Big changes are not always wrong – but they require big justifications. England has never had a national school system. This government is proposing to create one for the first time, mandating that all 25,000 English schools will become academies by 2022, and that they will join multi-academy trusts. This is not just a big change; it is seismic – and one that most schools do not want. In fact, nobody outside the upper echelons of the Tory party seems to want it (and even many of them seem unclear as to why it is happening). Given that, it seems fair to ask the government to set out, with evidence, what they believe will improve for pupils after this upheaval. It has utterly failed to do that.

Nick Gibb, the schools minister, has said: ‘we are determined to create a dynamic school-led system which empowers pupils, parents and school leaders’. Who does he mean by ‘we’? It certainly does not include Graham Brady, leader of the Tory backbenchers, who has asked Nicky Morgan to reconsider the policy. And it certainly does not include the Tory councillor who heads up education at the Local Government Association or the Tory councillor in charge of education in David Cameron’s own Oxfordshire. Both have joined many other Tory council leaders in opposing the plans. If the government cannot persuade its own side, how can it persuade parents?

The minister went on to vow that, ‘Labour should never be trusted to run our schools again’. This is an interesting argument – apparently, Labour councils have failed children, so should have their schools taken away and be given no sweets before dinner. Again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Using the government’s own data, we can see which local authorities and academy chains add the greatest value for pupils between starting secondary school and taking GCSEs. The top 20 are: (1) Hackney (Labour council), (2) Barnet (Tory council), (3) Waltham Forest (Labour council), (4) Merton (Labour council), (5) Ealing (Labour council), (6) Haringey (Labour council), (7) Islington (Labour council), (8) Enfield (Labour council), (9) ARK (academy chain), (10) Harris Federation (academy chain), (11) Redbridge (Labour council), (12) Greenwich (Labour council), (13) Newham (Labour council), (14) Surrey (Tory council), (15) Diocese of Westminster Academy (academy chain), (16) Tower Hamlets (Labour council), (17) Lambeth (Labour council), (18) Croydon (Labour council), (19) West Sussex (Tory council), (20) York (Tory-Liberal Democrat council).

So, of the top 20 council areas and academy chains, 13 are Labour authorities, four are Tory authorities and three are academy chains. Hardly a tale of Labour failure. Eight councils do better than the best academy chain. Of those, seven are Labour authorities (including my own, Waltham Forest). How can Gibb talk about standards with a straight face? This is not about academies; it is about forced academies – there are great academies, just as there are great council schools. However, if the evidence for academies improving schools to date is thin on the ground, then evidence for academies automatically improving every other maintained school in the country in the next six years is non-existent.

So this should be a policy which Labour opposes calmly, pragmatically and with evidence. All that matters is what will improve school standards and pupils’ education. Nothing else is important, and we should say nothing else ­– just repeat ‘standards, standards, standards’ until we are blue in the face. As the old adage goes, when we are bored of saying it, parents might just have started hearing us speak. And we can be sure that most will agree with us. The vast majority of parents do not care what legal entity their local school is branded with – they just want it to be a safe, happy and successful place. There is no evidence that turning a school into an academy automatically makes it safer, happier and more successful. So why is the government spending over £1bn to force this on every school? It is not about standards.

Labour should not look to stop schools that want to become academies from becoming academies. We should simply look to stop the government from forcing a change on successful, but unwilling, schools. The vast majority of parents agree that good headteachers are best-placed to decide how to improve their schools – so let them decide, rather than the government. It is all about standards. Talk of ‘asset-stripping’, ‘privatisation’, ‘ideological attacks’ and the like might appeal to some but, to most parents, they make us sound as out of touch as ministers.

Our message to parents should be simple, pragmatic and repetitive. ‘You care about your children’s school. So do we. We want it to get better, and we think that the best teachers should decide how to improve their schools. The government disagrees, so they are spending your children’s money on forcing every school to change, whether they want to or not. This will not improve your children’s school, which is why we want to stop it.’ Simple, pragmatic and repetitive – it will resonate with parents because it is true. Labour just needs to out-reasonable the government on forced academies. For a policy without evidence, support or reason, that should not be difficult.

———————————

Mark Rusling is cabinet member for children and young people in the London borough of Waltham Forest. He tweets @MarkRusling

———————————

Photo: gpforeducation