IOE Blog
Expert opinion from IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society
Expert opinion from IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society.
IOE social media
IOE podcasts
IOE Blog »
Select Committee Academies report: a clear-headed action plan for a new Secretary of State
By Blog Editor, IOE Digital, on 28 January 2015
Toby Greany
Back in 2006-07 I acted as special advisor to the House of Commons Education Select Committee for an enquiry on Building Schools for the Future. Labour's Barry Sheerman MP was the committee's longstanding chair back then and it was fascinating to watch him work with a disparate group of MPs to achieve consensus on the findings and recommendations after a year or more of evidence-gathering.
Barry used to say that the Committee became more dangerous as an enquiry progressed. His point was that the MPs may be generalists, but they quickly become sufficiently expert in any given area to be able to home in on the fundamental issues. Yet, re-reading the report now, it seems remarkably quiet on the problems of bureaucracy and waste that Michael Gove MP used as his justification for closing the BSF programme when he became Secretary of State three years later.
Is that because the Committee missed the critical issues on BSF? Or was the report toned down by a Labour controlled Select Committee to avoid embarrassment to the government of the day? Or did Michael Gove over-amplify the issues as an excuse to save money and break with the past?
I don't know the answer, but my point is that Select Committee reports are tremendously tricky things to write: they must comment on a fast moving policy area, where the evidence is inevitably still emerging, and where political sensitivities can be acute.
Given which, I think the most recent Select Committee report on Academies and free schools is a remarkably clear-headed document and a testament to the chairing skills of Graham Stuart MP. The report includes a strong analysis of the changes that have happened since 2010 and the evidence-base that underpins them. Importantly, it recognises that this evidence reflects variable performance, is still emerging and is, as yet, far from conclusive.
The message is that policy makers must focus on evaluating change and learning as they go, rather than assuming they have all the answers. The Department for Education comes in for remarkably forthright and sustained criticism here for appearing to lose its objectivity: for example its evidence submission to the inquiry is described as "a sustained paean of praise to the success of the initiative"!
In making its analysis the committee recognises "the complex relationship (that exists) between attainment, autonomy, collaboration and accountability" and rightly avoids trying to unpick this relationship. What it does acknowledge is that academy freedoms are not a simple panacea and that most of these supposed freedoms are available to maintained schools anyway.
Instead the report homes in on many of the issues in the system that can and should be addressed whoever wins the election. How should academy chains be overseen and held accountable? How should the middle tier roles of local authorities, regional commissioners and other bodies be configured to ensure appropriate oversight? Are the incentives and brokerage systems right for school to school support and collaboration? What are the implications of the self-improving system for primary schools, where academisation has not taken hold? What should drive policy on free schools at a time when we face a massive rise in pupil numbers?
Will we look back at this report in years to come and ask if it missed the key issues? I suspect not. Academies are not a neatly defined policy like BSF that a new Secretary of State could choose to close down on day one. Whoever gets the job in May will need to grapple with a complex web of issues if they are to avoid an increasingly fractured two-tier, and potentially two-speed, school system. Particularly when put alongside the forthcoming ASCL Blueprint for a self-improving school system, which sets out a future vision, this report provides as good a road map as any to the issues they will face.
Also read: Toby Greany's blog about the research he and Jean Scott did for the inquiry on conflicts of interest.
Filed under Education policy, Schools
Tags: academies, Education Select Committee, free schools, Select Committee report on academies and free schools, Toby Greany
Maximizing the use and impact of the UK's longitudinal research data
Reception Baseline Assessment, algorithmic bias and the reification of 'ability'
Counting the benefits of mandatory Maths – and how to avoid making skills inequalities worse
IOE Blog in 2022: an age of anxiety with glimmers of hope
Giving voice to the under-served: how can we mitigate the Pandemic's impact on people from minoritised groups who have disabilities or chronic conditions?
Categories Select Category accountability and inspection (58) Arts in education (9) Ask a Professor (1) Childhood & early education (109) Chris Husbands (52) COVID-19 and education (101) Education and Covid-19 (2) Education policy (198) Employment and skills (30) Evidence-based policy (85) Further higher and lifelong education (150) ICT in education (42) International comparisons (105) International development (29) IOE at 120 (13) IOE debates (27) IOE news (1) Language and literacy (23) Leadership and management (81) Parents (17) Research matters (60) Schools (73) Social sciences and social policy (145) Special educational needs and psychology (52) Teacher education (22) Teachers (49) Teachers and teaching assistants (53) Teaching, learning, curriculum & assessment (283) Uncategorized (60) young people (72)
Tweets by IOE_London
More IOE blogs
Centre for Education and International Development (CEID)
Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO)
Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS)
Cohort and Longitudinal Studies Enhancement Resources (CLOSER)
Global Youth
IOE Library
IOE Student Blog
Science and career aspirations (ASPIRES)
Youth Equity + STEM