Academies:coming out for independence
1 May 2006
Maybe it's the name. Maybe it's the "independent" badging. Either way, ever since the first one opened, Academies have provoked an ambivalent response from HMC. What is it about these institutions, seen by some as a New Labour folly and by others as inspirational, that both perturbs and attracts in equal measure?
Only four years ago Tony Blair's target of establishing 200 "city academies" (as they were then called) by 2010 seemed almost laughable. Now, according to the architect of Labour's school reforms (Andrew Adonis), that target will be met three years early. But the early days of Academies were far from trouble-free. Fierce teacher union opposition to the new hybrid of publicly-funded but privately-sponsored schools greeted their birth. Then the "honours for cash" allegations last Easter cast a long cloud over their infancy as government advisers were accused of offering honours as bribes to wealthy businessmen to sponsor academies. Meanwhile researchers fanned the flames with claims (and then counter-claims) that standards in Academies were not improving any faster than in "ordinary" state schools. On this, the jury remains out. An independent evaluation of Academies by Price Waterhouse Coopers in July also gave mixed messages about their progress, in spite of the five billion pounds invested so far.
What is clear, however, is that Academies are here to stay. Many are over-subscribed with three times the applicants to places available. With 27 in operation in 2006, 18 more just opened and another 87 in the pipeline, their future is secure, especially after a legal challenge by two parents opposing new Academies in London failed in the High Court. Changes to the rules, announced in August, now allow any sponsor's investment (normally £2 million), to be made over a longer period and spent on education innovation, rather than an up-front payment for new buildings. That the Conservatives seem just as enthusiastic as Labour means that Academies will survive any change of government. So, love them or loathe them, we need to get used to, and engage with, this new breed of "state" independent schools.
From the beginning, HMC as an organisation, like the rest of the independent sector, has seemed unsure how exactly to respond to this new breed of schools. From one perspective, Academies represent a full-frontal challenge to our traditional assumptions about the concept of independence. At the same time, as a sector we already embrace what might be called "quasi-independent" schools: grammar schools in Northern Ireland, as well as those in receipt of central government grants for specialisms such as music. So, ought we not to be more enthusiastic about Academies?
Three years ago, the last time HMC formally debated Academies, members came to the conclusion that we should be "neutral", neither for nor against. Yet, from the beginning, individual members have shown much greater interest and warmth (and not just when being wooed by Tony Blair at Downing Street). During his year as Chairman, Ed Gould even proposed that HMC (as an organisation) might sponsor an Academy for 14-19 year olds, with a clear vocational mission. His reasoning at the time was simple. This would not only keep open the political doors which the 2002 A level fiasco had already pushed ajar; it would also challenge public stereotypes of what HMC was and represented. It would, moreover, stand members in good stead when the cool breezes of the Charities Bill began to blow. A bold vision that foundered on the pragmatics of raising the £2 million needed in sponsorship. That Ed Gould has subsequently gone on to be deeply involved in the Academies programme, as a board member of the United Learning Trust (the Anglican charity that has sponsored eleven Academies so far), is a clear sign that his (personal) interest and commitment was more than ephemeral.
Other HMC members, too, have "come out" on Academies. Although there is no formal log of which Heads and schools are involved in supporting local Academies, Andrew Adonis recently said that 27 independent schools are now involved with Academies in one way or another. One of these, Keith Wilkinson (King's Canterbury) shared his experiences of sponsoring a new Academy in Kent with HMC Committee in September. The most striking thing about his presentation to Committee was just how time-consuming (and, often, frustrating) the whole process had been, particularly in dealing with DfES bureaucracy. Although King's has put no direct money into the Academy, the contribution of staff time over the last two years is estimated to be in the region of half a million pounds.
Two former HMC Heads are now also Principals of Academies: Peter Hullah (Northampton Academy) and Fiona Cordeaux (Walthamstow Academy). One current member (Steven Patriarca), is in the process of leading his school into the brave new world of "state" independence, with William Hulme's Grammar School aiming to become an Academy from September 2007. So far, there have been no formal test cases of whether Academies are sufficiently independent to be allowed to join one of the ISC associations. But it is already a question being asked. As Stephen Patriarca (Head of William Hulme's Grammar School) put it in the last edition of Conference & Common Room:
Is ISC the Independent Schools Council or is it the Independent Fee-Paying Schools Council? Can ISC accept that there are degrees of independence? Could ISC build bridges with such possible affiliates as the Academies or Independent Trust Schools?
So, what do we really mean and understand by "independence" and how should we respond to the increasing "blairing" (as one journalist put it) of old distinctions between "state" and "independent"?
Over the summer I asked a number of people with inside knowledge about the freedoms enjoyed by Academies and how they see them developing over the next few years. While Academies currently lack the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by most HMC schools (particularly control of admissions and exclusions) they do have several distinctive features which set them clearly apart from other maintained schools. For example, they are free of LEA control (though not from its influence). They receive direct funding from DfES and own their own buildings. They are not required to follow the National Curriculum. They can set their own employment terms and conditions, as well as term dates, length of working days, pattern of lessons and so on.
For many observers, their independence will be the key to their success. As one of those asked commented:
Independence is crucial. It is very ‘freeing'. It's about and around losing LEA control.
And how will Academies impact on the independent sector? Another respondent was unequivocal:
I believe that there is no intention to undermine the independent sector. The main strategy has two focal points:
- to break up the monolithic public provision of education
- to address the social and economic consequences of the growing number of young people not in education, employment or training and to provide life enhancing opportunities for those living in deprived areas.
By freeing up the monolithic public provision of education, it allows the independent sector to engage more easily with the maintained sector in various ways, which some HMC schools are already doing.
In September, I was privileged (with two other HMC Heads) to visit Northampton Academy, one of the United Learning Trust's first Academies, and where Peter Hullah is Principal. While the ULT's motto is "The best in everyone", Northampton Academy's strapline is "From satisfactory to outstanding". On the basis of the visit and discussions with staff, pupils and the Principal, I was left in no doubt that Northampton Academy is already on the way to achieving its aspiration. I, for one, am proud to "come out" for Academies, both the concept and the reality, particularly where they are supported by an infrastructure such as the United Learning Trust, which brings together in one family both private and state independent schools. In this context it is interesting to note that C & CR carried an article by Sir Ewan Harper (Chief Executive of the ULT) over two years ago encouraging HMC schools to help the emerging Academies. His comments back in the summer of 2004 are just as relevant today:
Private education has an honourable record of bringing disadvantaged young people into its centres of educational excellence; perhaps the time is now right to take our educational excellence out to disadvantaged young people. I hope that the example the ULT is setting may inspire HMC schools to think about playing a part in the Academy founding movement.
So I end with an invitation to anyone reading this article also to "come out" also and put your cards on the table. Where do you, personally, stand on Academies? Are we right as an association and as a sector to be neutral and agnostic? Or should we be brave and bold in helping to nurture this new breed of aspiring independent schools? Over to you!