Academies: To Be or Not To Be

1. Academies: To Be or Not To Be Anne Davey Deputy Director Salisbury Diocese

2. Is the Church in favour of academies? Are they naughty or are they nice?

3. Background • Since 1944 - dual system - C of E is largest provider of schools in the State system. Why? • Christian principles – distinctively Christian foundations • Inclusive and for the local community. This was expressed by Lord Runcie, when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, as: ‘nourish those of the faith, encourage those of other faiths and challenge those of no faith’ • Church schools stand at the centre of the Church’s mission to the nation, particularly for the disadvantaged. They provide a key means for the Church to reach out to young people

4. Recognisably Christian institutions. Key parts = collective worship, servant leadership, koinoniaand the pursuit of excellence • Church schools are both ethos and values driven. See www.christianvalues4schools.co.uk • Contribution to lives and well-being of others through links with diocese, parishes, LA, other schools etc • Often ecumenical in character and structure, especially with the Methodists and the RC Church • The C of E is the biggest national provider of academies under the original framework. These academies all serve areas of significant disadvantage and are a manifestation of the Church’s mission.

5. But new academies are not the same... Is it fair...?

6. The Church academies established so far all serve deprived areas. This is a key part of the church’s mission. This raises questions: • Will the new wave of academies, especially those already judged outstanding, compromise this aspect of mission? • Will giving academy status to a school undermine equitable distribution of resources to the remaining schools? • Will small rural schools be able to cope with the additional burdens? • Will academy status directly benefit students? • How will the family of Church schools work together in the future?

7. The REAL question about academies...

8. Or are they just misunderstood...?

9. Deciding if it’s right • Don’t rush in. A period of pause, reflection and contemplation is better than a rushed or impatient decision. This is not a time limited process – there is no rush • Financial considerations should not drive the decision making process. There is no firm evidence yet that schools will be significantly better off by becoming academies in the long run • There must be added value (learning, achievement, developed ethos) for the transition to be worthwhile • The needs of vulnerable children in the school and wider community must be paramount

10. “The Church does not wish to see a fragmentation or loss of a sense of ‘family’. Diocesan structures and ways of working have, over many years, developed collegially and collaboratively and this has brought great strength to the reputation and achievements of Church schools. It is important that this is maintained and developed, not negated by the creation of new academies”.

11. But can we afford to sit on the fence?

12. But you still want to do it So what do you need to do now?

13. Considerations for Schools... • The need for good communication – so start talking! • Try and work out roughly what the consequences on resources and capacity might be. This will be hard as LAs may not accurately be able to price newly traded services.... NB: Nat Soc guidance: Schools should obtain a very clear statement from the LA about the extra money they will receive, the services they will forfeit and the cost of buying in services • Whether to stay with national terms and conditions for staff employment • The need for an operational and strategic business plan (covering both recurrent and capital aspects)

14. Considerations for Schools... • Future governance structures: size, the balance of representation and the functionality of the new governing body • The need to consult widely with staff, parents, students, the community and the parish and to prepare a balanced report on the outcomes. • The need to demonstrate commitment to collaborative working, particularly with the wider school family • Careful consideration will be needed on how the new status will impact on the development of religious character. SIAS inspections will still happen, RE to an agreed syllabus will be required and collective worship will still be expected • DBE must not incur extra costs. Any costs in establishing the academy must be borne by the school, using its own funds and the £25k set up grant

15. Considerations for Schools.... • What’s in it for the education of our pupils? • Do the numbers add up? • Do they look like they will still add up next year? • Are we too small? • Do we go it alone or in a group? • Who’s in the group? • Do we go now or later?

16. So is this it?

17. So the answer is “Maybe; it depends.” What’s the question?

18. It’s good to have an umbrella in case it rains

19. Multi Academy Arrangements • There are three main ways in which academies can be formed into chains. These are: • Multi-Academy Trusts: (sometimes known as ‘brands’) Several academies are created using one funding agreement. There is one company and each academy might have a governing body, but with limited powers. This is the model used by ‘brands’ such as ULT, Oasis, Harris and Ark. Substantial benefits accrue from central control, but this model is not favoured by those who view academies as having autonomy. Academy budgets are usually top sliced to support the central organisation.

20. Multi Academy Arrangements • Umbrella Trust Model: (sometimes known as ‘chains’) Each academy has its own funding agreement, company and governors. There is then an umbrella trust (completely separate from the agreements with the SoS). It is established and populated by the member academies according to pre-determined objects. Variations are possible in who ‘controls’ the Trust. This model has significant relevance to the Church school system.

21. Multi Academy Arrangements • Collaborative Partnership Model: Each academy exists as a separate entity but there is a management agreement to bring the academies into working partnership for specific purposes. This is, in effect, a less formal variant of the umbrella trust model. It enables collaboration without control and is more easily reversed. In some circumstances, especially where Church and ex- community academies wish to work together, it would be a good arrangement.

22. “The DFE is flexible about arrangements and is interested in receiving proposals appropriate to circumstance. Variations are likely to include models embracing: Church and non Church schools; secondaries and primaries; geographical based schemes and thematically based schemes.” Rob Gwynne Head of School Strategy and Deputy General Secretary 18th February 2011

23. So who’s accountable then?

24. Accountability • Whatever model is adopted it must be remembered that accountability to the SoS for standards and performance rests with the body which signs the funding agreement. This body must have the capacity and capability to raise standards. The variations are: • Academy with sponsors or co- sponsors: the sponsors are accountable • Single academy trusts: the company • Academies in an umbrella trust: the individual academy companies • Academies in a multi-academy trust: the multi academy trust • Academies in a collaborative partnership: the individual academy companies.

25. A Diocesan Perspective • In a typical diocese some schools will (appropriately) become single school trusts, some will wish to join a collaborative involving none Church schools, some schools may need to become academies but do not have sufficient capacity or desire to ‘go it alone’. Also, schools will wish to migrate at different times.

26. What could we do to help? • We could set up several Church Academy Trusts. Initially, these Trusts would be ‘empty’ – schools can migrate to the Trust on an ‘as and when’ basis. The number and potential maximum size is debatable. An optimum number could be twenty. This means the group is big enough to become a genuine ‘community’ of schools able to work in partnership and yet not so big that it becomes an ‘organisation’ requiring significant infrastructure.

27. What could we do to help? • Each Trust could have two functions: • It is ‘binding agent’ or umbrella for academies that have separate funding agreements and companies. • It contains within it a Multi-Academy Trust for schools that do not wish to have a separate funding agreement. In effect, this becomes the safe haven for small schools. • The function of the high level Church Academy Trusts is negotiable. It could, for instance become the employer of staff, it could deal with other functions such as capital and premises. It certainly appoints governors to the single school governing bodies • Church Academy Trusts, Single Church Academy Trusts and other academies (single or multiple) can work together through collaborative partnerships formalised by management agreements. This gets over the problem of Church and non Church schools working together.