Sir Jon Coles, Sir Dan Moynihan and Luke Sparkes gave evidence.

We will now move on to representatives from various academies. If you could begin by introducing yourselves, that would be helpful to the Committee.

Luke Sparkes:

I am Luke Sparkes, and I lead the Dixons Academy Trust. We run urban complex schools in Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

I am Dan Moynihan, CEO for the Harris Federation. We run 55 academies in and around London, most of which were previously failing schools.

Sir Jon Coles:

I am John Coles, and I run United Learning, which is a group of just over 100 schools nationally—again, mostly previously failing schools. Before the 13 years I have spent doing that, I spent 15 years in the Department for Education, and the last four on the board.

Q Thank you for being here. I want to direct my first question to Jon and Dan. You have both been quite critical of the loss of academy freedoms in this Bill. Could I persuade you to say a bit more about why that matters? Why do those freedoms matter? What do they enable you to do? Do you accept reassurances from the Government, who are saying, “No, no, you’ve misunderstood: the Bill doesn’t reduce your freedoms; it just increases other people’s freedoms”, or do you think that it would be helpful to amend the Bill further in order to ensure those freedoms? We will start with Jon and then go to Dan.

Sir Jon Coles:

My top concern is about pay and conditions freedoms. We take schools that have got themselves into serious difficulty and look to turn them around. If you want to turn around schools that have failed seriously—often generationally—to give children a good standard of education, clearly you need to attract very good people to come and work in those places; the quality of a school is never going to exceed the quality of its teachers. Therefore, the things that we do with pay and conditions are designed to make sure that we can attract and retain the very best teachers to do the toughest jobs, which I think is our fundamental role as a trust.

I think we really need those freedoms. They are very important to us. Obviously, that applies to this Bill, in relation to schoolteachers’ pay and conditions, but it also applies to the Employment Rights Bill, in relation to the school support staff negotiating body. Those are fundamentally important to us.

I have been hugely encouraged by the Secretary of State’s remarks that what she wants is a floor but no ceiling, and that is something that we can absolutely work with. I hope that that is what we see coming through. At this moment, that is not what the Bill says; it says that we have to abide by the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I think there is an ongoing conversation to be had about whether that is where we end up, because that is not quite a floor but no ceiling.

Having looked at that document, it does have a whole bunch of different maximums in it. It has quite specific maximums as well as minimums.

Sir Jon Coles:

The thing about the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document is that it is fundamentally a contract. Section 122 of the Education Act 2002—it happens to be an Act that I took through Parliament as a Bill manager, when I was a civil servant—essentially says that the Secretary of State may, by order, issue what is commonly known as the pay order, but the pay order includes a lot of conditions. Section 122 of the Act says that that applies as if it were a contract. Indeed, if you are a teacher in a maintained school, typically your contract will literally say, “You are employed under the terms of the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document,” so it is your contract.

Therefore, the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document has to act as a contract. It has to be specific. A teacher looking it up has to be able to see, “What are my terms and conditions? Have I been treated properly?” and so on. That is how the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document needs to work, so if we have to abide by it precisely, that is what we would have to abide by.

I think that officials—I speak as an ex-official—should be asked to look again at whether the Bill they have produced for Ministers does what Ministers want it to do, and whether it actually provides a floor but no ceiling, or whether there is something slightly different that would enact Ministers’ policy.

Q That was a superbly diplomatic answer—particularly the end of it. I will come on to Dan. You talked about QTS freedoms and the importance of being able to employ mature people in STEM and the like, and the risk that not having that freedom might put some of them off. I will just ask you about the freedoms on curriculum and things like that, and how those are being used by academies and trusts at the moment to find solutions that are right for individual situations. My impression is that those freedoms are quite often used to focus on core subjects in areas of high deprivation where there is great difficulty, and to have a model that works in those areas. It seems quite important for you.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable.

That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to “outstanding” status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications —GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?

