Academy chains and the new Stalinism
This is a pretty shocking story about the Academy programme that I heard recently. It shows how policy making is as much a cyclical as an evolutionary process. A friend had met a head teacher at a dinner party. In fact, he was an ex head teacher, let’s call him ‘Andrew’.
Andrew had half resigned and half been sacked by the board who ran his Academy and a chain of others. The reason for the breakdown in relations was that Andrew was finding it impossible to do his job due to the constant interference by the Academy sponsor and the total lack of devolution by the sponsor’s board. In fact, the centralised control exercised by the Academy sponsor far exceeds anything available to a local education authority.
I was so intrigued by this that I contacted someone I know who is on the governing body of another Academy in the same chain. What was his experience? This is what he said:
‘To be honest we aren’t really a governing body in the usual sense. We don’t have any decision making powers or devolved authority. Basically, at every meeting we write out a list of complaints and requests to the sponsor’s Board and then at the next meeting we are told that the list has been ignored. It’s completely pointless and rather uncomfortable as some of the parents are under the misapprehension that we are actually governing the school.’
So there we have it. Academies – which were supposed to be the final stage in the long process of liberating schools from the yoke of LEA control – have recreated a level of school subordination not seen since the introduction of Local Management of Schools in 1988.
As someone who was around when Academies policy was developed, I feel appropriately embarrassed. As chief executive of an organisation that sponsors an Academy I can promise that we will never resort to such a system of control.
No related posts.
Comments
3 Comments on Academy chains and the new Stalinism
-
Indy on
Fri, 16th Jan 2009 7:06 pm
-
matthewtaylor on
Sun, 18th Jan 2009 2:56 pm
-
links for 2009-01-22 | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC on
Thu, 22nd Jan 2009 7:02 pm
If I can borrow and mangle some of your Cultural Theory post, I’d posit that what we see in the Academies example (and in quite a few initiative from the same era) is a kind of category error.
Markets may be thought of as catering to individualists. However, the actors (private companies) inside markets are actually hierarchies and very strict ones at that.
The mistake has been sometimes to assume that because an organisation comes out of the market (i.e. is a private company) it will serve an individualist agenda in an arena that is not a market. What has happened in this case is that absent the “discipline of the market” the hiearchical nature of the company comes out.
This is absolutley right Indy and one of the many complicated things about CT. As I said in my last post, hierarchies themselves when they have problems will soon give rise internally to the competing CT rationalities. One of the reasons arguments within hierarchies are fascinating.
[...] Academies and the new stalinism Matthew Taylor discovers a fundamental problem with academies. [...]
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Pamphlets
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.