You know when you meet people and they ask you what you do, there’s often a pattern. Mine goes something like this. ‘So what do you do?’ ‘I’m a teacher’ ‘What do you teach? Where?’ ‘History, but I’m also on the senior leadership team of a new academy. We opened a few months ago. We have only Year 7 (11-year-olds) for this year. We’re going to grow year by year.’ ‘So, what’s it like working in an academy? And what do you think of academies?’

There is a widely held perception that an academy is a very different beast from a comprehensive. And it is certainly true that there are differences. However, it is not always those differences that mean many academies have done well, or indeed the reason that some haven’t. Academy results across the country increased by 5.1% this year compared with 2.5% nationwide, but a significant minority still do not meet the minimum benchmark of having at least 30% of pupils achieving five GCSEs A*-C.

Last month my school was one of 67 new academies to open across the country, making 200 nationwide. Another 100 are due to open next September. This question about academies always surprises me. There is something about the word, similar to terms like database, holistic and joined-up. They sound complicated when in fact they are actually straightforward. It is hardly surprising that in Britain we are obsessed with school structure. The legacy of the grammar/secondary modern system has left a shadow that makes the political argument often about types of schools rather than what happens within them.

Changing a school into an academy does not guarantee success. However, there are some features of academies that have improved the education of thousands of students in our inner cities. It is important to recognise to what extent it is the academy creation that has done this, so we can understand what has really worked.

There are a number of factors that make academies different – factors that have also changed since Lord Adonis first talked about academies promising to address two problems: ‘the eradication of failure and the quest for excellence’. There are three often-talked-about areas that make academies different: sponsorship, independence and admissions (and, in some cases, a new start).

First, to examine the factors that some claim make academies different. Sponsors can bring great benefit to an academy. For example, in my school one of our sponsors, KPMG, provides volunteers who meet with students monthly to discuss progress. They are trained to provide the support they need to fulfil this role. Similarly, the City of London offers a network of schools, museums and expertise that offer support to our fledgling school. When the idea of academies was first announced in 2000, sponsors had to provide up to £2m of sponsorship. The government was accused of privatising schools; yet now this requirement has been dropped in favour of vetting the educational record of an organisation. Now the critics argue that sponsors have influence at no cost. Surely the anti-academy lobby cannot have it both ways. Of course, I do not support the teaching of creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, which is why this vetting procedure has got to be a better way of checking which organisations we want to influence our children. Increasingly, educational trusts, charities, local authorities and universities are becoming academy sponsors.

Academies definitely have greater independence than a traditional community comprehensive. This idea of independence was borne out of the failure of many local authorities providing inadequate schooling, in some cases for generations. As I see it, the point of schools being locally run is so that local people have a say and a stake in what is decided. This, however, was never the case. Voters rarely vote out a council on educational performance. Education is associated much more with national government, though few elections are won or lost in the playground. The 1997 Labour victory with Tony Blair’s ‘education, education, education’ mantra was a rare exception. Independence, however, is only effective as a lever for school improvement if the headteacher in charge is effective. Interestingly, more and more academies are spreading good practice by employing an executive or ‘super’ head to advise others. Being independent in itself does not provide an advantage and academies are increasingly creating their own networks to share good practice and draw in expertise. In many cases, where local authorities have a good record, academies continue to draw on this resource.

Admissions are another way that academies have been accused of having an unfair advantage. And some academies, like all specialist schools, have chosen to select up to 10% of their intake on aptitude for their specialism. (Whoever thought you could possibly test for that?) Others have an inbuilt selection by being a religious school, attracting students of that faith. However, recent changes require academies to comply with local admissions guidelines. For example, my school is allocated pupils after a banding process conducted by the local authority.

Many academies, like mine, have the chance of a fresh start in a brand new building. What an opportunity. This year we welcomed over 200 11-year-olds on the site of a boys’ school that closed two years ago, a school where in 2004 only 21% of children achieved five A-Cs at GCSE. Our new school is a mixed school with a new staff, students, a beautiful building, uniform, ethos and culture. We have high expectations for all our students and are determined that they should achieve excellent results. School culture takes a long time to establish and is really hard to change. Academies where only the name and uniform changes over the summer holidays cannot hope to deliver the same transformation in education.

So these are four factors most talked about concerning academies. What then is the relationship between these factors and the factors that make successful schools? From my experience and an increasing body of evidence, the most important factors are to do with an effective leadership with a relentless focus on raising standards, and recruiting and retaining excellent staff who teach great lessons. There has long been a discussion about to what extent schools and teachers should be judged by results. The argument has, thankfully, largely been won. When poor results were ignored or explained away it was largely young people in poorer communities that suffered.

Effective leadership is central. Since 1997, the government has introduced a number of programmes to train great school leaders. I have been fortunate to benefit from two significant teacher development programmes: Fast Track and Future Leaders. Through visits to other schools in the UK and in the US, and from hearing from a wealth of experienced headteachers at the National College of School Leadership, I have developed a clear idea of what good looks like.

The government has also invested in teaching, ensuring the profession is well respected and attracts highly qualified and talented people. It introduced numeracy and literacy tests as a basic requirement, set up an independent professional body – the General Teaching Council – and encouraged graduates to take up teaching through Teach First, not to mention £6,000 training salaries and ‘golden hellos’ for shortage subjects, as well as introducing two pay thresholds to reward more experienced staff. Today there are 25,000 more teachers than there were in 1994. The number of support staff in secondary schools has also tripled to 71,000, according to the Office for National Statistics. In fact, becoming a teacher has now become in some cases quite difficult. It’s a job, especially in times of recession, that people want.

I have seen with my own eyes the transformation of inner city schools, from a new book for every Year 7 pupil to smaller class sizes and a huge increase in the number of teaching assistants. The changes could not have been implemented without huge investment. In 1997, the government spent on average £3,030 for every pupil in England, compared with £6,350 this year. The academies have cost money – nearly £5bn in funding since their launch in 2001 – because new buildings, in particular, are expensive. Yet the greatest investment the government has made has been in developing the people to run them.

The academy programme has provided great opportunities and a new start for hundreds of schools. The benefits of outside expertise, together with greater autonomy, have undoubtedly had some impact. More importantly, however, where academies are proving successful their success is underpinned by other important policies, particularly those that have ensured schools are accountable for their students’ performance, encouraged people to be teachers and stay in the profession, and also provided high quality leadership training. An excellent headteacher, supported by a high performing governing body, delivering clear vision with a relentless focus on standards, can transform a school. Ultimately, what counts is not the name but the people inside.