Academies policy needs to find a way to be more transparent and democratic, or it will continue to be beset by problems
Can problems at a school get so serious that decision-makers simply need to bring about radical change as quickly as possible, with little need for transparency, to follow best practice on governance, or for any meaningful input from the local community as to what should happen?
This is a question at the forefront of my mind as I contemplate what is one of the most high-profile, and possibly most controversial, looming school takeovers in England at the moment.
Holland Park school, a large comprehensive in Kensington, West London, has been lined up by its governing body to join the United Learning Trust, England’s largest academy chain, following nine months of highly public difficulties.
The background
Last August, the Guardian revealed how the-then governing body at the school, which since 2013 has been run as a single academy trust, had launched an investigation into an allegedly “toxic” working environment there.
Some 26 of the school’s recently-departed teachers had written to the chair of the governing body and separately to the government’s academies regulator, describing what they saw as abuses of power by the-then headteacher, Colin Hall, and his senior team. Bullying and intimidation by leadership was described as endemic, affecting staff turnover and morale.
Hall, who had led the school for 21 years, reportedly said at the time that he was “saddened and concerned” about the allegations, that he would be supporting the review but that he – perhaps speaking for the leadership team as a whole - “did not recognise the characterisation of the school or our leadership in the allegations raised”.
Nevertheless, by the following month, it was clear that change was coming to the school, as a new chair of governors was appointed. Days later, four other new governors joined her, all from backgrounds with close links to multi-academy trusts (MATs). And then it was announced that Hall himself would be leaving the school.
In November, the government served the school with a “Notice to Improve”, in which its revamped board was asked to consider joining a MAT.
Developments went relatively quiet on the public front, then, until Monday, March 14th, when the governing body announced – as I understand it out of the blue, to this community – that United Learning (UL) had been “selected by Holland Park School’s Governing Body as the preferred Multi Academy Trust for the school”.
It seems as if parents, pupils and even the bulk of teachers had not been aware even that there were formal plans to join a MAT – the Notice to Improve only saying this should be considered, rather than that it had to happen, remember – let alone which one it should be. Yet governors had “explored a number of options,” their announcement stated, and it was clear that UL had been lined up to take over very soon: in September this year.
This has caused an almighty local row, with a parents’ “collective” rapidly forming and campaigning against the transfer, attacking the proposals on transparency and democratic involvement grounds, and favouring the formation of a local MAT, rather than control of the school moving to UL, based 80 miles away in Peterborough. With Holland Park situated not far from the Grenfell Tower, in which some of its students had lived, it has been put to me that the “keep it local” angle was particularly important, with the Grenfell community having been failed by outside agencies.
Last month, teachers at the school – National Education Union members – passed a vote of no confidence in the governing body. I’ve been told that some 800 current Holland Park students have also signed a petition against the plans. The Conservative-controlled council, which heard speaker after speaker raising concerns about the proposals at a hastily-convened public meeting, is also opposed, as it favours forming a partnership with nearby Kensington Aldridge Academy, which is at the base of Grenfell. Even the local Conservative MP seems to have been opposed.
Into this argument, though, another element was thrown last week, as governors released a summary of the investigation report which had been ordered last summer.
The findings, as widely reported, were damning. The investigation, covering complaints and evidence over the period 2004 to 2021, reported what it said were numerous safeguarding breaches including “exploitation within some teacher/student relationships”, “inappropriate responses to the case of a teacher who was found to have had a relationship with a pupil”, “failure to support students who had been victims of peer-on-peer sexual abuse”, “bullying, discrimination and inequality towards both students and staff”, sexism, Islamaphobia and racism and claims that Ofsted inspectors had been misled by senior leaders.
The argument
Given these findings, and the public troubles since last summer which have also included a “riot” of pupils according to some reports – though that characterisation is rejected by the parent collective – is it not just right that an external organisaton, with no connection to this community, be brought in to sweep through the school and give it a fresh start?
Is United Learning not a strong trust, chosen by governors who themselves have great experience with the MAT system? In short, should the community not just get behind what is proposed, rather than challenging the process and proposed outcome? Does not doing so suggest a failure to take seriously the problems of this school – even of not honouring the experiences of those who have suffered in the past? And does it not just prolong the agony for this school?
