THE academisation of all schools in England “is not the simple answer” to an improved education system, which also requires local leadership and governance, as provided by diocesan boards, the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler, has said.
Bishop Butler, the lead bishop for education, has been clear in his support of the move towards full academisation of schools within multi-academy trusts (MATs), as set out in the White Paper on which the Schools Bill — currently making its way through the House of Lords — was based (News, 8 July).
During the report stage of the Bill on Tuesday, however, he emphasised the importance of local knowledge and leadership for schools, which diocesan boards of education (DBEs) could offer. “There are many maintained and voluntary aided stand-alone schools that have turned themselves around incredibly well through good leadership and high-quality teaching; so academisation is not the simple answer.
“Local leadership and governance undoubtedly need to be got right,” he continued, before highlighting the “importance here, in the church sector, of the diocesan boards of education as key local engagers”.
Bishop Butler did not, however, agree to an amendment from Lord Storey that every academy school should have its own governing body to protect community interests. Lord Storey was concerned that the top ten MATs in the country, most of which were in the south, had up to 80 academies each, meaning that few were local, and that the north was, therefore, disadvantaged.
While Bishop Butler supported the principle of local governance, and was equally concerned about the spread of MATs, he described the amendment as “overly mandatory and restrictive, giving too much power to a local body to trigger a school leaving an academy trust”.
The amendment was later withdrawn after the Schools Minister, Baroness Barran, confirmed that the Government had temporarily removed the early clauses concerning the regulation of academies so that discussions on local governance for schools in all trusts could take place.
Bishop Butler supported instead other amendments from peers which called for local and geographical consultation and inspection of MATs. This, he suggested, could be achieved with the involvement of dioceses, which were well placed for this. These amendments were not supported by Baroness Barran, however, and consequently not moved.
Again, the Bishop welcomed the inclusion of protections for schools and academies with a religious character in the Bill, and the forthcoming regulations of governance which would support this, as well as several clarifying government amendments, all of which were agreed by the House.
This included one “which would require a local authority to gain the consent of the appropriate religious body before applying for an academy order for a maintained school in its area with a religious character”, and another that more closely defined “appropriate religious body” (Features, 10 June).
The original clause, Bishop Butler said, had “inadvertently excluded many C of E diocesan boards of education from the requirement to give consent to the academy order of a school for which it is the religious authority. This was an unfortunate omission of a principle that Parliament has demonstrated its acceptance of in passing the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 2021, which explicitly requires the consent of a DBE before a governing body can seek an academy order.
“We therefore thank the Government for bringing forward these amendments, which address this detail, make sure that the two laws agree, and ensure that DBEs are functioning effectively within the academising system.”
Localism was raised again in his support of further government amendments, which again were later agreed, to formalise the part played by diocesan boards of education in co-ordinating directly with regional schools directors, who scrutinise academies and intervene on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Bishop Butler said: “Because they are a confined geographical area, dioceses are best placed to understand in each local context how to measure flourishing across pupils, staff, and the whole trust community. This clause enables them, with the regional directors for the DfE, to utilise their understanding of the distinct communities they serve proactively to shape the future school system in each locality.”
According to the Diocesan Director of Education (DDE) for Ely, Andrew Read, who chairs the Association of Anglican Directors of Education, this was not, however, the original proposal of the national Church (for which the Bishop was speaking), which had intended to appoint regional directors internally, paid for by the DfE; and that this had been scrapped after feedback from DDEs during a C of E education conference last week (News, 8 July). A Church House spokesman has said, however, that this proposal was never envisaged and that there had, therefore, been no U-turn.
Later in the debate, Bishop Butler spoke personally in favour of two other amendments from Lord Storey: to increase the pupil premium in 2023-24 by £160 per primary pupil, and £127 per secondary pupil, from 2022-23 levels, before tying to inflation; and the extension of free school meals to every child whose family claimed Universal Credit.
Lord Storey said: “When Universal Credit was introduced, the Government promised that parents and families would be better off for every hour that they worked, but that is not true. Many parents make the difficult choice between working more hours or keeping free school meals for their children. A family with three children now has to earn an extra £3133 after tax to make up for the cost of losing free school meals.
“We will hear, no doubt, that we cannot afford it, it is not our decision to make, it is beyond my pay grade, and that we have not seen what the fiscal policies are. While we are saying all these things, children are starving, or families are having to reduce the amount of food they give their children.”
Bishop Butler said: “Time and again, I hear from schools that are struggling because children are arriving not having been adequately fed. . . Ideally, personally, I would go back to free school meals for all primary-school children. However, I know we will not get that; so this proposal makes complete sense. Simply put, it is a win that the Government can make in the public eye. We know that the situation will get worse in the coming months, and this would help enormously.”
He continued: “The pupil premium makes a huge difference for many children and many schools. Schools seek to use it properly for the individual children.”
Baroness Barran did not agree to the amendments. She said that the eligibility of free school meals had been “extended to more children than under any previous Government”, and that, on pupil premiums, the Government was “already investing very significantly to support disadvantaged pupils”.
Lord Storey withdrew his free-schools amendment, and, when put to the vote, his other amendment fell by 108 votes to 51.