More MAT articles

More articles questioning the Multi Academy Trust (MAT) approach that had been so lauded by the Conservatives have been sent to me this past week. They make for very interesting reading for those of us opposed to academisation.

Last week the DfE announced the scrapping of the trust capacity fund, trust establishment and growth fund and academy conversion grants. There is talk of legislation to be put into place to make academies follow the national curriculum, and importantly to return to cooperating more closely with councils.

 

Jack Dyson’s article in SchoolWeek (07.11.24) comments that academy trusts with “top-down management cultures” are under scrutiny, with the new government seeking “to curtail the freedoms of the academies sector.”

 

This week, Sir Kevin Collins (a non-executive director at the DfE) has voiced his opinion on the flaws of the MAT system. He is concerned about teachers’ well-being and agency. Referring to the growth of a “narrow compliance culture”, he expressed his concerns that he’d “never seen teachers more enslaved”, in some cases “being told what to do” in “every lesson”.

 

In another interesting article, in Yorkshire Bylines: ‘Education MATters: exploring England’s state school industry’ (07.11.24), Dr Pam Jarvis discusses some of the murkier financial aspects of some MATs over the years. I won’t go into that, but do read the article. She makes some extremely interesting points about MATs spending less on teacher salaries than LEAs, and more on management. And regarding staff being younger and less experienced -and obviously cheaper - at MATs too.

 

She mentions a recent Campaign for State Education (CASE) report by Warwick Mansell, in which: “statistics indicate that, when comparing a large MAT to a similar sized LEA area, the implication is that the MAT is likely to be spending £6.7 million less on classroom teachers and educational support staff than is typical in the LEA-maintained sector, but will be operating at a higher cost to the public purse.”

 

Teachers’ agency, confidence and morale is clearly being eroded - despite assurances from MAT leaders that this would not happen. Turnover is much higher in MATs. Dr Jarvis states that “in some large MATs were leaving their jobs at twice the rate of teachers in LEA schools”.

 

Teaching unions can take little solace in the fact that we had clearly warned that this would happen.  I can only hope that the government truly is moving in the direction the articles suggest. At the moment academisation is supposedly irrevocable. This must change. We must have a system where the voices of everyone involved in education, and especially those in classrooms, can be heard and valued.

Labour & education

By all accounts, this week has seen positive steps as far as Labour's position on education goes.

 

Firstly, on employees' welfare, Rachel Reeves’ budget speech included an affirmation that it was “the government’s plans to boost workers’ rights” and that, “our plan will protect working people from unfair dismissal, safeguard them from bullying in the workplace, and improve their access to paternity and maternity leave.”

 

Bullying, discrimination, harassment, and victimisation are all too common in the workplace. Unfortunately, protection from these for staff in education has been limited. We will have to see how committed the government will be in combatting these hefty issues which have affected so many of our lives, and continue to do so. But it is a powerful statement and we should make sure the government keeps its promises. 

 

Secondly, after (in recent years) taking a fairly non-committal position on academies, it would appear that the new Labour government is making some moves in the right direction.

 

On 1st November, an interesting piece by Freddie Whittaker was published in SchoolsWeek. In it, he explains the DfE is scrapping its grant scheme for academy conversion and that it will no longer continue to incentivise academisation through further trust capacity, establishment and growth funds. Another positive that Freddie Whittaker writes about is that academies are “to follow the national curriculum and cooperate with councils on admissions and pupil place planning”.

 

This is just what those of us who have campaigned against the worrying trend of academisation in this country have called for. I guess better late than never - though a lot of damage does need to be undone.

 

The article also includes concerns expressed by those working in trusts in management positions, who are concerned that the above changes will mean that weaker schools will suffer. What is not discussed is how academies have frequently weakened these schools in the first place, how workers' rights have worsened, how accountability of leadership has decreased, how staff turnover has increased, and how and concerns about staff - and children's - wellbeing have soared. 

 

While this move has come relatively soon in terms of the new government, it is already too late for many of us who have seen our community schools made into academies. It does also add weight to our suspicions that some of these academisations were rushed into in order to take advantage of grants while these were still available, rather than because academisation was actually the right move.

 

Whether the new Labour government does genuinely to want to dismantle the divided school system in England remains to be seen. Once a school has become academized, at the moment there is no turning back to LA control. Is this something that Labour would be willing to overturn? 

Here’s hoping.