A-Infos (en) Britain, Aanarchist journal Direct Action #40 - national: City academies: creationism, privatisation and advertising

It had been hoped by some on the left that, once elected, Gordon Brown would 
signal an end to the backdoor privatisation of education by calling a halt to 
the proposed creation of 400 academy schools. Then again some people still 
believe in fairies. Since becoming prime minister not only has Brown gone out of 
his way to back academy schools, his new education minister and close all, Ed 
Balls, has promised a "significant increase in the academy schools programme".
For the uninitiated, academy schools are independent state schools, run by 
private sponsors such as business or religious organisations. The sponsors 
contribute up to a maximum of £2 million to the building of the new school. In 
return the entire cost of running the school is paid directly by the government, 
with the sponsor taking control of the running of the academy school, including 
admissions, governing body, curriculum and teachers' pay and conditions.

The government at first argued that "city academies", as they were used to be 
called, would only be introduced as a replacement "in order to break the cycle 
of failing schools in inner cities". But since their introduction, it has become 
increasingly clear that academies are now seen by the government as a means of 
undermining comprehensive education by handing increasing chunks of state 
education over to the private sector and not-for-profit organisations.

Announcing a review of public services in March, Blair held up academy schools 
as the model for the introduction of "truly personalised" public services. He 
went on to describe a future of "much greater diversity of providers, moving 
away from the monolithic state provision". In May Labour launched new proposals 
for academies which painted them as "exemplify[ing] the new role of local 
authorities as commissioners rather than providers". Commenting on Labour 
education policies, the National Union of Teachers recently stated that "the 
Labour government was putting in place statutory mechanisms which would make it 
much easier for future governments to establish an entirely privatised system of 
schooling".

While the Tories have made it clear that they would increase the number of 
academies significantly, it appears that Labour is just as keen to get the 
education privatisation bandwagon rolling. Under Labour the building of schools 
has already been handed over to the private sector with 90% of new build schools 
paid for through "private finance initiative" schemes. Should Labour's proposed 
400 academies go ahead, it would mean that one in ten of state secondary schools 
would no longer be run by local authorities. This would totally undermine what 
little is left of comprehensive education, making it far easier to argue for 
ever more academies to replace the failing state sector, leading to the point 
where all or the majority of state secondary schools would be run as academies.

<image>
Trinity Academy in Doncaster, one of many academy schools run by Christian 
fundamentalists

In its war of attrition on state provision Labour is using several tactics to 
force through its academy programme. The carrot of bright shiny new schools is 
being used to win over parents backed by a massive government publicity campaign 
aimed at promoting the idea of academies. The government is also employing the 
big stick. A number of local authorities who reject academies, have complained 
that government advisors have warned them that money for the repair and 
refurbishment of schools may be withheld if they do not agree to academies. This 
is the same strategy used by the government to undermine council house 
provision, where tenants, who voted to reject having their houses taken out of 
local council control, were denied funds for repairs and refurbishment.
At the centre of the government campaign to win hearts and minds is the idea 
that the involvement of the private sector will make schools more efficient both 
in terms of cost and in the teaching of children. These claims, as so often with 
Labour, are based more on free market fantasy rather than actual reality.

Take the claim that the involvement of the private sector will be more cost 
effective. According to the government's own figures, each academy on average 
costs £24 million to build. This is twice the amount it costs to build a new 
comprehensive. But the government figure of £24 million figure has been 
doctored. It includes academies that were set up by simply refurbishing existing 
schools, which is far cheaper. If the cost of new build academies is taken 
separately the cost is far higher with new academies costing as much as £38 
million upwards to build. The government's £24 million also does not include the 
additional costs that are constantly being paid out to academies after they have 
been built. These payouts have become so frequent that the National Audit Office 
warned there was a danger of academies becoming dependent on a never ending 
stream of government handouts.

The government's argument that sponsors' contributions would keep cost of 
academies down can only be described as a sick joke. Originally sponsors were 
supposed to pay £2 million each of an estimated £10 million to build each 
academy. Hence sponsors would have been paying 20% of the total cost. However, 
as costs have soared, so too has the money put in by the government, while the 
amount from sponsors went in the opposite direction. An investigation by the 
Guardian revealed that only four of the 26 academies built at the time, had 
received the full £2 million pledged, while four others had received nothing 
from sponsors. Taken in total it's doubtful if sponsor money covers all the cost 
of wining and dining potential sponsors and certainly does not cover the £20 
million already paid out to consultancy firms and the £28 million paid to 
project management services.