Q Luke, you wrote a very interesting piece in the TES the other day about the importance of variety and difference between schools. You work in some exceptionally disadvantaged areas, turning around particularly difficult schools. I saw that you had used the academy freedoms to offer the nine-day fortnight so that teachers can have more preparation time, particularly because they are working in quite a demanding environment. How are you using those freedoms and how useful are they to you?

Luke Sparkes:

They are very useful when it comes to conditions. As Jon was saying, the narrative coming through about a floor and no ceiling is encouraging. I can see that working for pay, but I am not sure how that would work for conditions. My significant concerns with the Bill are about conditions. We have done more than most as a trust to try to position ourselves as a modern organisation. We know that post-millennials are not going to accept the norms that currently exist in our sector. We have also tried to overcome the rigidity of the job with innovations such as the nine-day fortnight. That innovation is starting to diffuse across the sector.

We want to be even bolder. We are really starting to think about how we can totally re-imagine the school workforce. That is because most complex schools—the kind of schools that we lead—have become, in many ways, the fourth emergency service. That is by stealth and not by choice. We have had to address the scope and intensity of the job.

I wanted to make that position clear. It is from that position and understanding that we still believe that a rigid set of expectations around conditions will stifle innovation—the kind of innovation that the three of us have led across our trusts. Leaders working in our context need the freedom to do things differently. That, of course, was the point of Labour’s academy policy in the first place. I accept that in some instances, it is possible to negotiate around standard conditions, but not everybody can do that. The innovations we are leading will not be scaleable if we are all forced to align to a set of rigid standards.

It is also worth knowing that our most successful schools at Dixons—the ones that are getting the best results for disadvantaged students nationally—would have to fundamentally change as schools if they had to align to a set of rigid standards. That would be bound to impact negatively on outcomes for children, and not just academic outcomes. It would be a significant backward step. Finally, an interesting point is that our most innovative schools—the ones that are using their freedoms the most—actually have the highest staff engagement scores. These freedoms benefit and are attractive to staff.

Q Would you say that the Bill, broadly speaking, erodes that kind of freedom and diversity in the system? That is at the moment, as drafted—it can change.

Luke Sparkes:

Certainly, around the areas that I have just described.

Q I have two unrelated questions on which I am keen to hear from all three of you. What assessment have you made of the introduction of registers of children not in school and how they will help schools and local authorities to support vulnerable children?

Sir Dan Moynihan:

It is an excellent idea. Too many children disappear off-roll and are not monitored sufficiently. I would say it probably does not go far enough. When any child leaves the school roll, whether they are at risk or not, we should know why it happens and whether the parent can make proper provision for them, so it is a really good idea. My concern is whether local authorities have the resourcing to make this thing work. As we all know, they are under immense pressure. However, it is about time that we had it, and it is a real move forward. The question is about their ability to deliver it.

Sir Jon Coles:

I agree with all that. I am not sure quite how many Secretaries of State have thought it was a good idea to do this, but it is a lot of them, and they have all backed off it before now. I think it is good, important and brave that it is being done, because while I support the right of parents to home educate, and I think that is an important freedom in society, those of us who work in challenging areas can see that there is an overriding child protection and child safeguarding risk. That risk has grown, is growing and does need to be tackled.

Luke Sparkes:

I echo that. I think the correlation of families who apply for elective home education, for example, and the vulnerability of those children is known. Whether it is in relation to attendance, unsupportive parenting or poor relationships with schools, challenging EHE is the right thing to do. However, as Sir Dan said, it will need significant additional resource if a school is to ensure that the child is supported to integrate into school in that way.

Q My second question is about admissions. Do you think that it is important for all schools to at least co-operate with local authorities on school admissions and place planning?

Sir Dan Moynihan:

It is important for all schools to co-operate. With 9 million children in schools, I think only 55 directions were given in 2023 by local authorities. For me, the key issue is that it is important that there is co-operation, but there is potentially a conflict of interest if local authorities are opening their own schools and there are very hard-to-place kids. There is a conflict of interest in where they are allocating those children, so there needs to be a clear right of appeal in order to ensure that that conflict can be exposed if necessary.

