Sixty ‘orphan’ Schools Shunned By Academy Sponsors In The UK

Easingwold School, York

The past four months have been a worrying time for parents at Easingwold school. The 970-pupil comprehensive, in the picturesque market town of the same name north of York, failed an Ofsted inspection back in October – a traumatic event in any school. But Easingwold’s experience seems to encapsulate a wider problem for schools as England’s unpredictable new world of academy chains takes shape.

For Easingwold faces an uncertain future. Last November an academy trust started taking over, but confirmation of the takeover has now been put back until late March at the earliest, leaving parents worried.

Easingwold is one of 60 “orphan” schools that, at least six months after a failed inspection, still have no certainty over who will be running them. In 12 cases, two years have passed since a failed inspection, without a sponsor being found.

The National Union of Teachers describes these cases as symptomatic of “chaotic” changes to education that are letting pupils down.

Easingwold’s “inadequate” inspection verdict, in a report published on 20 October 20, triggered a rapid reaction from Janet Renou, the regional schools commissioner, one of eight government officials who supervise academies and academy conversions.

Two weeks later, she announced the appointment of a successful multi-academy trust (MAT) – Outwood Grange (OGAT) – as the favoured sponsor. It would formally take on sponsorship in September 2017, but in the meantime it would provide interim management for Easingwold.

Immediately, senior staff from the chain arrived at the school. Parents were told strict behaviour policies would be introduced and that there were plans for new school uniforms. But at the end of November, the school’s governors told parents the chain had put its decision on hold. It was worried that “a number of significant problems” with the building would need addressing before it would be able to sponsor the school.

OGAT’s interim management was put back until the summer term and there is no guarantee of the long-term sponsorship, while talks between the local authority, the governors and OGAT on who takes on financial liability for building works continue.

“We are in a horrible limbo,” says Rachel Richardson, who has two children at the school. “The situation is incredibly difficult. Outwood … do not seem to be committing themselves. They have got to do a buildings survey to see what work needs to be done. We’re not being told what’s going on.”

In December, the local Conservative MP, Kevin Hollinrake, who has two children at the school, asked the education secretary, Justine Greening, about the situation during a House of Commons debate. “Clearly, either the process is flawed or the way that this has been handled is flawed. Will the secretary of state look at this matter urgently?”

Greening said the DfE was seeking to guarantee a good sponsor. Overall, the DfE has argued that its academy policy, in which schools are supervised by central government rather than local authorities, enables it to take quick action when needed.

But Easingwold is one of a seemingly growing number of schools where difficulties getting an academy sponsor seem to be leading to protracted delays. Critics say the transition process may have an extra layer of complexity compared with the days when the local authority retained responsibility throughout.

Last month, it was reported that another major sponsor in the north of England, Wakefield City Academies Trust, is to pull out of running Hanson school in Bradford, after a 12-month trial. Hanson failed an Ofsted inspection in 2011-12 and has been without a permanent sponsor for five years.

In Cumbria, Stockport-based Bright Tribe, pulled out of sponsoring a federation of schools in December, having been selected as the DfE’s preferred sponsor in 2015. The chain tells us that issues with teachers’ pensions liability have held up one of the transfers, while another has been affected by a hitch with a lease. Because of that there is still no firm date for the takeovers.

In Lewisham, south London, plans for a trust to take on Sedgehill school this year have been put back until early 2018 as no sponsor has been found. Sedgehill failed an Ofsted last May. In a letter to parents, the governors wrote: “The potential sponsors cite the costs of [Sedgehill’s] private finance initiative contract and uncertainty about the future financial prospects of the school … and the challenges they see in turning around [its] popularity.” They added that the process was creating extra work for the leadership team.

Meanwhile in Birmingham, Baverstock comprehensive, once lauded by John Major, took on academy status in 2013 but is now in special measures and has a financial deficit. It is lined up for closure as parents were told no academy trust would take on its finances.

Kevin Courtney, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, says: “In a marketised system, academy sponsors will refuse to take on schools which are in difficult circumstances. We have raised the issue with the government as to what happens to these struggling schools. We get no answer. It is a huge hole in the government’s policy.”

Howard Stevenson, an expert on the privatisation of education systems from Nottingham University, says: “None of this should come as a surprise. The architects of the welfare state argued for taking public services such as health and education out of the market, because markets do not always work very well. Expecting a marketised system to come to the rescue of schools in difficult circumstances is unrealistic: the incentive for MATs is to take on ‘easier’ schools without complicated finances and challenging pupils.”

A consultant who works for academy chains, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some trusts have worked with disadvantaged communities but were finding themselves under pressure from the government over results, while all were facing tight budgets. He said: “When you are thinking about whether a project is going to be viable, the killer concern is money. MATs just can’t take risks with that, and when you add in the reputational risk of taking on a school in a tough area, it’s not a good equation.”

Stevenson says the expectation that MATs, usually relatively small organisations, should be able to take on large financial risks from schools is an indication of a badly designed system. He believes the fact that “very small groups of people” are taking decisions on which sponsors to appoint behind closed doors is “extraordinarily” anti-democratic.

Hollinrake tells us that “most schools” will not go through these periods of protracted takeovers. But he says Easingwold’s position has thrown up specific difficulties, and that the government is now looking to ensure chains do not move into schools, as OGAT did, without fuller due diligence having been completed first.

Hollinrake, who met Lord Nash, academies minister, last week, has now assured parents that the building survey will be carried out in half-term and the situation resolved by late next month.

An Outwood Grange spokesperson says that the local authority did not tell the trust of the “neglected” state of the Easingwold school buildings until after the chain had started work. “We are currently working hard to ascertain the true condition of the site and find a solution to ensure the school is viable.”

The DfE said the department was working with OGAT and the local authority to try to resolve the issues as quickly as possible.

For Rachel Richardson and her fellow parents, that cannot come fast enough. “I worry about the uncertainty facing my children and the teachers; it cannot be brilliant teaching with the school in this position,” she says.