The argument that the involvement of the private sector would make for a better 
education would be amusing if it was not so shocking. Thus far control of our 
children's education has been handed over to the likes of David Samworth, a 
sausage and pie maker; Peter Vardy, a second hand car dealer who advocates the 
teaching of creationism; those pioneers of radical education, West Bromwich 
Albion Football Club; two individuals who achieved the almost impossible task of 
being turned down for a peerage on the grounds that they were "unsuitable"; and 
a haberdashers company. We could go on but the point is: what on earth qualifies 
these people to take over the running of a school?

With this lot running schools, and even though academies receive 25% more 
government funding per pupil than comprehensives, it comes as no surprise that 
academies have not been the success the government would have us believe. 
Despite the small number of academies so far built, one has already received an 
improvement order, one has been placed in "special measures", and one (the 
Paddington Academy) was found to be in a total mess by OFSTED. Paddington, 
having had £50 million spent on it, was found to be so badly managed by sponsors 
that children were found to be learning in a building site, with the school 
having no phones, no ICT, no governing body and a huge deficit. Another school, 
Deacon City Academy, was built without a playground in order to prevent 
"uncontrollable" numbers of children running around. When challenged, the 
headmaster announced "pupils are able to hydrate during the learning 
experience". We kid you not!

Based on exam results academies are not doing so well either. On average they 
have so far failed to match the results of the 10% of schools operating in the 
most deprived areas. But it would seem that the sponsors are using all their 
experience from the private sector to drive up results. Instead of attempting to 
raise standards, academies are attempting to attract children from more 
prosperous areas as a way of improving results. At the same time they are 
increasingly blocking the entry of children from the most deprived backgrounds 
and those with learning difficulties, while excluding "problem pupils" in ever 
higher numbers. One sponsor, on taking control of Islington Green School, even 
attempted to move the school's catchments area away from Hackney to the far more 
prosperous City of London.

The worry is that the attempt by academies to select pupil intake is having an 
adverse effect on comprehensive schools in the immediate locality. These 
comprehensives have seen pupil numbers fall overall, but their proportion of 
children from poorer backgrounds and those with leaning difficulties has 
increased at the same time. This invariably affects standards, allowing the 
government to step in to label the school as failing, and to roll out the 
prospect of an academy as the solution. In some cases schools are not waiting 
for the government and are considering academy status as the only way of 
competing with existing academies.

Mercifully there is growing resistance to academies from both the unions and 
parents. In some cases resistance has taken the form of direct action such as 
occupations. Already there have been defeats for the government in both 
Doncaster and Lambeth. This is encouraging but there are obvious concerns with 
any struggle that involves union leaders. Not the least of these is that union 
leaders will accept academies in return for recognition rights and vague 
promises to keep nationally agreed terms and conditions.

The best way to prevent this is to involve parents and for the campaign to be 
run democratically with all decisions being decided by mass meeting. But just as 
importantly, the aim of the campaign should not be limited to just protecting 
terms and conditions but rather to total opposition to academies. After all 
academies have to be resisted not just because they threaten pay but also 
because they would further debase an already appalling class ridden and unequal 
education system. Education should be a means of liberation, a way of teaching 
children how to think for themselves and to analyse the world around them. It 
should be one of the processes which enable us to develop as human beings to our 
full potential. Academies are the total negation of this; they are a means of 
handing over the teaching of our children to capitalists and religious zealots 
who would stunt children's individuality rather than develop it.

One of the biggest failings of the British trade union movement has been 
limiting itself to workplace militancy to the exclusion of wider social and 
political issues. In the fight against academies education workers can avoid 
that trap, by involving parents and the wider community in their struggle. By 
organising in this way not only could they defeat Labour's attempts to privatise 
secondary education, but also begin to organise a movement capable of 
challenging an education system geared more towards preserving the dominance of 
society's ruling elite than towards liberating the minds of our children.
previous
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en