Guardian on 26 July   that the report ‘ identified promising schemes with the potential for integrating parents not only into the school, but also into their communities. These could offer a template for local authorities. Crash courses in English have been set up in response to the arrival of a large group of newcomers; a primary staged a community week when parents were invited to take part in a range of activities including playing games with local children.’

The requirement for schools to foster community cohesion has been interpreted differently by different local authorities: an equal opportunities self-evaluation scheme for schools had been developed in one authority, while there had been a strong emphasis on respect in another programme. Where money had become available to prevent violent extremism, this was drawn on to support police working with schools in one area, but spent on training teachers about Islamic fundamentalism in another.’.

Two reports are available:

A Perspective Report, School Leaders, Community Cohesion and the Big Society sets out the background to the duty to promote community cohesion, including its inception as a policy and its roots in other measures, is discussed in an opening section. The findings from group and individual interviews with teachers and school senior leaders are analysed under themed headings. Pointers for future policy development, including links with the ‘Big Society’ agenda, are discussed.

A Research Report, Teaching, Learning and Community Cohesion: a study of primary and secondary schools’ responses to a new statutory duty, provides more detailed guidance for teachers and school leaders.

McAleavy poses   an  important question- whether it is sensible to have a statutory duty to promote community cohesion, but for Ofsted not to inspect that function in schools.

CFBT Reports

Guardian

ADMISSIONS CODE – NEW CODE IN THE WINGS – AGAIN

A new Admissions Code will be introduced

But  will guidance, stop covert selection?

The debate over the new Admissions Code is beginning. Parental choice is a keystone of the government’s education policy, and demand for a high-quality school place outstrips supply. Put simply there are too few good schools to go around. The good schools tend to be colonised by pushy middle class parents prepared to pay a Premium on their House Price to be in the catchment area of a good school. In cities competition is particularly fierce: a third of secondary-school age children in London failed to get their first choice of school this year. The Secretary of State is keen for a new Admissions Code, though Ed Balls introduced a new one not so long ago which has only just taken effect. Gove is determined somehow to ensure that disadvantaged pupils can access the best schools. One in six of England’s state secondary schools has now broken away from the control of local authorities to become an “academy”, and their numbers are expected to double in the coming year or so. The situation is made more complex because most faith schools act as their own admissions authority. Academies too are exempt from their council’s admissions policies, though they remain subject to the national code and so, for example, cannot select by academic prowess. Parents who set up state-funded “free” schools face the same restrictions and cannot favour the founders’ children under the existing rules. But as the Economist says (5 May) ‘Giving such schools a bit more freedom to manage their admissions would make sense—it should help them to build a clear identity and thus a stronger esprit de corps. But squaring this with Mr Gove’s promise to ensure that more parents get their first choice of school will be a difficult trade-off. At best his revised rule book seems likely to end up only a little less complex than its predecessors.’ Gove will find that simply changing the Admissions guidance and simplifying it will not necessarily make it fairer particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils. The fact that the current Admissions Code runs to over a hundred pages is not because some bureaucrat was getting paid by the word. It’s because it’s a very complex area and some schools have in the past (including Faith schools) devised canny ways of ensuring that they can still select pupils without leaving any evidence in their wake. Some favour a lottery system, which is probably fairer than most other systems but it seems that this is not on the cards as it too has its critics.

It remains a fact that the best state schools  are usually, at least partially, selective in that they accept less than their respective  local authority average of pupils with special needs, on free school meals or with English as  their  second language.When a school  argues that it is successful because of its ethos, superior teaching, leadership etc that may  well be the case as some schools really do add value, but cast a beady eye on the number of its pupils on SEN, FSM and English as  their second language before you accept such claims at face value!

FREE SCHOOLS – THE REVOLUTION STUTTERS

The number of new schools now likely to open their doors this September is around 10. Not a particularly impressive number, given that Primary schools are also part of the FS initiative.

