Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I am quite sure that all local authorities in this country, whether they be Conservative authorities or not, work closely with the Government, but the thrust of Conservative policy on this issue is very clear to all local authorities. It is that the impetus for creating a new academy will come from those groups that I have identified. That is where the impetus will come from, and a Conservative Government will make it much easier for those groups to establish academies, particularly in the areas of greatest need. Whenever I have had discussions with academy providers, the same issue has arisen again and again, as the autonomy of the academies programme is being undermined. There is a strong sense that although the Secretary of State may pay lip service to the movement and has a Minister of State who is clearly passionate about academies, the Secretary of State himself does not fully embrace the principle that professional freedom brings higher standards and better schools. The Bill unquestionably continues that trend by transferring academy arrangements to the YPLA. The Minister is going to give a quango, whose primary responsibility is the funding of 16-to-19 education, a position of authority over academies. We have consistently argued that this is inappropriate because it will transfer management of these schools to a body whose primary responsibility lies in a largely unrelated area. As my noble Friend Baroness Verma said in the other place:"““A body that ties academies into local authorities and which deals specifically with education for people between 16 and 19 is not appropriate. First, academies thrive on their independence and freedom from local authorities. Secondly, the age range of ""academies is most commonly 11 to 18, and some even have primary schools attached.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 53.]" Why should we assume that an organisation designed to provide funding for 16-to-19 education will be an effective supervisor of academies that educate children from the age of 11 or even three? The issues at stake and the expertise required will be very different. The autonomy of academies is essential to their success, which means that any oversight function needs to be arranged so that this principle is not threatened. Why, therefore, has this function been given to a body that has not been specifically designed to discharge it? There is a very real danger that the YPLA will interfere in the work of academies, particularly if members and component local authorities are ideologically opposed to the academies movement. In my experience, that tends to be Labour, not Conservative, local authorities, as intimated by the Minister. That is why we and many academy providers have consistently argued that the YPLA should not be able to enter into academy arrangements. Dr. Daniel Moynihan of the Harris Federation said in evidence to the Bill Committee in March:"““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.””––[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 46, Q117.]" In response to a question about 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… It does not make sense to return those schools to local authorities.””––[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 48, Q126.]" Dr. Moynihan's major concern relates to the attitude that the YPLA would take to academies establishing sixth forms, and whether it would try to prevent them from doing so because of the competition that that might create with established sixth forms. As he said:"““In one local authority, we were told… that we could not open sixth forms in two of our academies. It was a particularly poor part of London in terms of the staying-on rate, and the reason why we were told that was that it did not fit with the plan. Four years later we have 400 sixth-formers and an outstanding sixth form, but nothing else has changed in the area. As in that case, we would want to be sure that we had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and that it was clear that we could not necessarily be blocked by whatever the local plan was if it was not an entirely sensible and objective one.""We have experienced difficulties on other occasions when local authorities have not wanted an academy to open for political reasons and in order to protect underperforming local provision.”” ––[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 44, Q108.]" The response from the Minister in another place, Lady Morgan, was sympathetically expressed but ultimately unhelpful.