Luke Sparkes:

It is important for academies to work with local authorities. I think we accept that the current arrangements are fractured, but—similarly to what Sir Dan said—it is that conflict of interest that we have been concerned about. Although there is going to be an independent adjudicator, the question is whether they will be well placed to make those policy and financial decisions—almost becoming a commissioner role—and whether that would be the right way or not.

Sir Jon Coles:

The short answer is yes. I do think it is important. I would like to see Government issue some guidance on how the powers will be used, and to say to everybody, “Here are the rules of the game, and this is what good practice looks like.” I think people are worried about whether there are conflicts of interest and poor practice. Of course, these powers could be abused, but my personal concern about that is very low. I do not think they will be abused. However, I think it would give everyone a lot of reassurance if the Government—you, as Ministers—put out some guidance saying, “This is how we would like this to work. These are the criteria. This is what good practice looks like. This is how we want the system to work.” I think that would make everybody feel comfortable that things will be done fairly.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

Could I add to my previous answer, please? Some of the schools we have taken on have failed because they have admitted large numbers of hard-to-place children. I can think of one borough we operate in where councillors were very open about the fact that there was a school that took children that other schools would not take. They said that openly, and the reason they did not want it to become an academy was because that process would end. The school was seen as a dumping ground. I think there are schools that get into difficulty and fail because there is perceived local hierarchy of schools, and those are the schools that get those children. That is why there needs to be a clear right of appeal to prevent that from happening.

Q I have a very simple question, first of all. As senior leaders in the academy trust space, were you consulted on the measures in the Bill, either formally or informally?

Sir Dan Moynihan:

indicated dissent.

Sir Jon Coles:

indicated dissent.

Luke Sparkes:

indicated dissent.

Q No. Okay. Some of the data that we have seen about how these freedoms are used across the country shows that actually, the vast majority of academies do follow the national pay scales, QTS and the national curriculum. I take on board the concerns that you have raised about pay and conditions, and that is why a number of us are pressing for pay to be a floor, not a ceiling—we will be trying to amend the Bill that way. However, do you think that if this legislation goes through as is, it will make much difference day to day, on the ground? Will it especially make a difference if we put the floor in place?

Sir Jon Coles:

The provisions, as drafted, in relation to pay and conditions, would make a big difference to us. It is interesting that you say that the data says that not many people are doing it. I don’t think there is good data on that question—I have never seen any. Among the schools that we take on, including both maintained schools and academies, more schools are deviating from the rules than think they are. It is very common for us to take on both maintained schools and academies that have, usually in small ways but sometimes in slightly bigger ways, adopted different terms and conditions to the national terms and conditions. They have made local agreements without necessarily having themselves identified that they are diverging from national pay and conditions. There are more examples than people might think of schools using some flexibility.

In relation to the other things, as Dan says, there are specific circumstances in which people do vary in relation to the curriculum for specific reasons, in specific circumstances, and tend to do so for short periods of time. There are specific occasions on which people use the QTS freedoms, usually for short periods of time, usually while people are being trained, sometimes because they could not get somebody for other good reasons.

Fundamentally, my top concerns and priorities are pay and conditions provisions because they will have a serious impact on us.

To clarify, my point about data was based on DFE data in the briefing from the House of Commons Library. Should we look at it the other way? Rather than trying to restrict academy freedoms, should we give those freedoms to all schools so that we are not differentiating between academies and other types of schools?

Sir Dan Moynihan:

Yes. The public purse is going to be hugely constrained, as we all know, for years to come. The base at which we are constraining schools is inadequate and we are freezing the system where it is now. If we want a world-leading system in the future, given that the resource is not going to be there to materially change things, one key way to do it is to give schools the freedom that academies have had to transform failing schools in the worst circumstances. Why should every school not have that freedom? It makes sense.

