Labour’s Attack on Academies Will Harm the Future of Education

[Social Media]

 

The growth of academy schools in England has been the most significant educational success story in a generation. While other areas of the school system struggle with teacher strikes and deteriorating infrastructure, academies have been quietly transforming education standards, thanks in large part to the contributions of philanthropists and entrepreneurs.  

 

By allowing private enterprise to establish and manage academies, successive governments from both major parties have enabled these schools to flourish. With the freedom to pay teachers more, tailor curricula to students' needs, and set their own term times, academies have driven up educational achievements.  

 

However, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson appears determined to reverse this progress. Her policies threaten to dismantle the very freedoms that have made academies successful. A key element of her Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is to ban academies from employing unqualified teachers in the future. While at first glance this may seem like a measure to improve standards, it ignores the fact that many of the most dedicated and effective teachers come to the profession from other careers, bringing valuable real-world experience into the classroom.  

 

In some of the highest-performing academies, nearly one in ten teachers are classified as "unqualified." At the technology academy I founded in Putney, South-West London, several teachers followed non-traditional paths into education. One maths teacher began teaching soon after graduating from the very same school, and another started as a teaching assistant before progressing to a full-time teaching role.  

One particularly inspiring case is a former art technician with a deep passion for pottery. Although he initially taught for two years without formal qualifications, he later became fully certified and now teaches a full timetable. "The youngsters love him," and his journey highlights the importance of flexibility in recruiting passionate educators.  

 

This adaptability has helped Ashcroft Technology Academy (ATA) achieve remarkable results. ATA is ranked as the 15th top-performing school in the country, boasts a 98% attendance rate—one of the highest in the UK—and has been recognized as the best state school for the International Baccalaureate. Such achievements would not be possible under the rigid constraints of a local authority-run school.  

 

Phillipson seems unaware that the teaching profession is not overflowing with eager recruits. Schools cannot afford to turn away talented individuals simply because their entry into teaching does not follow a traditional path. Academies address this issue by offering competitive salaries—often higher than those in local authority schools—not because they receive more funding, but because they manage their finances efficiently. However, Phillipson wants to strip academies of this financial independence by forcing them to adhere to rigid national pay scales negotiated by the Government and unions.  

 

Another freedom at risk is the ability of academies to diverge from the national curriculum. This flexibility has allowed them to implement innovative teaching methods tailored to students' specific needs. Additionally, the autonomy to set their own term times has contributed to their success. Yet, Phillipson’s policies threaten to eliminate these advantages.  

 

Despite her claims of supporting academies, Phillipson’s actions suggest otherwise. She "wants to wallow in their success while undermining what has made them so successful." Rather than learning from the achievements of these schools, she seeks to impose restrictions that will stifle their ability to excel.  

 

The involvement of businesses and philanthropists in education has eased the burden on government budgets. However, by removing the incentives that encourage private sector investment in schools, Phillipson is discouraging future contributions. Sadly, too many Labour MPs are content to support a vision of universal mediocrity rather than embrace centers of excellence.  

 

This approach embodies what has been described as "the soft bigotry of low expectations," where policymakers refuse to believe that students from disadvantaged backgrounds can outperform their peers. The same misguided thinking underpins the Government’s punitive VAT raid on private schools.  

 

A more forward-thinking politician would study the success of academies and seek to replicate their best practices rather than limit their potential. Unfortunately, Phillipson’s policies will not only weaken academies but will also deprive millions of children of the high-quality education they deserve.

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-02-10

 

 

[Watawattana]

The case for the prosecution has been written by the Daily Mail, wonder what the case for the defence is.  If it's written by the Guardian I won't necessarily be believing that either.

[impulse]

31 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

The case for the prosecution has been written by the Daily Mail, wonder what the case for the defence is.  If it's written by the Guardian I won't necessarily be believing that either.

 

Not being from the UK, I wonder if the main criticism would be that Academies widen the divide between the Haves, who can afford to send their kids private and the Have-Nots who are stuck in the public schools with even less support now because the rich kids aren't in there.

 

Can someone from the UK illuminate me on the topic?

 

[Watawattana]

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Not being from the UK, I wonder if the main criticism would be that Academies widen the divide between the Haves, who can afford to send their kids private and the Have-Nots who are stuck in the public schools with even less support now because the rich kids aren't in there.

 

Can someone from the UK illuminate me on the topic?

 

I don't think that's the case, but happy for someone better qualified than me to pitch in.  I don't believe parents pay for their children to attend such a school.

 

I've read articles on schools that opted to become an academy to get themselves away from political interference or to provide more specialist education for their local area.  In years gone by there was a feeling that the UK education system wanted all of the children to be academically smart, to become doctors, lawyers or financiers.  All to the detriment of practical trades like building, plumbing, mechanics or electricians.  There a big shortage of such skills in the UK, whilst there are thousands of young adults with university degrees that cannot get a job in their chosen area due to an over-supply of graduates.  

 

Academies can focus on practical trades rather than academics due to the demographics in their area.  Sometimes a school is seen as a failing school as the pupils don't get high grades in traditional academic subjects like maths, sciences or English literature, but actually the children are clever in a different way (practical skills rather than academic).  So the school can opt out of the local education authority, becomes an academy and provides better/more appropriate education for the children in their area.  

 

The French, for example, has a similar system that streams pupils down the best route for their abilities, rather than try to push all of their children down a single path.

 

Wikipedia has some information on Acadamies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_(English_school)

 

A bit of a ramble but hope this makes sense.

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Not being from the UK, I wonder if the main criticism would be that Academies widen the divide between the Haves, who can afford to send their kids private and the Have-Nots who are stuck in the public schools with even less support now because the rich kids aren't in there.

 

Can someone from the UK illuminate me on the topic?

 

Informed criticism is not hard to find:

 

https://neu.org.uk/advice/your-rights-work/academisation/neu-case-against-academisation#:~:text=Pupils in academies are more,hire more teachers without QTS.

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Informed criticism is not hard to find:

 

Maybe true, but it's hard to tell which sources took USAID money and can't be trusted.  Besides, that's what interweb forums are for.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Maybe true, but it's hard to tell which sources took USAID money and can't be trusted.  Besides, that's what interweb forums are for.

You did ask:

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Can someone from the UK illuminate me on the topic?

 

But evidently don’t want your world view to be disturbed by anything that you guess might have received USAID funding.

 

Its a smart play, you can make the same guess about anything you don’t want to hear.