Some musing for diocesan boards of education on 'Every Child Achieving and Thriving'

Quite rightly much of the focus on ‘Every child achieving and thriving’ has been on its proposed reforms of the SEND system and the desire for a more inclusive and effective system that enhances young people’s outcomes.

Alongside this, there are some interesting and potentially significant implications I think for Church of England diocesan boards of education. I’ve set out a couple of questions that have sprung to mind.

The first of these questions is about small and rural schools.

If the aspiration is to ensure all maintained schools convert to academies as part of multi-academy trusts (although that’s not clear from the white paper), thought will need to be given about what to do about small and rural schools.  There are 2,604 ‘smaller rural’ schools in England, all primary, of which 1,059 are voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools. The fact that there are still so many smaller maintained schools speaks volumes. It will be true that because of the financial challenges these small schools face they are unappealing to existing multi-academy trusts. What does this mean for diocesan boards of education if full academisation is going to happen? Are we going to have dedicated small school MATs that share central support from larger MATs?  What does the theological underpinning of Church of England diocesan boards of educations and MATs mean for these schools if the policy is academisation? 

The Government, quite rightly, recognises the role schools play as anchors in local communities.  In small communities, schools, like the church, are one of the only ‘public’ institutions left, playing an integral role in binding together families and providing broader support.  If schools are to take on a greater role in community connection, for small schools this has to be accompanied by additional funding or resource or a recognition by larger MATs of the important role these schools play. Notwithstanding the above, I think this policy does mean the conversation about small schools viability does need to be revisited.

The second immediate point that springs to mind is that if we are talking about full academisation, most likely without new MATs being created, is there going to be capacity within each Diocese to enable this?  Is this going to mean we need to explore how cross-diocesan MATS will work in more detail? Whilst the ‘new’ model Church of England articles provide for this, I doubt there are any diocesan boards of education that have policies about how to deal with this issue. I think that’s because there has been enough capacity internally for not to be an issue but going forward, I think this may become more of an issue. How will this be worked out in practice to ensure these MATs and schools flourish?  Can cross diocesan work succeed without there needing to be multi diocesan members/trustees in MATs?  Can we rely on the ‘new’ articles alone or do we need a new version?  Will MoUs (Memorandum of Understanding) between diocesan boards of education be sufficient to allay any concerns? Does the MoU between the National Society and the Secretary of State for Education need revisiting? 

As ever with any white paper, it generates many questions that we can’t answer at this stage.  Once the results of the consultation are know, and any legislation released, we will have a sense of where this government wants to go and whether full academisation is actually on the table. In any event, I think it would be wise for diocesan boards of education to revisit their strategies and consider what it would mean if this is the aim.