It is already clear that the Government is shifting its main effort to expanding the Academies programme which has its own momentum. A momentum that is signally lacking, for now, at least, in the FS programme. The Independent has learnt that since the Free School programme was launched last year, just 40 out of 323 proposals have been accepted for consideration. Of those, just four have received a promise of Government funding. Another application has been withdrawn and most of the remaining 35 schools will not open until 2012. The remaining 283 have been turned down and the applicants told they must re-apply under stricter criteria. These are designed to show they are “fit and proper” people to run a school. The high failure rate is regarded by some as reflecting much needed rigour in the vetting process, identifying flawed bids early on, so saving time effort and resources.   However ,some close to the FS programme suggest that it has little to do with quality control and everything to do with money. Or lack of it.
There are two big interrelated problems facing Free schools and their supporters. Lack of money,and buildings. Of course there have been some dubious bids and bidders but can that seriously explain the punishingly high failure rate? And what effect will such a failure rate have on prospective bidders and confidence in this initiative,  more generally ,one wonders?
Advisers behind the scenes have been saying that you don’t really need much money to set up a new school. Taking a leaf out of the Charter School movement in New York, they point out that there is no reason why new schools need to own a building. They can rent. And some districts in New York provide incentives to do just this. There is the potential too to make clever use of other property, old office blocks, apartments and shops for instance, to set up a Free school. And, of course, where there are empty classrooms in existing schools, these too might be utilised. This ignores two important points. First just how appealing will it be for parents to send their child to a school in an old shop when set against all those shiny new neighbouring £20m Academies. Secondly, and of greater import, converting old buildings, and getting planning permission, into a school that is fit for purpose and safe is as much of a logistical challenge as it sounds and requires capital too. (interestingly the Guardian points out that a majority of Free schools are taking over listed buildings which is clearly potentially expensive) . It all looks quite attractive on paper but in practice, well, its not quite so easy. As Jonn Elledge of Education Investor has pointed out ‘Free school groups don’t have a credit history, so no one will lease them a building. (The government has said it’ll guarantee such leases; but it’s yet to put its money where its mouth is.) And, unsurprisingly, neither free schools nor existing comprehensives seem all that keen on shacking up together.’ The fact is most of the first tranche of new free schools look like they’re mostly going to be in buildings purchased for the purpose, using government money (which is as we know limited). It is still not clear how much money will be added to the initial pot for Free schools. The Partnerships for Schools quango, looks to have a new lease of life on the property front though. It had supported the recently abolished BSF schools building programme, and had looked to be on its way out as part of the government’s quango cull having been heavily criticised for presiding over its waste and profilgacy. It also caught the blame for embarrassing the Secretary of State when he issued a flawed list of school building projects that were being cancelled or put on ice. Now, however it seems to have found redemption and been given the job of finding buildings for these new schools. This Government like all before it talk tough on quangos but then keeps most of them in place. Its a painstaking task seeking the right place for a new school and the Partnership for Schools is hardly renowned for its speed of delivery. For a time the Government thought that the big Academy chains might move in and help but although they have the expertise and mostly a pretty sound track record they are short of capital and are heavily committed already to the Academies scheme. They would also encounter too the problem of a shortage of appropriate buildings. Yes, some are backing Free schools, but on a small scale. (There aren’t very many of them)

And the Government’s flirtation with the big chains, although making much sense in terms of seeking to secure efficient delivery, has sent out confusing signals to parents groups intending to set up schools. The original Free schools scheme came out of the Big Society mould. It was conceived to encourage and empower groups of local parents fed up with the choices being offered in local schooling to set up their own schools –essentially community driven and from the bottom up. But new regulations look to make it much harder for parents to do this (see above). Indeed some critics are now asking what the Free schools initiative is for, if its main raison d’ Etre appears to have been put on the backburner. Its future looks to be as a very junior sub set of the Academies scheme. But what some people forget is that the DFE is not awash with capital and this while obviously affecting the FS initiative it will also impact over the medium term on the Academies scheme too.

Looking to the private sector for support in terms of both expertise and investment could provide one way out but has been dismissed, it seems, by the government as too politically contentious. Indeed the private sector is generally fairly miffed that the Government is perceived to be cold shouldering them more generally in other public policy areas too. The Cabinet office, the Department taking a lead on public sector reforms and procurement, trips over itself in championing mutuals, co-ops, social enterprises and the third sector (look at its Business Plan) but barely mentions the private sector. Essential though the charities and the third sector are in public service delivery, it is surely bizarre that this Government appears to have turned its back on the private sector, at a time when public money is in short supply and those responsible for delivery are suffering significant cut backs. Joined up thinking it  certainly isn’t. Jonn Elledge editor of Education Investor wrote in the New Statesman (9 May): ‘The government wants three things: to create enough new schools to really shake up state education; to keep the profiteers out; and to keep the cost to the taxpayer down. But it can’t win on all three fronts. One of them is going to have to give. And right now, it looks like the revolution will be the one to get tossed aside.’ Possibly overstated-but there is no doubt that the Free schools initiative is facing significant short term challenges.