Luke Sparkes:

Yes, and the majority of schools are academy schools, so it would make sense to level up rather than level down. On the innovation point, there are more academies that innovate than we would perhaps think. Innovation tends to happen on the edges and our schools, the most complex schools, are on the edges. The idea is that a few innovate, then that innovation diffuses over time and becomes the norm. If we lose the opportunity for anybody to innovate, we will just stifle and stagnate.

Sir Jon Coles:

I agree with all of that. If it were up to me, I would be saying, “More freedom; more accountability.” What has made a difference in improving education and public services, not just in this country but internationally, has been giving more responsibility to the people who are accountable for performance. If you are the person who has to achieve results and do the right thing for children, the way to get strong performance is to make you the person responsible for making the decisions and then hold you to account for them. I think that is a good system-wide set of principles, not just in education but in public service reform generally: sharp accountability for decision makers, and decision makers as the people accountable for performance. That is what drives us. I would absolutely make the case to free up everybody.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

It is not clear what problem this is solving. I have seen no evidence to suggest that academy freedoms are creating an issue anywhere. Why are we doing this?

Q The Minister touched on admissions and I would like to widen that. Positive and best outcomes and the destination of children and young people should be at the heart of every Government mission on education, as it should be at any school trust or local authority. However, concerns continue to grow about the widening attainment gap of our most vulnerable pupils. More worrying is the fact that parents feel they have no choice if they want to remove their children from a school setting. The Bill does have provisions on admissions and allows local authorities to plan school places. Today we heard from the Church of England and the Catholic Education Service about how they have always worked with local authorities to ensure fairness and collaboration in the wider services. You all have academies and schools across the country. How would you work with local areas, where your schools are, to ensure that collaboration really does find places for children and reverses that worrying trend that we still see?

Sir Jon Coles:

The worrying trend being poor attainment and the widening gap?

Yes.

Sir Jon Coles:

I suppose everything we do addresses trying to tackle the gap. We take on schools in areas of severe deprivation, places where schools have failed, where children are not succeeding. We look to turn those schools around. I guess my starting point for this is that we do already, in the overwhelming majority of cases, work with local authorities on admissions. None of our schools change their admission arrangements when they become academies. We stick with the pre-existing admission arrangements, unless we are asked by the local authority to do something different. That is our fundamental starting point for everything we do. As I said, I do not have concerns about the provisions around admissions; we are basically happy with them. If the Government issue guidance on how those are to be used, I think other people’s concerns will go away as well.

The one thing that I would love to see the Government do is really set out their strategy for improvement, how they think things will work and how we will drive improvement across the system. I think part of the reason for response to the Bill has been that the Government have not published a policy document ahead of publication, so people have read into the Bill their concerns and fears and worries. There has not been a clear Government narrative about how the Bill will drive forward improvements in the school system overall and how we are going to tackle the achievement gaps.

We want to work with Government. We want to work with local authorities—we already work with local authorities and other trusts and maintained schools. We want to do that. We think we are all on the same team trying to do the right thing for children. Our worry about some provisions in the Bill is really just a concern that in future we might be prevented from doing things that we do that we know are effective.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

On the disadvantage gap, the biggest thing was the coalition’s introduction of an explicit strategy focusing on disadvantage, and they introduced a pupil premium. It was highly effective for probably five years, then withered and disappeared. The Government, in my view, need an explicit strategy for tackling disadvantage, whether that is a pupil premium that is higher or whether it is metrics. That is not something that we have seen for a long time and not something that we have yet seen in the new Government, but it is a door that is wide open. The system wants that. That is the clearest thing: making it a Government priority.

The second thing for me, to be a bit more controversial, is that good schools should reflect their local area. Sometimes that does not happen, including for many selective schools. If we are really going to have a world-class system, that needs to be addressed.

