The National Union of Teachers says the involvement of private sector companies in education over recent years ‘is of grave concern’.
It stresses that the NUT ‘opposes the opportunities this trend provides for private companies to make a profit at the expense of funding which should be devoted to education provision’.
The union is campaigning against Labour’s academy schools programme.
Its latest report: Academies looking Beyond the Spin: The NUT’s Opposition to the Government’s Academies Initiative is part of that campaign:–
‘Academies Put Schools in the Hands of Sponsors
• Creating Academies involves the transfer of publicly funded assets to the control of an unaccountable sponsoring body, set up as a company limited by guarantee.
Sponsors receive the entire school budget directly from the Government.
• Sponsors have responsibility for all aspects of the Academy, including staff appointments, pupil admissions, curriculum and governance arrangements.
• For a £2m stake, sponsors receive enormous benefits, for example school buildings and grounds, Academy supply contracts, advertising and developing the kind of workers they need.
Academies Threaten Fair Admissions
Procedures
• Academies are independent schools operating under the national Government’s oversight.
This national structure has the potential to disrupt fair and efficient admissions arrangements within local authorities and in neighbouring authorities.
Academies have the ability to effect schools’ capacity to achieve a balanced pupil intake through the provisions enabled by central Government.
l Academies are responsible for their own admission arrangements, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
This ability to undermine the operation of a comprehensive education system could re-introduce a damaging selection process.
Pupils with special educational needs, those who are learning to speak English as an additional language and those whose home circumstances are difficult, could be further disadvantaged in these situations.
• The facility to give priority to children of a particular faith means it is possible for Academies to refuse places to local pupils.
• As Academies receive considerably more capital funding than community or foundation schools, they have the potential to destabilise local admissions by sending the message that they are better than maintained schools.
Academies Have a Damaging Effect on Other Local Schools
• Academies are designed to replace schools facing challenging circumstances. The initiative is based on the idea that to close and re-open schools will automatically remove the problems that existed.
• Local Authorities may have to make up any shortfall in funding from the sponsor or DfES.
This is likely to be at the expense of other local schools, many of which are in need of substantial funding. Academies have already received more money from the DfES than was originally planned.
• Academies cost more than comprehensive schools – £21,000 per pupil place, compared to £14,000, according to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee.
• Where originally sponsors were asked to provide up to 20 per cent (capped at around £2m) of the capital costs for each Academy, this is now providing only 8 per cent or less. All future costs are guaranteed by public money.
• Academies may undermine the support local authorities can give to other schools by refusing to participate in collaborative projects organized by the authority to support learning.
• Academies damage the operation of local democratic accountability and make it difficult for parents to make representations or seek advice on educational issues from their elected councillors who have no responsibility for academies.
Academies Threaten Children’s Entitlement to a Broad and
Balanced Curriculum
• The Government has said that Academies, “can combine a greater flexibility over the curriculum with the sponsorship and expertise of religious, private or voluntary sector contributors. . .” The curriculum in Academies is therefore likely to be susceptible to being influenced by the ethos of the sponsoring bodies.
• Very few of the announced Academies have an arts subject as a specialism and the NUT is concerned about the influence of some faith groups on the curriculum, in particular on sex and relationships education.
• The facility to give priority to children of a particular faith additionally means that it is possible for Academies to refuse places to local pupils.
Academies Undermine the Independent Role of School Governors
• The constitution of the governing body of an Academy is not prescribed and the DfES advice suggests that a typical governing body of an Academy might consist of five or six sponsor governors, one Local Authority or council governor, one staff governor, one teacher governor, the head teacher and one or more parent governor.
• Sponsors may want to ensure that sponsor governors have a majority on the governing body.
• The Times Educational Supplement’s investigation of the accounts of Academies highlighted the influence that sponsors have over the spending of school funding and the governing body.
In several cases the accounts showed that the majority of directors of the company, which manages funding from the DfES and the sponsor, and are also governors, have been appointed by the sponsor.
Academies Threaten Teachers’ Pay and Conditions of Service
• Academies, as independent schools, can operate outside the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document.
It is the responsibility of the Academy to agree levels of pay and conditions of service with its employees and to employ appropriate staff numbers.
• Whilst teachers in Academies which replace existing schools have their conditions protected on transfer, newly appointed teachers are often placed on separate contracts that involve longer working hours and less favourable working conditions.
Having teachers working on different contracts can lead to a divided, two-tier workforce.’