Note Katharine Barbalsingh has just formally launched a campaign in support of the setting up of a Free school in Lambeth, backed by Wellington College.

THREE CUPS OF TEA MESSAGE REMAINS SOUND

THREE CUPS OF SPIN ?

And a media feeding frenzy too

But educating girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan remains a worthy aim

Comment

Greg Mortenson, the former climber and author of the bestselling Three Cups of Tea,   a 2006 memoir about building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, has been attacked, on both sides of the pond, for inconsistencies and alleged fabrications in his book (which has sold 4 million copies).  US generals  have admired the book as has Laura Bush. US president Barack Obama even donated part of his Nobel prize money to the CAI charity run by Mortensen.  However, Jon Krakauer, a writer of popular mountaineering books and an early donor to Mr Mortenson’s charity, CAI, levelled the charges  last month in an e-book called Three Cups of Deceit. The deceit lies allegedly in three areas. First, writes Mr Krakauer, the narrative that opens Mr Mortenson’s book is untrue. In 1993, Mr Mortenson claims, he turned back from an attempt to climb K-2, lost his guide and wandered into a desperately poor mountain village. What he did subsequently was informed by his wish to repay villagers for saving his life.  Mr Krakauer says he didn’t see that village until much later. Second, says Mr Krakauer, Mr Mortenson fabricated an account of his kidnapping at the hands of the Taliban. Third, he inaccurately describes his schools as being on the “front lines of the War on Terror”, when the parts of Pakistan in which many are found are relatively calm. (Pakistans border with Afghanistan -calm? Come again!) An airing of Mr Krakauer’s charges on the US  Sunday evening television news show 60 Minutes,last month , has brought  what is termed ‘the scandal’ to the attention of people who may not have known much about  Mr Mortenson’s book to begin with. Mortensen claims, and there is irrefutable evidence that this is the case,  to have opened many schools focused on educating girls and young  women, often where no formal  education had been available to them before . There has been a feeding frenzy  in the press about untruths, half-truths, exaggerations and unreliable chronology. He has been accused among other things of neo-imperialism and spending too much of donors money on marketing his book and promoting the Mortensen brand. But it is clear that Mortensens organisation, CAI, has delivered many new schools, with local community involvement.  The fact is that despite his many obvious flaws and naivety (which comes across in his book) here is a driven man who has helped establish schools in very difficult, backward and dangerous areas, often where no schools had been before. He was an infidel amongst Muslims, who clearly put himself in personal danger in pursuit of his mission.  His book’s basic message isn’t to do with championing an American brand of imperialism, as some have claimed . It is altogether much more straightforward. That by building  schools – especially girls’ schools – in Afghanistan and Pakistan  local people, and particularly moderate tribal elders, can rescue and protect their people from extremists and the influence of fundamentalism, while fostering sustained local economic development, better health and quality of life – not least because educated women are powerful agents and catalysts for change and progress. All this can be achieved with a bottom-up approach, largely avoiding local bureaucrats, politicians and the military, who tend to be either inefficient, brutal or corrupt, or all three. Hopefully his book, which is an uplifting read and (was) a much-needed antidote to cynicism, can still, when the smoke clears, demonstrate these essential truths.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP-AND ITS IMPACT ON OUTCOMES

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP-AND ITS IMPACT ON OUTCOMES

Research looks at leadership and the balance between generic and educational leadership required to improve school outcomes

Comment

Vivian Robinson of Auckland University has published an interesting paper- Putting Education Back into Educational Leadership- on the effects and impact of school Leadership on school outcomes.  Educational leadership research is increasingly focused, she says ,on the role that school leaders play in the improvement of teaching and learning and on the relationship between various types of leadership and student outcomes.

