Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

We now move on to discuss the position of academies within this legislation. As the Bill stands, Clause 75 allows the Secretary of State to require the YPLA to enter into arrangements with the Secretary of State. These arrangements may require the YPLA to carry out specified functions of the Secretary of State in relation to academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts. We on these Benches believe strongly that the YPLA is not the appropriate body to take responsibility for the extremely important task of supporting the success of academies. According to the Government’s own description, the YPLA is a body being set up primarily to, ""support and enable local authorities to carry out their new responsibilities"." The summary of the Bill’s proposals which the Government issued then describes how the YPLA will perform this function. It is only when we reach the final sentence on the YPLA that it states: ""The YPLA will also perform a number of functions on the Secretary of State’s behalf in relation to academies"." That speaks volumes. From this description it appears that academies have been included under the auspices of the YPLA because the Government needed to place them somewhere. As there are around 400 academies, of course we acknowledge that we must seek the best way forward. But this is not it. In this Bill academies have been pushed under the YPLA for no other reason than that the Government are attempting to avoid a difficult thought process. The YPLA is a body being set up to lead local authorities in their education functions in relation to those aged between 16 and 19. It therefore seems entirely inappropriate that it should also have functions relating to academies, most of which have pupils between the ages of 11 and 18; some even have primary schools attached. Surely the Minister can see that the YPLA is therefore entirely inappropriate for academies. Will she inform the Committee of any other ideas that were raised regarding the status and position of academies? The academies have raised serious concerns on the issue of independence, and our amendments attempt to alleviate them. Amendment 162 would mean that the Secretary of State can enter into an agreement with an academy only if it has agreed. Amendment 163 would require the YPLA to support the objective of academy autonomy when exercising the specified functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Amendment 164 would insert a right of appeal if an academy believes that the YPLA has made an unreasonable decision. Amendment 166 would provide exemptions by removing the power to specify that particular functions may include those set out in Section 482 of the Education Act 1996 dealing with the setting up and running of academies, and Section 35A relating to academies and land. Amendment 168 would remove the power of the YPLA to enter into any agreement with the Secretary of State connected with the issue of monitoring and assessing school performance. This is a job for Ofsted. If the Government feel that Ofsted is failing in its duties, any changes introduced should surely be to improve Ofsted itself. We have encountered great concern among the academies about independence. That the Government are moving down this unnecessary path is particularly worrying given that they claim to be supportive of academies. It should be noted that there was no proposal in last year’s White Paper for the YPLA to be responsible for academies. There were no discussions at that point with any major academy sponsor. Can the Minister account for this incredibly important omission? Furthermore, Mike Butler, the chairman of the Independent Academies Association, wrote a letter to the then Schools Minister, Jim Knight, in which he set out the academies’ concern that, during the past couple of years: ""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"." He also commented that academies were established to, ""turn around endemic educational underperformance in the most challenging of contexts in respect of socio-economic deprivation. To do so, it was recognised that new organisations had to be established that would be freed from the constraints of Local Authority control, from the old governance arrangements and from the vagaries of local bureaucracy"." We are concerned that Clause 75 instead reduces the autonomy of academies and ties them more closely into local authority control. In this vein, the Minister has been keen to assure us that the YPLA will have no control over funding decisions, but academies are concerned that it will, albeit through indirect routes. They are worried that local authorities will be able to influence what courses schools can offer under their "planning and commissioning" hat. As schools are funded according to the courses that they offer, local authorities will have the power to influence funding in this way. A key concern, therefore, is that local authorities, which are accountable to local councillors for the success of schools, are more likely to choose their own schools rather than independent academies for specific courses. Amendment 155B probes the status of academies with regard to sixth form provision. As I understand it, under the Bill as it stands, an academy would negotiate its initial sixth form provision as part of a funding agreement with DCSF. However, any expansion would be dealt with through the local authorities or the arbitration of the YPLA. Academy associations and federations have expressed concern that the expansion of an academy to include a new sixth form might initially appear uneconomic compared with the economies of scale of, for example, expanding a large FE college; indeed, this is already happening. A recent example from a London borough demonstrates the point extremely well. It was hoped that an academy could be set up in the borough, but the local authority stated that opening an 11 to 18 academy to replace an 11 to 16 school did not fit with the local commissioning plan. In fact, the reason that the local authority refused permission was that it was worried that the success of the academy would undermine a post-16 college nearby, which would not be accepted locally. What is to stop new providers being thwarted in other areas when trying to open post-16 provision by local authorities tied up in local politics? In our previous debate on Amendment 102A, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that we should be reassured that decisions would be made that "put pupils first". However, academy federations have expressed concern that although the LSC is already subject to this rule, this has not stopped poor decisions which have prevented academies expanding. The noble Baroness pointed out that Ministers would have to consult with local authorities, and that to date no academies without sixth forms have been opened. Considering that these changes are so new, that is not surprising, but it does not preclude it happening in the future. We do not think that all local authorities would act in this way; some might act in a more favourable manner. Nevertheless, we do not want to countenance any risk to the success of the academies programme. It therefore seems inappropriate to place academies under an unsuitable body while also risking the independence which is so integral to their success. Academies are concerned that YPLA oversight could lead to increased local authority influence and so align them with the YPLA’s broader plan. They are worried that the YPLA might not take into account the wider benefits of school reform which would bolster the success of academies and help to reverse the endemic underachievement in areas that are most in need of achievement. This ties in with the fact that it remains unclear in the Bill which functions may be transferred. The Minister will understand that this uncertainty and lack of clarity is a major concern for academy federations. They fear that these clauses open up the possibility of losing contact with DCSF advisers who—I am sure the Minister will agree—have been crucial to the success of academy schools. Will the Minister offer any reassurances? I do not wish to delay the Committee unduly on this matter. Our Amendment 169ZB, however, is designed to show that more should be done to clear away barriers and reduce constraints on academies. To this end we would argue that instead of building on legislation to increase control over them in any way, it should be made easier to set up new academies that are free from the control of local authorities. The benefits of this are clear. New academies were set up in Hackney, for example, a London borough with a most troubled educational history. These schools, which have been allowed to thrive under their own auspices, have been largely responsible for Hackney’s rise from sixteenth to fifth in the value-added educational rankings of London boroughs. These success stories are the reason why we think that it is even more important to preserve the independence of the academy institutions. We would push it further and encourage the setting up of new academies as free, non-selective schools that would be set up by, for example, existing educational providers, charities, trusts, voluntary groups, philanthropists, and co-operatives on behalf of parents and pupils. All of them would be independent of local authorities. That would help ensure that standards rise across the country. Parents would have much more choice about the school that their children attended. Does the Minister have sympathy with this notion? If so, can she reconcile it with the seeming desire to place academies further under local authority control? In conclusion, we are worried that academies will find their innovation, success and freedom obstructed by the Bill. We wholeheartedly support the academies movement but find it difficult to support a measure with which they have so many problems. I beg to move.