I understand these arguments. In particular, I think it is very important to take seriously any evidence as to what has happened in this school over the past 20 years. I say that having frequently, of course, conducted investigations about concerning goings-on in schools, including in those which have had impressive public reputations, as Holland Park did.
I have written about Colin Hall’s salary, which at pushing £300,000 was well over double what a headteacher would normally be paid to run a non-academy secondary school in the same area. I have continued to investigate and raise questions about such high pay at the top level across the sector, taking seriously the argument that this takes money away from pupils. Although I did not investigate the detailed allegations which surfaced last year – as far as I remember I was not approached by any whistleblowers; I would have investigated had I been – the case has parallels to one I did write about extensively last year*.
So it is very important to take allegations seriously. But the process of choosing a new trust also needs to be right. For me, the important end of bringing new management to this institution cannot be used to justify whatever means there might be of getting there, if the process itself is questionable.
To this outsider, not connected to this community but having covered the academies policy since its inception in 2000, and close-up in terms of its effects on communities I guess for the past 10 years, the case against this decision-making process is strong, and important. And the evidence is that there is local democratic weight behind the concerns about process and potential outcome**.
Indeed, this case shines fresh light on the deficiencies of the academies policy. These undermine it not just from a public interest perspective, but also create on-the-ground difficulties, I believe, even for its advocates.
So what are those deficiencies?
Well, the lack of transparency, and in terms of democratic input, the failure in this case to set up decision-making even in line with what is expected by the academies policy itself, is staggering.
Transparency
On transparency, not only was this community not involved in any discussion as to the various alternatives available to this school as governors sought new forms of control, before the wheels were set in motion for Holland Park to join United. Even brief minutes of the key decision-making meeting have still not been made available, even after the event.
Local democratic perspective
On democracy, it seems as if there is nothing that any form of opinion outside of the board itself and the Department for Education – the democratically-elected council, parents, staff, pupils, the local MP – can do formally to impact this process.
That, of course, is simply stating the obvious as to how the academies policy works, with this institutionally remote policy vesting decision-making power entirely within two parties: the DfE and the existing trust board.
But this particular board was not even set up as the academies policy states that it should be, at the time of the in-principle decision to go with United.
The articles of association for the trust currently running the school state that there must be two elected parent governors on the board. At the time of the decision to go into due diligence on the transfer of the school to United , there was only one, who happens to be the former House of Commons speaker, John Bercow. The school says its articles allowed the in-principle decision to join United – perhaps the most important one it could ever take -to happen even without the requisite two elected parents. But this may be subject to legal challenge.
Email correspondence shows that the board was planning to hold a parent governor election back in January. This would have meant that the board would have had the two parents at the time of the in-principle decision. But in fact that election did not happen until late March, after the fateful move towards United had been made. No explanation for this delay has been given.
At the very least, this is all outside of the spirit of how even the DfE says governance should operate. In its governance handbook, for example, the government states: “Boards should welcome and thrive on having a sufficiently diverse range of individuals, viewpoints and/or experiences, since open debate leads to good decisions in the interests of the whole school/trust community.”
So this community has been frozen out of the decision-making process, both in terms of information and in terms of formal democratic involvement.
All of this might not seem to matter were the case for this school to join United Learning overwhelmingly and unarguably the right one, from what is known in public of its record.
Again, I have seen it argued I think on social media on recent days that, because the recently-installed governors are very experienced, and know the MAT system well, that they must be well-placed to make the right choice for this community. Essentially, local stakeholders just need to trust that they have made the right decision.
Yet United Learning, though certainly well-regarded by a DfE which has been green-lighting its expansion by taking on new schools in recent years, is in reality not uncontroversial.
In recent months I have covered (£) a huge local controversy around the trust’s introduction of very strict behaviour rules at Coleridge Community College, in Cambridge, which United has only now unwound after 97 parents at this small secondary signed a complaint to its governors. (The case was originally covered on ITV regional news here).
And at a United Learning primary school in Waltham Forest, north London, teachers have been on strike in recent weeks over a string of complaints about working conditions.
