City Academies

City academies are proving broadly popular with parents, but are facing a number of "significant" problems, according to a report commissioned by ministers.

 

The report found that 66 per cent of 433 parents thought private sponsorship of up to £2m had "made a difference" at their school. But it said bullying was still a problem in some academies.

 

The government wants 200 academies - which replace failing urban schools at an average cost of £25m each - in place or under construction by 2010.

 

The report, carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), pointed to a series of "not insignificant challenges" faced by those already up and running.

 

Opposition Response: The Liberal Democrats

 

Commenting on the DfES report on the first eleven CityAcademies, Liberal Democrat spokesman for education and skills Edward Davey MP said:

 

"It is staggering that there wasn't more improvement in these schools. Despite their extra money some Academies are still failing to improve and have even been put into special measures.

 

"The report doesn't tell the whole story, because ministers aren't properly evaluating their latest pet scheme. The report doesn't look properly at the impact of academies on neighbouring schools.

 

"We need a proper analysis of this idea, and that requires a controlled experiment. If ministers are so confident of their scheme, they should give these huge cash injections and freedom from Whitehall to other schools and see how they do compared to City Academies."

 

Stakeholder Response: Secondary Heads Association

 

 

 

In response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on academies, SHA says the government must not be too quick to make judgements on the programme. SHA general secretary Dr John Dunford said: “The existing academies serve some of the most disadvantaged communities in England and people should not expect instant success. What is more important is long-term sustainable improvement. This cannot be achieved overnight.

 

“The critical success measure of academies is the extent to which they help to raise achievement in the local area. The government must ensure that these independent state schools work with the local family of schools. In particular they must work collaboratively with other schools on admissions and exclusions.

 

“The academy programme represents a huge investment of public funds with a relatively small input from the private sector. Therefore, it is essential that the government allows time to properly evaluate these first academies and is assured of their success before expanding the programme to 200.

 

“With its plans to expand the programme, the government appears to be targeting schools that are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. It is not true to say, as ministers have done, that academies are always replacing failing schools. Good schools should not be labelled as failing.”

 

Stakeholder Response: NUT

 

 

Commenting on the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on academies, Steve Sinnott, NUT general secretary, said: “It is remarkable that the DfES turns to expensive managements consultants for an overview of the quality of teaching and learning in academies instead of Ofsted. Indeed, Ofsted has been told to delay its first reports on them.

 

“There are disturbing issues which PWC highlight such as confusion over special educational needs, poor behaviour and bullying which had academies not been excluded from receiving local authority support could have been addressed.

 

“The government has sought to spin the most optimistic picture of the report but the fundamental criticisms remain. There has been a high turnover of head teachers and one of the first three academies has been placed in special measures. Even this highly spun report concedes that five out of the 11 academies covered have shown little or no improvement in performance.

 

“Academies are not accountable to their local communities despite spending millions of  pounds of taxpayers money. Only their sponsors and the DfES can have a say in the way they run. They do not have to employ qualified teachers.

 

“The government is blackmailing education authorities into establishing academies in their areas. It is holding back money to build new schools from those authorities which refuse to toe the line.

 

“There is nothing surprising in the finding that pupils and parents support their new schools. The same would be the result if parents and pupils of any new school were asked the same questions.” 

 

Stakeholder Response: The ATL

 

 

Commenting on the PwC Academies Evaluation 2nd Annual Report issued today, Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) said:

 

“Members of ATL share the government’s aim to raise standards in schools across the country. However, we have grave reservations about the government’s determination to introduce further academies while their effectiveness remains unproven.

 

“There is a fundamental debate to be had about who is in control of academies - who should determine the vision and education direction of these schools; who should control the pedagogy and who should determine the content of the curriculum.

 

“ATL is concerned about the undue level of control handed to unelected, largely unvetted individuals or businesses. There is an astonishing lack of public accountability and a lack of openness across the academies programme despite the large amount of public funds going into each academy.

 

“We have called on the DfES to re-evaluate the academies programme and address the very significant criticisms being voiced by the education community.”