Backing for underfire academies
A new survey appears to show that parents are largely in favour of the controversial city academy programme.
Accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found that 66 per cent of the 433 parents questioned thought private sponsorship had “made a difference” at their school.
Introducing academies is one of the Prime Minister Tony Blair’s highest priorities for education and is intended to transform failing inner city comprehensives.
But the scheme has come under fire from teaching groups for introducing a form of privatisation, and a recent Education Select Committee report cast doubt on the evidence base for the programme.
The Government has plans for 200 academies by 2010, which will replace failing schools at an average cost of £25 million each.
The research found that more than half of staff thought sponsors’ resources had helped learning, with just 12 per cent disagreeing.
Sixty-eight per cent of pupils felt academies’ head teachers were “really good” but bullying was still a “significant problem”.
Schools Minister Jacqui Smith said that the report was “a positive endorsement of the academies programme and gives ground for optimism for the future.”
She added: “If I were to pick out a finding from the report that points to the long-term success of academies then it would be the huge backing from parents and pupils – particularly in how academies are led. Something the schools they replaced never had.
“It’s this backing by parents, and engagement by pupils, that will make a real difference to the success of these schools. This support can be seen by the fact that parents are voting with their feet with many academies heavily oversubscribed.”
But teaching groups were less than convinced by the report.
NUT general secretary Steve Sinnott, said: “It is remarkable that the DfES turns to expensive managements consultants for an overview of the quality of teaching and learning in academies instead of OFSTED. Indeed, OFSTED has been told to delay its first reports on them.
“There are disturbing issues which PWC highlight such as confusion over special educational needs, poor behaviour and bullying which had academies not been excluded from receiving local authority support could have been addressed.”
Mr Sinnott reiterated his criticism of the programme, pointing to a high turnover of headteachers, academies lack of accountability and the pressure that the Government is putting on local authorities to accept city academics in their areas.
He added: “There is nothing surprising in the finding that pupils and parents support their new schools. The same would be the result if parents and pupils of any new school were asked the same questions.”
And the Secondary Heads’ Association said that nobody should rush to judgement on the programme.
General secretary Dr John Dunford, said: “The existing academies serve some of the most disadvantaged communities in England and people should not expect instant success. What is more important is long-term sustainable improvement. This cannot be achieved overnight.”
Calling on the Government to properly evaluate the initial projects before expanding, Dr Dunford added: “With its plans to expand the programme, the Government appears to be targeting schools that are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. It is not true to say, as ministers have done, that academies are always replacing failing schools. Good schools should not be labelled as failing.”
