The creation of academies is one of England's most controversial education policies. Many people remain undecided as to whether academies are the most hopeful way of tackling the challenges of inner-city schooling that has ever been formulated, or whether they are another expensive, incremental stage in the eventual privatisation of our education system.

According to a recent leader in this newspaper, 83 academies are now up and running. They have recently been investigated by Ofsted, the parliamentary accounts committee, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the TUC. From this welter of information, it is clear that they are more expensive than other schools and less accountable to parents. According to their supporters, they are more likely to achieve good academic results.

Several strands of the theory underpinning academies are sound: providing the most generous resources for the neediest pupils, allowing freedom for innovation and installing the schools in "wow- factor" buildings.

But another strand, giving away national assets to wealthy business people, appears more reminiscent of post-communist Russia. Also questionable is the practice of forcing academies on unwilling school communities, permitting the sponsors to act furtively through confidential negotiations and the waiving of legal obligations that normally apply to schools.

There may, however, be a more fundamental problem with the way academies have been conceived. Is there not likely to be a tension between their mission to improve inner-city schooling for the most disadvantaged pupils and the untrammelled freedom to manage themselves that they have been granted? Surely sponsors would have to be saints not to exploit their opportunities to change the rules of the game in the process of demonstrating their efficacy.

Much of the research with which I have been involved over 30 years shows that there are two quite distinct ways to improve a school. The hard way is to enhance the quality of teaching through extra training and rigorous self-evaluation, improve the way pupils are cared for and strengthen the school's standing in the community. These tasks take years to accomplish and are difficult to sustain.

The less challenging way to turn a school around is to change the pupils it recruits and to alter the exams by which it is judged. If academies begin to discourage needy, "slow-to learn" children or those with behavioural or emotional difficulties and seek to attract, in their place, easier pupils - who will prosper almost regardless of the quality of teaching - their results will improve. And if, in addition, they use their ample resources to provide IT equipment and specialist staff so that they can offer GNVQs - each of which counts as the equivalent of four GCSE high grades - they will rocket up the league table.

Which of these methods will academies adopt? Will they stay true to the needs of the disadvantaged or will they, like some of the most famous independent schools (originally founded to serve the needs of the poor), manage to transform their mission?

Many pupils who attend academies will benefit from being educated in a well-resourced school. But is adding a new category to the current pecking order of schools what the English education system most needs in the 21st century?

The pity is that had ministers, local authorities and representatives of the teaching profession engaged in serious dialogue about the needs of the most disadvantaged pupils, a less divisive project could have emerged. Such an enterprise would have been able to draw on the unqualified support of parents, charitable foundations and the business community.

Is it too much to hope that this might still happen before England's education becomes as fractured as its railways?

Peter Mortimore is the former director of the Institute of Education, University of London


Foundation Schools
In England and Wales, a foundation school is a type of school that has a degree of independence from the local education authority. Foundation schools were set up under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to replace grant-maintained schools. Unlike grant-maintained schools they do not receive direct funding from the central government. However, they resemble grant-maintained schools in that their school governors have primary responsibility for admissions to the school, employ the school's staff and own the school's estate (the school's land and buildings). Many of these schools were formerly grant maintained schools. The Foundation appoints the majority of governors. In 2005 the Labour government proposed allowing all schools to become Foundation schools if they so wished.

Haywood became a Foundation School on 1st September 2007.

Serco wishes to close Haywood - even if the Labour government wants to allow all schools to become Foundation schools if they (the Governors of the School) so wish.

Is a private company above the wishes of Government? Serco seems to think so.

Trust Schools
In October 2005, the DfES published the White Paper Higher Standards, Better Schools for All - More Choice for Parents and Pupils. It set out plans to "radically improve the system". The blurb distributed with it established a number of key areas that the White Paper was intended to address:

    * The challenge to reform
    * A school system shaped by parents
    * Choice and access for all
    * Personalised learning
    * Parents driving improvement
    * Supporting children and parents
    * School discipline
    * The school workforce and school leadership
    * A new role for local authorities

One of the most controversial elements in the White Paper was the proposal to establish a new breed of school called a Trust school. The White Paper introduced a new term to the educational taxonomy when it explained how schools would "acquire a Trust". It was noted that there was a remarkable similarity between Trust schools and Voluntary Aided schools/Foundation schools. The proposals allowed for each Trust school to decide its own governance model from either the VA or Foundation model. Local authority assets - buildings and land - would be transferred to trust ownership, and the trust would take on the responsibility for the employment of all the school staff.

The governance model of VA Schools would allow the Trust to directly appoint more than half of the governors allowing it to effectively control the governing body. Such a model would also reduce the number of elected Parent governors. To tackle this obvious reduction in parent power it was proposed that a new consultative body - a Parents' Council to ensure that parents have a strong voice in decisions about the way the school is run - although it was stressed that statutory guidance on this would be produced at some yet unspecified later stage. This notion effectively killed any suggestion that Kelly could be seen as a champion of parents.