Luke Sparkes:

I do not have anything of significance to add. We try to work as closely as we can with local authorities. In north Liverpool, for example, we took on a school that would have closed had we not taken it on. We take on the most challenging schools and try to do the very best we can for disadvantaged children.

You spoke about the importance of intent and accountability in driving school improvement, yet the Bill tilts the balance back towards giving responsibility to local authorities, and ultimately to Sanctuary Buildings the role of school improvement. Does that concern you? Do you think local authorities can do the same job as a multi-academy trust in turning schools around?Q

Sir Jon Coles:

That is a very tendentious way of describing the Bill. I think you would struggle to substantiate that. To give you my perspective, whatever this Bill does, I am still going to be accountable for running the schools that we are accountable for running. They will still be in the trust. I will still be line-managing the heads. We will still be accountable for their performance. We will still be accountable for teaching and learning.

Q Will this Bill see fewer schools becoming academies going forward?

Sir Jon Coles:

I am not sure.

Q If it takes away the automatic academy order—

Sir Jon Coles:

I would like to see what the Government’s policy underpinning this is. What is the Government’s school improvement policy? Is it their policy to do what you have just said? I do not think the Bill does that. The question is: what is the Government’s preference? Do the Government actually want to see as many or more schools become academies? I don’t think we know that, and I don’t think the Bill says one way or the other what the answer to that is.

In due course, we will see a new framework from Ofsted. In due course, I imagine the Government will say how they want the accountability system to work. When the Government say how they want the accountability system to work and Ofsted says how it wants the inspection system to work, we will see whether there will be more or fewer academies, but I do not think the Bill does that one way or the other. That is why we want to see the Government’s overarching strategy for school improvement.

I do not want this to be political knockabout; I want this to be about children in schools. I want this to be about how we are going to make the schools system better. That is the fundamentally important question, and it is the only question I care about—how are we going to do better for our children? I don’t want to overreach and say that I know what the Government’s policy is on that, and I don’t.

Q You have sat there and given evidence on your interpretation of why you guys have been very successful in turning schools around. The Bill takes away a lot of the freedoms that you have exploited in turning schools around, and it includes a specific order that prevents schools from becoming academies, and it puts the power in the local authority’s decision on what to do with it. It is dumb.

Sir Jon Coles:

I don’t think it does that. What I am reacting to is that point, because it does not do that.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

There will be fewer academies because, by definition, if the Secretary of State is making the decision that a school that fails will not automatically become an academy, that must be because the intention is that some failing schools will not become academies. Therefore, there will be fewer than there would otherwise be. I think that is a huge mistake, because all our experiences are that academy conversions are sometimes very hotly politically contested and opponents are prone to go to judicial review, which can leave children in a situation of failure for months or even more than a year. By using ministerial discretion, the opponents are likely to go to judicial review on those decisions, because they will want to know on what basis that discretion is given. Then the schools that are not considered to be failing enough to become academies will be subject to the new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams, which are being run from within the DFE. My view is that if you want to improve a school in difficulty quickly, it is much better to give somebody, such as an academy trust, full power over that school to improve it and to do what is necessary quickly. That must be more effective than a RISE team going in that does not have that authority over the governance of the school.

Q For what it is worth. Luke Sparkes, do you have anything to add on top of that?

Luke Sparkes:

I do not have a huge amount to add beyond agreeing with what colleagues have said. My most significant concern, as I have said, is about conditions for teachers. On the point about capacity within local authorities—I can only speak on the local authorities that we work with, which we try to have positive relationships with—they probably would not have the capacity to do the kind of things you said around school improvements.

Trusts were set up purely for the purpose of running and improving schools, and nothing more or less than that, so we have the expertise and capacity to do that school improvement work. I agree with Sir Dan that, when trying to turn around a very challenging school, it is much better when it is within the accountability structure of a trust as they are able to move much quicker. I am interested to see how the regional improvement for standards and excellence teams develop. They seem similar to what national leaders of education were in the past, and they did not always necessarily have the teeth to do what was needed, so I am interested to see how they develop, but for me, the significant concern is about conditions.

