Academy Schools: A Failed Experiment We're Too Stubborn to Abandon

The academisation of England's schools is one of the most radical education reforms in modern British history. In 2010, 6% of secondary schools were academies—independent state schools, funded by government but outside local authority control. By 2024, over 80% are academies, most of them run by multi-academy trusts (MATs) that operate chains of schools like corporate franchises.

The promise was simple: free schools from bureaucratic local authority control, give headteachers autonomy to innovate, and standards will rise. Competition and choice will drive improvement. Failing schools will be turned around by high-performing academy sponsors. The market will work.

Fifteen years later, the evidence is in. Standards have not improved. The attainment gap between rich and poor pupils has widened. Academy trusts pay executives six-figure salaries while classroom budgets are cut. Billions in public money have been wasted on failed academy chains, related-party transactions, and management consultants. And the accountability that was supposed to replace local democratic oversight has failed to materialise.

Academisation has not raised standards. It has created a fragmented, unaccountable system that serves the interests of academy executives and ideologues, not children.

The academisation surge: from experiment to orthodoxy

Academies were introduced by New Labour in 2000 as a targeted intervention for failing schools in deprived areas. The idea was that independent sponsors—businesses, charities, universities—would take over struggling schools and turn them around with fresh leadership and innovative approaches.

By 2010, there were around 200 academies, mostly in disadvantaged areas. Then the Coalition government turbocharged the programme. The 2010 Academies Act allowed any school to become an academy, not just failing schools. High-performing schools were actively encouraged to convert, with promises of greater autonomy and freedom from local authority "interference."

The result was an explosion in academy numbers. By 2015, over 60% of secondary schools were academies. By 2024, the figure is over 80%, according to Department for Education data. Most are part of multi-academy trusts—corporate-style chains that run dozens or even hundreds of schools.

This is not an experiment anymore. It is the dominant model of school governance in England. And it is failing.

The evidence: academies do not improve standards

The central claim for academisation is that it raises standards. Free from local authority bureaucracy, academies can innovate, set their own curriculum, hire and fire staff more easily, and respond to parental demand. The market will reward success and punish failure.

The evidence does not support this. The Education Policy Institute, in a comprehensive 2023 analysis, found no systematic performance advantage for academies over maintained schools once you control for pupil intake and prior attainment. Some academies perform well. Some perform badly. The variation is enormous, and it mirrors the variation in maintained schools.

What about the claim that academies turn around failing schools? Again, the evidence is mixed at best. Some academy sponsors, like ARK and Harris, have had successes. But others have spectacularly failed. The Perry Beeches academy chain in Birmingham collapsed in 2017 amid financial scandal. The Wakefield City Academies Trust was stripped of its schools in 2019 after years of poor performance. The Bright Tribe trust withdrew from running schools in 2018 after a damning Ofsted report.

The National Audit Office, in a 2018 report, found that academy trusts are no more likely to improve failing schools than local authorities. The difference is that when a local authority fails, there is democratic accountability. When an academy trust fails, there is no mechanism to hold it to account beyond terminating its contract—by which time the damage to pupils is done.

The attainment gap: academisation has widened inequality

If academies do not improve overall standards, perhaps they at least help disadvantaged pupils? Again, the evidence says no. The attainment gap between pupils eligible for free school meals and their peers has widened since academisation accelerated, according to the Sutton Trust.

Why? Because academies have strong incentives to game the system. They can:

• Exclude or off-roll struggling pupils, pushing them back into the maintained sector or alternative provision, improving their own results while harming the pupils involved
• Focus resources on borderline C/D grade pupils who will boost headline GCSE pass rates, neglecting both high achievers and those further behind
• Manipulate admissions, using complex criteria and appeals processes to select more advantaged pupils, even when they claim to be comprehensive

The maintained sector, by contrast, is required to admit all pupils in their catchment area and cannot easily exclude or off-roll. The result is that academies cream off the easier-to-teach pupils, while maintained schools and pupil referral units are left with the most challenging cases.

This is not raising standards. It is redistributing pupils to make some schools look better at the expense of others.

The accountability deficit: who oversees academy trusts?

One of the core arguments for academisation was that it would replace bureaucratic local authority oversight with accountability through parental choice and market competition. If an academy performs badly, parents will choose other schools, and the trust will be forced to improve or lose funding.

This has not happened. Academy trusts are accountable to no one except the Department for Education, which oversees thousands of schools with a tiny team of civil servants. Local authorities have no power over academies, even when they are failing. Parents have no say in how academy trusts are run—there is no requirement for parent governors, and many trusts have no parental representation at all.