The Trusts were intended to be non-profit making and to have charitable status, although they could be formed by commercial enterprises. In fact one of the early DfES-hosted seminars on the establishment of Trusts included representatives from Microsoft and KPMG. But it was their ability to set their own admission arrangements that generated the most criticism.

The white paper was not received with universal acclaim. A large number of Labour backbenchers, as well as numerous Labour luminaries like Neil Kinnock and former Education Secretary Estelle Morris, made known their opposition to the proposals and published an alternative white paper. Faced with such a rebellion, the government initially stressed that it would press on with the reforms. Tory leader David Cameron then announced that these reforms were in line with Tory policies and that he would support the bill if presented in the proposed form. The government were faced with the prospect of pushing through their reforms only with opposition support and in the face of increased resistance from its own supporters.

Following a report by the Education Select Committee - which was in itself controversial - Ruth Kelly finally wrote to the committee chairman Barry Sheerman in February 2006, outlining how the bill would look when presented to Parliament, stressing how it would accommodate many of the fears expressed in the committee's report. This was reported as the government backtracking on many key issues although they stressed that it was not a climbdown.

On 28 February 2006, the bill was finally published. It contained much of what had been trailed, although most notable by its absence was any mention of "Trust school". In reality, Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools will pick up the mantle of "Trust school".

Education and Inspections Act 2006

The Act is designed to give greater freedoms to schools, including the possibility of:

    * Owning their own assets
    * Employing their own staff
    * Setting their own admissions arrangements

Other important provisions include:

    * Creation of a Local Authority duty to promote fair access to educational opportunities
    * Giving schools staff a clear statutory right to discipline students
    * Provisions relating to nutritional standards of school food
    * Reform of the school inspectorates

The act also removes the need for local authorities' role in education; coupled with the Education Act 1944, this effectively abolishes any role of the Local Education Authorities (LEAs). The LEAs' role will be purely financial due to funding criteria laid down on a sliding scale by central government. This means that these Trust Schools which wish to become trusts can do so by charging "co-payments" for education, subject to means testing: this act can therefore supersede the Education Act 1944. This will effectively mean all parents over a threshold income must pay up-front fees; they will also be subject to evaluation of their assets by the LEAs.

Serco states that the replacement for Haywood will be a Trust School - will we have to pay for our childrens' education?

From the DfES: Acquiring a Trust will be a voluntary decision for a school's existing governing body where there is agreement that doing so will help the school to raise standards and improve outcomes for pupils. The existing governing body will choose who it wants to work with - the Trust may be a pre-existing charitable body or it may be necessary to bring together partners to establish a Trust for the school. It will be for individual schools to decide the kind of Trust that is most appropriate for them. Schools can build on the generic benefits of a Trust by choosing or shaping a Trust according to their own context.

The Government says that Trust status is voluntary - Serco wishes to impose it.

Serco also talks about Foundation Trust Schools - we cannot find any reference to these establishments outside their document!

TRUST SCHOOLS:  KEY FACTS
Source: Trust Schools Division (DfES) September 2006 Trust.SCHOOLS@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

Trust schools are:

• foundation schools supported by a charitable foundation or "Trust".
• part of the local authority family of schools, funded on exactly the same basis as other local authority maintained schools.
• able to employ their own staff, set their own admission arrangements, and manage their own land and assets.
• supported by the Trust through the appointment of governors to the school's governing body.
• not uniform in nature. The members of the Trust might include education charities, further or higher education institutions, business foundations or community groups, for example. A Trust might work with a single school, a group of local schools or a network of schools across the country. The important thing is what's right for the individual school.
• about building long-term relationships with partners and/or other schools for the purposes of raising standards and for the benefit of all pupils.

It will be for the school's existing governing body to decide whether to acquire a Trust, who the members of that Trust should be, and whether the Trust should appoint the minority or majority of the governing body.

Myth busting:

• Trust schools will not receive extra state funding - nor will the Trust be expected to contribute financially to the school.
• Trust schools will not be able to introduce new selection criteria - like all other schools, they will have to act in accordance with the Admissions Code.
• No school will be forced to have a Trust. But acquiring a Trust will be one option for local authorities to consider when a school is failing.
• Becoming a Trust schools does not mean "opting out" of local authority control.  Trust schools will need to consult their local authority before they acquire a Trust.  The local authority can refer the proposals to the Schools Adjudicator for decision if it has concerns about the school's consultation process or the impact of the proposals on standards.
• Trust schools will not be "owned" by businesses - business foundations and other partners can support the school through a Trust and take a role on the governing body, but not take it over.
• Trust schools will still have to abide by the normal parameters of the National Curriculum and will be inspected by Ofsted like all other schools.
• Parents will have to be consulted where a school proposes to acquire a Trust, and at least one third of Trust schools' governing bodies will be made up of parents.