Academies 'revolution' is awarded low marks by critics

They were originally Labour's golden child. Under the previous government, sponsors were encouraged to invest up to 2m in some of the worst-performing schools in the most disadvantaged areas. In return, they were freed from local authority control, received their state funding direct into their bank accounts and were able to set their own curriculum.

More than 70 were set up and, unlike most of Labour's policies, academies didn't fall out of favour when the new coalition came to power. Quite the opposite, Education Secretary Michael Gove can't seem to get enough of them.

In what the Cabinet has dubbed an "education revolution", all schools now have the chance to become academies, including primary and special schools and the ranks have already swelled to more than 200. The thinking is, the move will help cut unnecessary bureaucracy and give control back to schools.

However, today a report by the National Audit Office suggests Mr Gove might have been a little hasty. While the figures show most academy schools are achieving greater rates of academic improvement than the schools they replaced, the organisation also warned the rapid expansion of the scheme could be its undoing.

Those who voiced concerns as the Academies Bill was rushed through Parliament this summer that a national roll-out would simply lead to more privileged areas sucking up the best teachers and the extra money and leaving those still under local authority control looking second best, are not surprised.

"You can use statistics to tell any story you want," says David Hudson, head of Wickersley School and Sports College and a teacher of 37 years. "If schools have improved, and I'm not sure they have, it's not because they are been turned into academies, it's because they have been given extra cash. It comes from the same pot of money which local education authorities would once have spent on supplying extra services to schools and the knock-on effects are clear.

"If we were to become an academy, it would in essence take money and resources from all other Rotherham schools – and schools across the country.

"I'm head of an outstanding, high-performing school. I'm already doing very nicely, thank you very much, so why give me extra money at the expense of other schools that really need it?

"What we've got in this country is an attempt to get, at the very least, within two or three miles of every child, a state secondary which is good or outstanding. That's every child – not just my child or your child, but every child.

"However, if the present Government is going to a follow a 'best and the rest' type policy, then we're going to have a situation where we have the haves and have-nots, which is the way things used to be."

Since 2002, the Department for Education has spent 3.2bn on the academies programme. Most was already earmarked for schools, but the start-up grants given to newly-opened academies currently total 288m.

Critics believe the money could have been better spent and there have been fears the ability of local councils to provide extra services to schools, particularly those which cater for special needs pupils, will be weakened.

"In education, we collaborate. We compete with ourselves. I'm

interested in the fortunes of all children, not just the ones I happen to teach," added Mr Hudson. "They have been disingenuous in the naming of these new schools. The old academies were about giving failing schools a leg up. The data suggests it hasn't been particularly successful, but it was a laudable attempt and the intent was right and proper.

"These are not academies in that sense, they are effectively grant-maintained schools, which were around in the 1980s, the last time the Tories had power. They failed and these new schools will fail also.

"I canvassed all the staff and governors in my school in a secret ballot. We found that 83 per cent of staff were against academies, two per cent were for them and 15 per cent didn't know. The governors were unanimously against.

"The truth is the Government is waving money under the noses of schools and yet there hasn't exactly been a rush of applications for academies. You have to ask why that is and the answer is because the vast majority of teachers think it's a bad idea."