This new focus represents a substantial shift from the prior emphasis in educational leadership research on the generic leadership and management skills of school leaders. Generic leadership and management skills are those that apply in any kind of organisation.   Her paper begins by examining the extent to which existing research and theory on educational leadership provides high quality information about how to increase the impact of school leaders on a range of valued student outcomes. Having concluded that this body of research is only tangentially relevant to the issue, an alternative approach to the development of theories of educational leadership is proposed. Robinson employs the logic of backward mapping, and argues that theories of educational leadership should be grounded in our best evidence about effective  teaching i.e. teaching which has positive impacts on students. The next step in this backward mapping process involves identifying the classroom, school and policy conditions that enable and inhibit effective teaching. Using this logic, an agenda for educational leadership is developed which comprises strengthening the conditions that enable effective teaching and weakening the impact of those that inhibit or prevent it. The author then briefly considers the leadership content knowledge needed to pursue this agenda, and the major challenges involved. Robinson concludes that school leaders need opportunities to extend and up-date both the breadth and depth of their pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge. Principals, for example, cannot competently and confidently lead instructional improvement, even with substantial delegation of responsibilities, without in-depth and up-to-date knowledge of at least one curriculum area. And that school leaders need a balanced programme of professional preparation and development to support them in this new work. While there is a place for   ‘generic leadership’, the balance between generic and educational leadership needs to shift in favour of the latter if school leaders are to get the learning opportunities they need to support this work.  Finally rather than treating instructional leadership as an additional responsibility, existing  leadership practices need to be adapted so they are better aligned to the overall goal of instructional improvement.

Viviane M. J. Robinson ;Faculty of Education,-The University of Auckland

http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/about/centres/uacel/docs/Putting%20Education%20Back%20into%20Educational%20Leadership.pdf

ACADEMIES ACT-WHAT DOES IT CHANGE?

ACADEMIES ACT ROUND UP

The Academies Bill received Royal Assent on 27 July

What is the current status of Academies and free schools post the Academies Act?

Consultation

Governors have to consult whom they believe is appropriate during the process of transforming into an Academy. Consultation can take place between being granted an Academy order and   signing the Academy funding agreement. The Government expects governors to consult parents. Government amendments were made to require the Secretary of State to consider whether establishing an ‘additional school’ (i.e. a free school) would have an impact on maintained schools and existing academies, and to require those who wish to set up an additional school to consult with persons thought to be ‘ appropriate’.

Governing bodies

All Academies  had been required to have one elected parent and one governor appointed by the local authority. Beyond this, Academies were  free to determine their own governance arrangements. There will now  following the new  Act be  at least two parents on Governing bodies of Academies .

Admissions Code

Academies must abide by the Admissions code.  Nick Gibb said – ‘We are committed to fair admissions through the code, and all academies will be bound by it through the model funding agreement’.

Fair access protocols are established by the local authority and the requirement to take part in them is set out in the school admissions code. Since participation is a requirement of the code, it is applied to academies in the same way as other aspects of the admissions code, through the funding agreement. This means that academies, along with all maintained schools in a local area, will take their fair share of hard-to-place pupils, including those previously excluded from other schools.  Gibb said that “The funding agreement is crystal clear about the compliance requirements.” The admissions code requires all schools, including academies, to give priority to looked-after children when making decisions as to which children to admit. That does not change as a result of the Act.

Exclusions

Academies funding agreements require them to act in accordance with the law on exclusions as if the academy were a maintained school, and to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions.

New Schools Network

The NSN is acting as the first point of contact for groups wanting to set up a free school, and provides information and advice on the process of setting up a new school.

Free Schools – demand

Free schools,  known as additional schools in the Act, will have to show that there is a demand for  a new school in their local area .Nick Gibb said  “ A free school proposal will be required to demonstrate parental demand and support. Where there is such demand, we will not turn down the proposal simply to protect other local schools.” Gibb also said “ we expect groups to provide evidence of this demand, perhaps through a petition or a declaration from interested parties, but in every case demonstrating clear evidence of unmet local need, not just expressions of support”.

Free schools- local impact

Secretary of State will now be obliged by statute to take into account the impact on other schools of any new school established under the Bill. That is now in clause 9.