It seems to me, then, that the experienced MAT insiders now in charge of Holland Park’s board do not have a monopoly of wisdom: at least some parents and staff at schools elsewhere, with detailed experience of how this trust operates, would see things differently. The case for examining the strengths and weaknesses of this trust and of any alternatives, then, in detail and in public before any key decision-making is taken, seem to me to be unanswerable.
Is there really a case for keeping decision-making confidential?
There sometimes seems to be a sense, around the academies policy in general and perhaps specifically in potentially sensitive cases such as this, that confidentiality is vital.
In other words, it is not possible to debate openly the strengths and particularly the weaknesses of, say, particular academy trusts, since there would be too much damage to their reputations should discussions of any weaknesses be opened up in public.
But trusts which want to take on schools should surely have to accept that open scrutiny of their records should go with the territory.
Would open debate be impossible, when allegations of what has happened in the past include sensitive material as discussed in the investigation report in this case?
Well, the report itself has managed to plot a path of public reporting despite those sensitivities, so surely this might be possible.
As it is, it seems as if the default mode of decision-making about control of schools in England is one of secrecy. Other countries are more open, as was the English system, as I understand it, in the recent past. It needs to change.
Perhaps some might contend all of the above is very well, but democracy itself is complicated and messy. Opening up this process to debate just ends up prolonging the agony for this school, when what is needed is a swift resolution.
To which the obvious response is that much of the latest trauma for this school community has come because of the lack of openness of this process. Were options to have been set out in advance, and in the open, some of the heat would have been taken out of this debate, in my view. The very lack of transparency and meaningful place for a stakeholder voice has just fuelled this controversy; indeed it may yet end up in the governors having to fight off a legal challenge.
The case for a better system
There are alternative possibilities for how proposals of such major change to schools might work. Local authorities themselves, for example, have operated a very different system of democractic involvement and transparency in terms of decision-making in relation to services they provide, including non-academy schools. In decisions coming forward under such a structure-I once covered this system as a local journalist – a paper would be published in which council officers put forward a series of options for consideration around, for example, closing a school or keeping it open, with a recommendation from themselves as to the favoured option. This is all done publicly, including a public debate by councillors and interested parties, with elected councillors then taking the final decision, with freedom either to follow or to reject the recommendation.
Greater local democratic involvement in decision-making need not mean that local people got a vote on which option they favoured. Indeed, I would not favour that. But in my view trust boards should ultimately be democratically controlled – I would give all members of a community membership of the trust, thus having powers to appoint and sack trustees through votes – and all key decision-making meetings should be open and public.
As it is, this case just underscores a sense that the academies policy seems to rest on a view that all wisdom sits not with a community, but with insiders running trusts and a remote Department for Education. Meaningful transparency is not necessary because decisions can be taken without genuine consideration of the perspectives of those affected by them. Ditto local democracy.
These are really bad assumptions. They will continue to undermine the academies policy, creating problems for its advocates just as they fuel the arguments of those critical of it, so long as they remain unaddressed.
*Just as Holland Park was until last year, Brampton Manor Academy in East London is a high profile, very successful school with a very well-paid headteacher and an Ofsted- outstanding rating, but just like Holland Park is reported to have experienced, teachers had raised concerns with Ofsted which appear not to have been heard. I reported on a string of concerns about working conditions there after a harrowing employment tribunal report (£) was published about the experience of a young former teacher there. The school never responded to requests for comment.
**On democracy, I have seen questions raised in recent days as to how representative the Holland Park parent “collective” is, and it does seem to be involved in an argument with some former students in particular as to the way forward.
Yet, again as an outsider, one can only look at the evidence in terms of what a democratically-expressed community view might look like. As well as the concerns about the current proposals, expressed as they have been by teachers, current students, local councillors and the local MP, members of the “collective” took the top four places, I understand, in the parent governor elections when the results were announced, meaning that two of their number were elected. If, as I have seen argued, turnout was low and thus somehow these parents are still argued not be representative in their perspectives of the community as a whole, then why did the other side of this argument not turn out to vote?
If there is another view in this community, it has yet to express itself in terms of formal representation outside of the governing body itself, as far as I can tell.