Q We heard from the National Association of Head Teachers that they wanted to see more collaboration, and some concern was expressed that not enough collaboration was taking place to date. I would be interested to hear your views as to how we can improve that, and whether you would acknowledge that, across a lot of different areas, it is not happening to date. I understood what you said in relation to narrowing to core, but given that we are in a position currently where we are seeing a 47% reduction in arts GCSEs, and in Derby the only place you can do engineering at high levels is the UTC in the college, there is some concern that that narrowing has cut off some opportunities to some of our young people. I would be really interested in your views, both on collaboration and on trying to ensure that we have a really broad option for all our children.

Luke Sparkes:

In terms of curriculum, we have always tried at Dixons to give as much breadth as possible. Our curriculum is fairly traditional. It does focus on the EBacc, but it has done so since before the EBacc existed. We have always specialised in the arts and sports as well. We have two schools with an arts specialism. We have always valued those, so I would agree with you that breadth is really important. There is a place to have, at a macro level, some kind of framework that is evidence-informed around the subjects that should perhaps be taught, but we also need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level. I can see the desire to get that consistency, but there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation. I support the idea that there needs to be breadth, but I think we have demonstrated that.

Q So you are doing something, but that is not necessarily happening across other trusts and academies?

Luke Sparkes:

I cannot speak for the whole sector,but I can say what we believe.

Sir Dan Moynihan:

I agree with you on breadth, and we too emphasise the EBacc. Around 40% of our kids are pupil premium and another 30% are just about managing, highly disadvantaged children, but we want them to learn history, geography and a modern language to 16 because that gives them cultural capital that they will need. That does not mean that they cannot be doing high-quality vocational qualifications alongside. The only way to engineer that is to broaden the range of qualifications that will count towards measures such as Progress 8. That will be the incentive that the system needs.

Collaboration is, of course, a good thing as long as it is focused on standards, and does not alternate or deviate from that. It is possible to spend a lot of time talking in talking shops, but what we need is collaboration between multi-academy trusts and schools that is about sharing best practice. That will raise standards.

Sir Jon Coles:

On collaboration, it has always been an issue in the school system that practice gets trapped within the boundaries of institutions. Around 20 years ago, when I was setting up and running London Challenge, you could walk from one school to another in London and you would find outstanding practice in one school, and in the next school down the road they would have absolutely no idea what was going on. Occasionally you would find a forward-thinking, energetic and effective local authority—such as Tower Hamlets in what it did with primary school literacy and numeracy, which had created a really collaborative structure in which great practice was being shared and standards were improving. But if you went to the next borough, it would—almost because Tower Hamlets was doing it—not be doing it.

This problem of practice getting trapped within institutions has always been there and remains an issue in education. One of the things I set up post-Department was Challenge Partners, which is about sharing practice across the system and trying to use some of the school-to-school collaboration ideas we had in London Challenge. That is powerful and effective, and where that is working it is good.

The best collaboration in the system at the moment is within academy trusts, because they are under a common governance and people are sharing practice very openly. The next challenge is how we share practice and get collaboration working beyond the trust. We do a lot of work on that: working to support schools that are struggling, sharing leaders and leadership, sharing our subject advisers beyond the trust, working with governors and leaders in other trusts to support them, trying to be part of professional development programmes for leaders and staff, and offering our curriculum resources and our professional development beyond the trust.

Of course, the risk is that people think you have some ulterior motive for doing that or that it is predatory. It is an ongoing piece of work. I think it always will be ongoing within the education system.

We will have to leave this evidence session there; we have come to the end of our time for it. I thank all three witnesses for their evidence. We will now move on to the next panel, but I will have to suspend briefly because one of the next witnesses is online and we have to make sure that we can get the connection right before we start.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—