The result is an accountability vacuum. Academy trusts can:

• Pay executives enormous salaries, with some MAT CEOs earning over £500,000 per year—more than the Prime Minister—while classroom budgets are cut
• Award contracts to related parties, funnelling public money to companies owned by trustees, executives, or their family members
• Close schools or withdraw from failing trusts, leaving pupils and staff in limbo with no continuity of education
• Operate with minimal transparency, publishing accounts that are often opaque and difficult to scrutinise

The National Audit Office has repeatedly criticised the lack of oversight. In a 2018 report, it found that the Department for Education "does not know whether academy trusts are providing value for money" and that financial oversight is "inadequate." Six years later, little has changed.

The financial scandal: public money, private gain

The financial management of academy trusts is a scandal hiding in plain sight. Billions of pounds of public money flow to academy trusts every year, with minimal oversight and transparency.

Some trusts pay executives salaries that would be unthinkable in the maintained sector. The CEO of the Academies Enterprise Trust, one of the largest MATs, was paid over £400,000 in 2023. The CEO of Ark Schools earned over £300,000. These are publicly funded schools, serving some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country, and their executives are paid more than hospital trust CEOs or university vice-chancellors.

Related-party transactions are rife. Academy trusts are allowed to award contracts to companies owned by trustees or executives, as long as they declare the relationship. In practice, this means public money is funnelled to private companies with minimal competitive tendering. A 2022 investigation by Schools Week found hundreds of related-party transactions worth millions of pounds, including:

• An academy trust paying £1.2 million to a company owned by its CEO for "school improvement services"
• A trust awarding a £500,000 IT contract to a company owned by a trustee
• Trusts renting buildings from companies owned by their own executives at above-market rates

This is not illegal, but it is a clear conflict of interest. In the maintained sector, such transactions would be subject to local authority scrutiny and democratic oversight. In the academy sector, they are routine.

The fragmentation problem: a postcode lottery on steroids

Before academisation, schools were organised by local authorities, which could plan provision across an area, coordinate admissions, and ensure that every child had a school place. Academies operate independently, with no requirement to coordinate with other schools or local authorities.

The result is fragmentation and chaos. In some areas, there are too many school places because academy trusts have expanded without coordinating with local planning. In others, there are not enough, because academies can refuse to expand or open new schools. Local authorities are still legally responsible for ensuring every child has a school place, but they have no power to compel academies to cooperate.

This creates a postcode lottery on steroids. In areas with high-performing academy trusts, pupils benefit. In areas with failing trusts or no academy provision, pupils suffer. And there is no mechanism to even out the variation, because the whole point of academisation was to fragment the system and let the market decide.

The market has decided. And the result is greater inequality, not less.

The political consensus: no one will admit failure

The tragedy of academisation is that it enjoys cross-party support. The Conservatives introduced the 2010 Academies Act and have driven the expansion ever since. But Labour introduced academies in the first place and has never repudiated the policy. The current Labour leadership supports academies and has no plan to bring them back under local authority control.

The political consensus is based on ideology, not evidence. Both parties believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that markets and competition improve public services. Admitting that academisation has failed would require confronting this core belief. So instead, the failures are ignored, the evidence is dismissed, and the policy continues.

What reversal would look like

Reversing academisation is possible, but it requires political courage. The steps are clear:

Bring academies back under local authority oversight, with democratic accountability and transparency requirements equivalent to maintained schools.

Cap executive pay at public sector norms—no academy trust CEO should earn more than a headteacher in the maintained sector.

Ban related-party transactions or subject them to independent scrutiny and approval.

Require academy trusts to coordinate with local authorities on admissions, exclusions, and school place planning.

Terminate contracts with failing trusts and return schools to local authority control or high-performing trusts with a track record of success.

Restore local democratic accountability, with parent and community representation on academy trust boards.

None of this is radical. It is basic good governance. The question is whether any political party has the courage to do it.

The bottom line

Over 80% of English secondary schools are now academies, removed from local authority control and run by unaccountable trusts. The promise was higher standards, greater innovation, and accountability through choice and competition. The reality is no improvement in overall performance, a widening attainment gap, executive pay scandals, related-party transactions, and an accountability vacuum.

Academisation has not raised standards. It has created a fragmented, unaccountable system that serves the interests of academy executives and ideologues, not children. The evidence is overwhelming. The political will to admit failure is absent. And the children paying the price are the most disadvantaged, who were supposed to benefit most from the policy.

We are too stubborn to abandon a failed experiment. The question is how much more damage we will allow before we admit the truth.