New report raises important criticisms of academies structure –but fails to address its defining weakness

Imagine the excitement chez Education Uncovered, on learning of a new report about the structure of schools. Not only that, but this one seemed to be taking head-on some of its multi-faceted problems, about which this website is reporting almost daily. Great stuff.

The report in question was published today. Entitled “20 years of muddling through: Why it is time to set a new course for the state school system in England,” this was a document produced by a small think tank called EDSK, which is headed by the former teacher and government special adviser Tom Richmond.

It includes several proposals which on their own terms would be very welcome, such as local authorities taking charge of pupil admissions for all state schools in their areas; school-level financial transparency, more openness on decisions about the control of schools; and a national pay structure for all school leaders. It rightly criticises the excessive centralisation of schools policy through the academies structure over the past 20 years. It is an impressively-researched piece of work.

However, as I read on, this document ultimately proved a disappointment, perhaps underlining how what for me is the defining controversy and problem of the academies policy, since its inception, has been so little understood. And yet it is fundamental.

The detail

The report starts with the argument that the government has sought for too long to “muddle through” with a “parallel” system of local authority-maintained schools and academies – either side currently makes up roughly half of the schools in England. The report would replace this with what it a suggests would be a single legal structure of “school boards” which would run every state-funded school in England.