Clause 74
9:30 am
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Despite protestations to the contrary, it is clear to most people in the academies movement and to most political commentators that the current Secretary of State is not a proponent of academies. He professes to support them because it is politically expedient for him to do so. When he was an adviser he sought to undermine reforms that promoted autonomy and choice in the public services. Since he became Secretary of State we have seen a gradual erosion of the elements of autonomy for academies that are the essential ingredients of their success. For instance, he has required more involvement by local authorities in their sponsorship, establishment and operation and he has reduced freedoms over the curriculum. The Bill reduces these freedoms further still.
In a letter to the Minister of 23 February, Mike Butler, chairman of the Independent Academies Association, generally reflects the wider view among other academy principals when he says:
“It appears that with every consultation, each missive and even new legislation from the DCSF there comes further erosion of the independent status of academies.”
Daniel Moynihan of the Harris Federation made similar points in his evidence session, when he said:
“We want to be fully accountable and fully in the daylight for our performance, and for that we need to be responsible for decisions about services and how they are used, and not have them forced on us.”
Later, in response to a question about the possibility of moving academies back to local authority control, Dr. Moynihan said:
“My answer would be that local authorities have called in academy sponsors because the various mechanisms that they have deployed in the past to improve the schools that they offer us as academies have not worked.”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c.46-48, Q117 and Q126.]
It is clear from my discussions with academy sponsors that concerns over autonomy reside at the top of their list of worries about current Government policy. Amendment 26, therefore, seeks to embed in the legislation a requirement that the body that oversees them should have the key objective of protecting the autonomy of academies. If the Minister genuinely believes in the academies programme, rather than just paying lip service to it, he should have no problem supporting this amendment.