Government appears to scrap the forced academies policy –in one sense, at least

The government appears to have suggested the ending of its Conservative predecessors’ policy whereby the Education Secretary must academise a school after it fails an Ofsted inspection, as part of changes including the scrapping of single-phrase judgements on schools.

A press release from the Department for Education, backed by comments from the current Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, seemed to put an end to compulsory academisation when a local authority maintained school is graded “inadequate” through the inspection process.

Under the current law, which was introduced in 2016 by the Conservatives, the government must begin the process of academisation when a school is adjudged to be “inadequate,” or grade 4, under Ofsted’s four-level system of inspection outcomes. Because of this provision, the law means that the Secretary of State has no choice but to do so.

However, today’s developments saw the government suggesting a degree of freedom for the Secretary of State not to do so, even in such cases.

The detail

As has been widely reported, the DfE is scrapping Ofsted’s near-20-year-old system of rating all schools through one- or two-word judgements, with immediate effect.

For the coming year, this set-up is being replaced with schools being judged on the four sub-ratings within each Ofsted inspection, on quality of education; behaviour and attitudes; personal development; and leadership and management. From September 2025, a new “report card” system is being introduced.

The government has said that where a school would have been adjudged “inadequate” by Ofsted, the DfE will be informed, and, as before, “intervention” will follow*.

However, it was at this point that a different position from that of the previous government was suggested today.

In an interview with the presenter Mishal Husain on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Ms Phillipson was asked what would be the “trigger,” in Ofsted terms, for the government to require a school to become an academy.

She replied: “It will be the inadequate subcategory, and I will retain the power to take action to make structural change, or to put in place support for schools that are failing.”

Ms Husain then asked: “Inadequate in any one of the four [sub] categories?”

Ms Phillipson replied: “Yes.”

Would this, then, lead to the school becoming an academy, she was asked?

Ms Phillipson responded: “It can do. Or it could involve support being put in place…I retain the power to issue an order to convert that school into an academy. That remains the case in law and that is an important part of the system, because we do need to ensure that where schools are failing, action is taken to drive up standards.”

Ms Husain then responded: “It sounds more discretionary than the old system.”

Ms Phillipson said: “No, I retain the power to act to insist that a school becomes an academy. But the point that I would make is that we have lots of schools within our system where progress is slow, where in some cases those schools are already academies and they are not delivering the quality of education that parents expect. That’s why I will also make sure that we put in place additional support through regional improvement teams to focus on those schools that are not delivering the education that we need to see for our children.”

Based on what Ms Phillipson said, this would be more discretionary. Although she would retain the power to enforce academisation if she chose, the above sets up the scenario where, perhaps in the face of strong community arguments against structural change, the Secretary of State could choose not to go for it, even in the case where a school has been rated “inadequate” in a sub-category.

The DfE’s press release on the Ofsted change seemed to back this up. It said: “Where necessary, in cases of the most serious concern, government will continue to intervene, including by issuing an academy order, which may in some cases mean transferring to new management.”

The key phrase, there, would appear to be “where necessary”. The government appears to be leaving in play the prospect, where a community has convinced it that the best solution is not academisation, of agreeing with it. This would set up a slightly less ideological approach than that of academisation being favoured in every case where a school fails an Ofsted, as was the situation under the last government.

Thus, while academisation would still feel “forced” by the DfE when the Secretary of State has opted to academise a school, it would no longer be forced on the school automatically, following a failed Ofsted: it would be within the Secretary of State’s discretion, rather than being forced on her no matter what.

The necessity of academisation following a failed judgement has been reported as contributing to the stress of a system under which Ruth Perry was working as headteacher of Caversham Primary School in Reading, when she committed suicide following an Ofsted-inadequate verdict, and which formed the context to the current changes.

Legal position

If the DfE appears to be leaving open the position of a more flexible approach to academisation, even in cases where a school is given an Ofsted-inadequate sub-judgement, the question arises as to whether the legal position allows this.

The Academies Act 2010, as introduced by Michael Gove as Education Secretary, had allowed the Secretary of State to issue an academy order if he chose, in cases of a school being graded “inadequate” by Ofsted.

But the 2016 Education and Adoption Act toughened this up, to require the Secretary of State to do so, in such cases.

That remains the legal position, until new legislation is introduced. So, perhaps, if the suggestions above from the DfE that a more flexible scenario** might be in operation are borne out in reality, the Secretary of State might continue to issue academy orders, but not to require civil servants to continue the process of academisation that follows that, in some cases.

For, in practice, while under the Conservatives all schools which failed Ofsteds did indeed have to receive academy orders, in a minority of cases academisation itself did not follow, sometimes when the conversion process took long enough that Ofsted inspectors had returned, and found improvements, enabling the academisation not to happen.

So, despite the rigidity of the current law as passed eight years ago, there would appear to be some wriggle room for a new administration inclined to be slightly less doctrinaire on this issue.

Over the summer, the government did disappoint campaigners in relation to one forced academy controversy it had inherited from the Conservatives, however, when it chose to go ahead with passing Barons Court primary in Brent, North London, to the Harris Federation chain, the school having failed an Ofsted. I hope to write an update on this case.

Another change to “intervention”  

Much more straightforwardly, the government has also scrapped the “intervention” regime when a school receives two “requires improvement” judgements from Ofsted, as introduced through Conservative “coasting schools” regulations in 2022.

This had allowed the Secretary of State to issue an academisation order in cases where a school was in that position, although it was not required.

Academisation seemed to be being ruled out altogether in such circumstances today, with the DfE press release stating: “With the exception of schools already due to convert to academies this term, this policy will change. The government will now put in place support for these schools from a high performing school, helping to drive up standards quickly.”

These changes could be summed up, it seems to me, in a table:

Action according to situation facing local authority maintained school, by party

Party in charge	Situation for school	Situation for school
	Ofsted-inadequte	Two RI judgements
Conservatives	Ed Sec required to academise	Ed Sec may academise
Labour	Ed Sec may academise	Academisation not being suggested

The new government’s position would appear also to suggest that its “pipeline” of “sponsored academy” projects, whereby trusts are chosen to take over schools without this having been opted for by their governing bodies, could dwindle.

As of the government’s latest-published data on this, from June this year, there were 158 schools in this “pipeline”.

Just over half of state-funded schools in England are now academies, with academisation rules of course only applying to those in the local authority maintained sector, the majority of which are primary schools.

The interaction between Ofsted inspections, the accountability regime more widely and the competitive set-up for schools in England continues to be complex.There will also be arguments, of course, as to the extent to which the new government is following its predecessors in relation to the academies structure, and whether it should be going further.

I will be probing all of this in the coming academic year, including as preparations continue for the more substantive changes to Ofsted’s inspection set-up in a year’s time.

*This means that a school needs to be adjudged to be “inadequate” in one or more sub-judgements, to trigger this intervention. In practice, this seems no change from before, when doing so  automatically meant the school was “inadequate” overall, and therefore triggered intervention from the Secretary of State.

**I have included an “if” here, as ideally it would have been good if the DfE could have spelt all this out a little bit more clearly. I tried to ask the press office to confirm the position in relation to how it would implement the law in cases of Ofsted-inadequate verdicts, but there was no answer on the phone from them, and no email address to use, as under the previous government.