Free schools; Legal status

Free Schools will have the same legal requirements as academies. Free Schools are normally brand-new schools set up by charities, universities, business, community or faith groups, teachers and groups of parents where there is parental demand. Academies are usually a change to an existing maintained school.  Legally the structure is the same, and they are expected to meet the same requirements as other academies. Free Schools will also benefit from the same freedoms and flexibilities as academies,  see below:

Free schools and Independent schools

Independent schools can apply to become a Free School and become state-funded independent schools. These schools will need to meet the entry criteria – including an agreement that their admissions policy is in line with the Admissions Code, demonstrate they have a good record of success as an education provider and financial viability. Independent schools applying to become Free Schools will not be able to retain any existing academic selection admission arrangements.

Independent schools wanting to apply need to follow the outlined process and start by filling out the proposal form.

SEN

The Act tightens up the  requirement on SEN. Amendments to the Bill  in the Lords  gave children with special educational needs greater rights to admission to academies than existed in previous academies legislation, and new requirements for funding for low-incidence special needs have been added. One important   additional   fact  that emerged was  that there will be a Green paper in the autumn  on SEN which will look at SEN, more generally, and include LA, Academies  and free school support. The Government  also intend to review funding from 2011 onwards. It will be working closely with local authorities and other partners, and  the Minister confirmed “that we will give specific consideration to the funding of SEN services. A SEN advisory group is also being established.

Community Engagement, Cohesion

On community engagement, Gibb said the model  funding agreement specifically states that academies should be at the heart of the community and share facilities with it. In a concession the Government will add to the funding agreement ‘ an explicit requirement that academies will be required to be at the heart of their communities, to promote community cohesion and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community’

Local Authorities

The Act removes the requirement to consult the local authority before opening an academy

Charity Status

The Act deems academy trusts to be exempt charities. Meaning that they have Charity status but are not regulated by the Charity Commission

Reporting to Parliament

There will now be an annual report to Parliament on the Academies scheme.

Academy Freedoms

The ‘academy freedoms’ the Secretary of State has identified include:

freedom from local authority control

the ability to set their own pay and conditions for staff

freedom from following the National Curriculum

greater control of their budget

greater opportunities for formal collaboration with other public and private organisations

freedom to change the length of terms and school days

freedom to spend the money the local authority currently spends on their behalf

Academies Funding

The DFE academies website (FAQ section) states that the funding for existing schools converting to academy status will be based on the level of local authority funding already calculated for the school, plus additions for central services that would normally be provided by the local authority (LA) and to cover VAT. Grant payments to academies to replace local authority services will depend on the level of central expenditure in the LA, and may vary considerably from area to area. The DFE has produced a ready reckoner which gives schools an estimate of the funding they might receive. There will also be a contribution to the costs of the conversion process, which will be a flat-rate grant, normally £25,000. The Bill’s Impact Assessment estimated the average cost of conversion at £78,000 per academy or £66,000 without VAT. It added that the cost to the DFE could be reduced to £25,000 per academy if the rest of the costs were met from the existing balances of converting schools.

The Government has stressed that becoming an academy should not bring about a financial advantage or disadvantage to a school, rather the change is to enable converting schools to have greater freedom on how they use their budgets, and other freedoms. However, commentators have questioned the effect of the changes on non-academy local schools, the ability of local authorities to provide central services where many schools in an area become academies, and the funding implications where schools converting to academy status have surpluses or deficits, for example.

153 schools have said they wish  convert so far, which  includes about 45 primary schools, at least 12 faith schools and more than 20 grammar schools. Critics suggest this is a disappointing figure, but set against the figure of  the 200 Academies  currently up and running , it is in fact   reasonably impressive,  particularly given that the  original Academies scheme has been running for  over eight  years .

THE ACADEMIES ACT AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Post Academies Act

Balls  reveals  line of attack

Comment

There are two very different views about what the Academies  Act will mean for Local Authorities and their future role . Michael Gove quoted Tony Blair when questioned in the Commons second Reading of the Bill (19 July) about the future role of Local authorities. Tony Blair had   said  “The best local authorities already increasingly see their primary role as championing parents and pupils rather than being a direct provider of education. We need to see every local authority moving from provider to commissioner, so that the system acquires a local dynamism responsive to the needs of their communities and open to change and new forms of school provision. This will liberate local authorities from too often feeling the need to defend the status quo, so that instead they become the champions of innovation and diversity, and the partner of local parents in driving continuous improvement.” Gove added “ That was Tony Blair in October 2005-once again, an unimprovable argument.”

