Should a university school of education be involved quite this closely with an academy chain?

How can the head of a university school of education also be the chief executive of a multi-academy trust?

The thought occurred after I came across what is the closest relationship I can remember seeing between an academy chain and its higher education partner.

During a trawl of a lengthy freedom of information response, given to a parent concerned about the forced academisation of Moulsecoomb primary in Brighton, interesting information, giving the title of one of the trusts involved in this controversy, jumped out at me.

Dr John Smith, it said beneath one of his emails, is chief executive of the University of Brighton Academies Trust (UoBAT), the chain which had been selected earlier this year by the government’s Regional Schools Commissioner to take over Moulsecoomb, only to swiftly pull out.

Dr Smith is also head of the school of education at the University of Brighton itself.

Not only this, I subsequently found out, but the academy chain operates from offices within the university school of education itself.

The University of Brighton Academies Trust appears now to the largest such organisation in England “sponsored” by a higher education institution, with 15 schools and approaching 8,000 pupils.

Questions

A few questions suggested themselves. First, who has been paying Smith’s salary: the trust or the university? Second, does the trust pay for the office accommodation at the university?

Third, with the academies policy central to the work of this and previous governments, and education academics interested in schools policy, how does the university protect academic freedom? In other words, if a researcher produced a paper which was critical of the policy – let alone, perhaps, the associated academy chain in particular -  could the public really have faith that such research would be published, given that the head of school worked for an academy chain?

I asked all three questions of a spokesman for the trust, who perhaps fittingly is also head of communications at the university.

On the third question, about conflicts of interest, I had asked how a researcher could work on or publish research which might be critical of the academies policy, given the position of Smith.

The spokesman, Ken Young, responded: “The situation you describe regarding research would be covered by the university’s research integrity policy which requires any and all conflicts of interest to be declared.”

Such a declaration, however, would surely not guarantee that critical research were published.

On the two questions about funding – of Smith’s salary, and of the office accommodation – Young first replied only: “Information about the trust, its structure and finances is publicly available via its website: www.brightonacademiestrust.org.uk.”

When I asked what the specific answers to the two questions were, or alternatively where on the website this was stated, Young directed me to a section of the academy trust’s latest published accounts, for 2017-18.

Here, it is stated that: “The University of Brighton is the sponsor of the trust and provides managerial and administrative support to enable the trust to achieve its objectives.

“Several members of the trust’s senior management team (chief executive, director of planning, policy and governance, director of operational services and director of school improvement) and one member of administrative staff supporting the trust’s work have contracts of employment with the University of Brighton.

“Their salary costs are re-charged to the Trust [for a total of] £351k (16-17 £264k).”

£351k for five people would work out at an average of £70,000 each.

These accounts also state that the trust paid the university £8,000 during 2017-18 for “office costs (incl[uding] hospitality”.

I still had no answer, however, as to what proportion of Smith’s overall salary was taken care of by the school of education, and what by the trust.

Unusually, also, there is no declaration of Smith’s salary in the academy trust’s accounts, even though he was a trustee during 2017-18 (and still is, according to companies house).

Normally, academy staff who are also trustees have their remuneration declared under a section of academy trust accounts headed “Related party transactions – trustees’ remuneration and expenses”.

However, in UoBAT’s case, the accounts state only that “trustees did not receive any payments other than expenses from the academy trust in respect of their role as trustees”.

So, unlike in the case of most trusts - where high-earning chief executives are named in accounts in relation to the salary and benefits; and pensions they received in their role as employee, rather than simply that of trustee – we do not know how much Smith, a trustee, was paid as an employee.

The accounts simply state that the (unnamed) top-paid person in 2017-18 received £90-£100,000 (excluding employer pension costs). This was an increase on the £80-£90,000 the top-paid perceived was paid the previous year.

On the offices, one source within the university said: “One whole corridor within the main school of education building has been given over to UoBAT (as well as some other rooms).”

Governance

UoBAT also seems to have a governance set-up which may not be fully in line with what the Department for Education says is its “strong preference”.

Its website lists only two individual “members”, alongside the University of Brighton itself as “sponsor”: Professor Chris Pole, the university’s deputy vice chancellor; and Liz Gray, a former Open University Academic. (Members, of course, as UoBAT’s website reminds readers, have a role “similar to shareholders in a limited company,” usually with the right to set its constitution and appoint and dismiss trustees).

But Pole also heads the organisation’s trustees, as chair of the board, according to UoBAT’s website. Gray also doubles as both member and trustee.

This would appear to be against the guidance of the government’s Academies Financial Handbook. This states: “There should be significant separation between the individuals who are members and those who are trustees. If members sit on the board of trustees this may reduce the objectivity with which the members can exercise their powers. The Department’s strong preference is for a majority of members to be independent of the board of trustees.”

This does not appear to have stopped the DfE, of course, via its regional schools commissioner’s office, from recommending, in June, that UoBAT expand by taking on Moulsecoomb.

UoBAT’s website also shows that seven out of eight trustees were appointed by the “sponsor” - the University of Brighton - with Smith also serving on the board “ex-officio”. This seems to underline, once again, just how centralised the control of the governance of schools, under “sponsors” can be via the academies programme.

Local background

UoBAT is the largest of 11 academy trusts I could find in the DfE’s databases which have the word “university” in their sponsor’s title in relation to a higher education institution, with 7,682 pupils on its rolls as of the last pupil census, in January this year.

Its status as the largest such chain is, perhaps, ironic given that its base is a town which seems to show less enthusiasm for the policy than virtually anywhere else in England: there is not a single “converter” academy – where a school’s governing body has chosen to academise - in the entire local authority of Brighton and Hove.

Our source speculated that it was precisely because of wariness of getting drawn into the fierce controversy about the academies policy in relation to Moulsecoomb that UoBAT directors pulled out of the takeover of that school in July.

Effectiveness of Smith and the trust praised by Ofsted

The questions above seem worth asking despite the trust, and Smith in particular, being praised by Ofsted in the summer following inspections of schools and other investigations.

Ofsted said: “UoBAT trustees and the executive team are determined to improve pupils’ life chances through providing high-quality education”

It added: “The chief executive officer (CEO) and his executive team are highly regarded throughout the trust.”

Conclusion

The government, at least up to the time of Theresa May, was encouraging universities to take as close an involvement as possible in academy chains. No doubt ministers, then, would be pleased by the situation at Brighton. But it does seem worth watching closely, with – as any university would no doubt concur – the importance of asking questions absolutely to the fore.