One of the problems of continued education reform in the country is the gap between the practioners and the policy makers. Since neither talk to each other very often or very efficiently, the feedback loop is broken and mistake is built upon misinterpretation upon overreaction upon error of judgement. Rather than seek to solve problems or improve systems almost all parties and stakeholders seek simply to defend a position.
There was a piece in TES a couple of weeks ago drawing on an interview with the CEO of the RSA academies which suggested that, "Schools should be allowed to leave MATs after five years" and "Creating fixed-term rather than permanent relationships would change the dynamic for all schools working as part of a MAT"
There seems to be a connection between this idea and and Sir David Carter's recent concept of "try before you buy"
Now before I go any further I should declare loudly that both of these pieces may have been taken out of context and if this is the case then I apologise in advance and if challenged with evidence I will review my position but...
WHEN A SCHOOL BECOMES AN ACADEMY IT EFFECTIVELY CEASES TO EXIST AS A LEGAL ENTITY!
An academy is simply a location in an outsourcing contract between government and a limited company with charitable objects. When a school becomes an academy it closes. What replaces it are a complicated set of contractual obligations.
Let's say there is a school called X in location L. School X's governing body decide to become an academy and to join Multi-Academy Trust Y. The government in the person of the Regional Schools Commissioner (acting under authority delegated from the Secretary of State) enters into a contract with Multi Academy Trust Y to provide education to children at location L in perpetuity.
This is a very one sided contract. The government gets to determine what 'education' looks like and what is and isn't good. It gets to determine how much it will pay. And it gets to change the rules whenever it likes at any time by adding additional responsibilities which Multi Academy Trust "Y" cannot refuse.
The only thing that MAT Y can do if it doesn't like the changes in its contract is that it can give the school back to government as long as it provides seven years notice.
The problems with allowing a school to leave the MAT after five years are multiple but the two biggest ones are these.
1. You need to confer legal rights onto entities that don't exist
2. If you confer those rights they can only really be exercised to a negative purpose
So (1), as explained above when a school becomes an academy the responsibility for its money, its staff and its children passes entirely to the MAT. The school, the governing body and the headteacher have no powers other than those that the Trustees of the MAT chose to delegate to them. And just to be clear that means the MAT can take these powers away again.
If the school does not like the MAT and wishes to exercise the opportunity to leave then who has this power and how do you give it to them. Is it the headteacher or the governing body? If either is to have these rights then you need a mechanism in the contract (which is the Supplementary Funding Agreement between the MAT and the Government) to confer these rights and the timings. Which in turn would require primary legislation.
But the bigger problem is (2) even if you get round the problem above you would confer a right that could only be used to undermine an entity that only exists to improve outcomes in schools. If headteachers or local governing bodies can opt out of a MAT then no MAT is ever going to invest in schools.
It is equivalent to a home owner deciding unilaterally to stop paying their mortgage and the bank not having the power to repossess the home against which the loan has been made.
To be absolutely clear I am not suggesting that MATs should not be held to account for the performance of their schools, they must be. But the mechanism for doing this exists already it is the RSCs and their powers to pursue a MAT for breach of contract and take a school away from them.
To those who would counter this by saying schools can opt out of Local Authority control to become academies why shouldn't they be able to opt out of MATs, I would suggest that you have misunderstood the argument. It is the complex hinterland of the political buzzword 'choice' which is only ever presented as a good thing and a driver of markets. But for there to be a 'choice' there must be someone with the power and the ability to choose and something to choose between. If there is no power to choose or no choice, merely the perception of choice then you get disenfranchisement from the political process and ultimately Brexit, Trump and other forms of self-harm.
So as politely as I can, this is a really really silly idea.
The problems with allowing a school to leave the MAT after five years are multiple but the two biggest ones are these.
1. You need to confer legal rights onto entities that don't exist
2. If you confer those rights they can only really be exercised to a negative purpose
So (1), as explained above when a school becomes an academy the responsibility for its money, its staff and its children passes entirely to the MAT. The school, the governing body and the headteacher have no powers other than those that the Trustees of the MAT chose to delegate to them. And just to be clear that means the MAT can take these powers away again.
If the school does not like the MAT and wishes to exercise the opportunity to leave then who has this power and how do you give it to them. Is it the headteacher or the governing body? If either is to have these rights then you need a mechanism in the contract (which is the Supplementary Funding Agreement between the MAT and the Government) to confer these rights and the timings. Which in turn would require primary legislation.
But the bigger problem is (2) even if you get round the problem above you would confer a right that could only be used to undermine an entity that only exists to improve outcomes in schools. If headteachers or local governing bodies can opt out of a MAT then no MAT is ever going to invest in schools.
It is equivalent to a home owner deciding unilaterally to stop paying their mortgage and the bank not having the power to repossess the home against which the loan has been made.
To be absolutely clear I am not suggesting that MATs should not be held to account for the performance of their schools, they must be. But the mechanism for doing this exists already it is the RSCs and their powers to pursue a MAT for breach of contract and take a school away from them.
To those who would counter this by saying schools can opt out of Local Authority control to become academies why shouldn't they be able to opt out of MATs, I would suggest that you have misunderstood the argument. It is the complex hinterland of the political buzzword 'choice' which is only ever presented as a good thing and a driver of markets. But for there to be a 'choice' there must be someone with the power and the ability to choose and something to choose between. If there is no power to choose or no choice, merely the perception of choice then you get disenfranchisement from the political process and ultimately Brexit, Trump and other forms of self-harm.
So as politely as I can, this is a really really silly idea.