Ed Balls claims though that  the Act  entirely removes the local authority’s role in such commissioning. Balls, when Education Secretary ,shifted the goalposts to ensure  that local authorities were more engaged in the Academies programme, including sponsoring Academies, not the original vision conceived by Lord Adonis.

He says  that  the Act   deprives schools with the biggest behaviour and special educational needs challenges of local authority support for special needs provision, the funding for which will go to those with the fewest such challenges; it permits selective schools to convert to Academy status, which risks the unplanned expansion of selective education; it removes any proper requirement to consult local authorities or the community before the creation of an Academy and centralises power in the hands of the Secretary of State over the future of thousands of schools without adequate provision for local accountability. He believes that  the role for the local authority in planning places, allocating capital or guaranteeing fairness or social cohesion is entirely removed. Balls believes that the Act does not extend  Labours Academy scheme  as the last Government ensured that academies were in the poorest communities and were turning around underperforming schools    … the coalition  Governments policy on the other hand  is about outstanding schools supporting only other outstanding schools-schools that are disproportionately in higher income areas with fewer children with disabilities or special educational needs. The reality, he said in the Second Reading,  is that this  legislation l gives extra resources to higher-performing schools in more affluent areas while at the same time removing any obligation for consultation with parents, local authorities or external sponsors. Balls pointed out that the only obligation on governors was to consult with those whom they thought ‘ appropriate’ .

Balls  is overstating the view that this will  lead to   the demise of local authorities role in education .

Authorities  don’t of course  run schools  but there are grounds for assuming that they will continue to have a significant schools  support role, if in  much leaner form  . You will find that most of the 20,000 Primary schools and a majority of Secondary schools  will  still rely heavily  on LA support.  153  schools are thought to  want to  convert by September although the process will take longer ie from an order being made to signing a funding agreement. More generally  there have been  1,900 expressions of interest, 862 have been from primary schools, and 529 of the 862 have been judged by Ofsted to be outstanding.

Academies and free schools will of course be free to shop around for  support services and this allows scope for LAs to compete with other suppliers. The Government has made it clear that, as part of the agreement between an Academy Trust and the Secretary of State the school must show that it  will  co-operate and collaborate  with other schools  in the area  . There are safeguards  too in place to protect SEN provision so Academies cannot simply opt out of their obligations to SEN pupils. Academies are required to participate in their local fair access protocols. Indeed,  as things stand,  Academies take a significantly higher proportion of children with SEN, than other maintained schools  .Clause 1(7) of the Bill, actually  strengthens the position of children with SEN and imposes on new academies all the obligations on admissions and exclusions that apply to maintained schools.

On exclusions Nick Gibb claims that Academies are less likely to exclude than other schools although others dispute this. What seems to happen in practice  is new Heads tend to exclude pupils when they take over a school but this settles down fairly quickly once they have imposed their new regime. The Government has also agreed to take into account how a new school impacts on other schools in the area, But Nick Gibb  is sensitive to any attempts to obstruct the establishment of free schools and he quoted Lord Adonis “The idea that parents should not be able to access new or additional school places in areas where the schools are not providing good quality places simply because the provision of those places will cause detriment to other schools fundamentally ignores the interests of parents and their right to have a decent quality school to send their children to. If there is not such a decent quality school and someone is prepared to do something substantive about it, they should be applauded”.-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1264.]

What is less clear, though is how the funding will work and the full implications to schools and LA funding. . Outstanding schools are being encouraged to become Academies and the best Local Authorities tend to  have the most outstanding schools. Clearly if these schools  opt out of LA control  then the Local authority will lose significant funding. But the worst authorities , those with the fewest outstanding schools, will not lose  nearly as much as the best authorities. That doesn’t seem to be very fair

Also, as one LA school improvement expert  pointed out to me it appears that Academies will  not be  charged for the vast number of DfE staff devoted to support  the Academies  programmes costs  in sustaining their  infrastructure including pensions etc. If this is the case then  surely the Academies leaving the respective  LAs should  now have to  pay for the central  Government overheads that  directly benefit them.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100719/debtext/100719-0004.htm