Socialist Resistance : SR47 - Sept’ber 2007

Education

TUC report points movement in wrong direction

Fighting New Labour’s academies
Richard Hatcher

The TUC’s report on academies, “A new direction”, published in July 2007, argues for “a new direction for the programme that would lead to a more positive engagement by all stakeholders and a more equitable distribution of the educational benefits for disadvantaged communities in particular.” (p4).

It advocates a number of reforms, including more representation for parents, school staff and local authorities on governing bodies, and recognition of unions and national agreements.

But in exchange for these concessions - which are certainly significant ones - the report is prepared to accept the continuing role of private sponsors in running academies. In fact the report does not even state that it is opposed to such sponsors continuing to have majority control of Academy governing bodies.

The 2005 TUC Congress passed a resolution calling for opposition to academies, consideration of a national demonstration, and “meetings with affiliates and others supportive of a campaign against the establishment of academies”.

The resolution was never put into practice, but now even the pretence of resistance has been abandoned.

There are two reasons for this.

The first is the belief that opposing academies is a lost cause. This month will see a total of 83 Academies open in 51 Local Authorities, with a further 50 projected to open in September 2008.

The TUC, never in favour of the sort of militant campaign which could stop them, now sees them as a fait accompli.

The second reason is the belief that the Brown government marks a significant change of direction and the negative features of academies are being removed.

One of the promoters of the idea that Academies are becoming acceptable, even progressive, is Peter Wilby, ex-editor of the New Statesman, who claims in an article in the Times Educational Supplement (3 August) that “the central idea behind academies has indeed finished: the involvement of private business, which was expected to put in £2 million in sponsorship in return for control.”

Others point to the increasing role that local authorities are playing in the academy programme, even sponsoring some, to the new admissions code, to sponsorship by colleges and universities, and to the recent announcement that academies must follow the national curriculum in core subjects.

But this is just wishful thinking. Brown has made his aim clear: ‘the creation of more academies to upgrade skills in specific sectors of the economy’ (Financial Times 21 June). Most new academies have business sponsors, and the cut-price offer is designed to attract more. The admissions and curriculum requirements don’t represent a significant change.

Sponsorship by education institutions and local authorities still leaves control - and this is the key issue - in private hands, either business or religious organisations.

The TUC report holds up the United Learning Trust (the academies arm of the Church of England which runs nine academies and more in the pipeline) as a model because it operates “much like an LA”. But that is exactly the problem - unlike LAs, it is unelected and locally unaccountable. But the TUC report argues for “building a new consensus for a reform of the academies programme that would achieve genuine support from all parties.” (p4).

This proposed consensus is with the sponsors, but not with those who reject private sponsorship on principle. The latter are dismissed: “Too often, neither the analysis nor the response have been adequately informed or substantiated.” (p31). No reference is made in the report to the many local campaigns against academies, nor to the Anti- Academies Alliance . And of course the TUC resolution is forgotten.

In contrast, consensus with sponsors is desirable and feasible because, it is claimed, we all share a common aim: “The sponsors are a group whose contribution to the programme is itself evidence of a major commitment to raising aspiration and achievement amongst disadvantaged communities, so the discussion would essentially be about reforming and modernising that contribution.” (p37)

The report offers a long term aim of returning academies to the maintained sector “in some way” (p36).

Even this would not necessarily entail getting rid of sponsors. In other words, the academies would become Trust schools! However, even this is too bold a step for the report. In the immediate future: “The simplest option may be simply to further amend the nature of the model funding agreement that applies to academies, in particular to improve the present governance arrangements in order to address the deficiencies in accountability.” (p36)

In other words, increase the representation of parents, school staff and local authorities on academy governing bodies, but leave the sponsors in place, retaining their overall majority control (unless they volunteer to accept minority status).

The danger for the anti- Academies movement

Undoubtedly a section of the anti-academies movement will embrace the TUC report gratefully as a much more attractive alternative to active popular campaigning. They may still support campaigns, at least formally, but their own priorities will be quite different - lobbying for reforms in the corridors of Brownite power. There may already be an indication of this in Ken Purchase MP’s article in the Interim Report of the Anti- Academies Alliance ’s Committee of Enquiry, published on the AAA website on the same day as the TUC report.

He comments favourably on Ed Balls’ statement on academies, saying: “Also welcomed is the Minister’s statement that ‘the test of ...a potential sponsor should not be its bank balance, but whether it can demonstrate leadership, innovation, and commitment to act in the public interest’.”

This explicitly takes the view that there are good sponsors and bad sponsors, acceptable ones as well as unacceptable ones.

How should we respond?

Up to now the left has been rather reluctant to criticise the more “moderate” wing of the anti-academies movement in the interests of unity. But private business or religious interests having any role in controlling academies has to be unacceptable.

What attitude should we take to the specific reforms that the supporters of the TUC report are demanding? Some, such as full union recognition, are unproblematic. But we should oppose the widening of participation on academy governing bodies while they are still run by sponsors. It’s a form of “social partnership” designed to co-opt potential opposition and legitimise private control.

Finally, how likely is the TUC report’s strategy to succeed? I think it’s impossible to say at present whether Brown might move further on academies.

One factor is how much resistance can continue to be mustered by local campaigns (with their local electoral implications).

But it may be that Balls’ statement represents the limit of concessions and the TUC report’s strategy is destined to fail - in which case, what is their Plan B?

back to top