B1615 – Multi Academy Trust Bill 2020

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
B1615 - Multi Academy Trust Bill 2020, TSR Government

Image
Multi Academy Trust Bill 2020

An Act to change the funding mechanism for academy schools in England.

1. Definitions
(1) Academy School is defined as in the Academies Act 2010.

2. Funding of Academy Schools
(1) Funding for Academy Schools will be paid directly to Academy School governing bodies
(2) Federations of Academy Schools shall not receive funding from HM Treasury

3. Amendments to Legislation
(1) The Academies Act 2010 is amended as follows:
(a) Insert in Section 1A "Academy Schools", subsection 1:
(x)(x)(x)(f) it is not already the proprietor of an academy school.
(b) Amend Section 1A "Academy Schools", subsection 1 to read:
(x)(x)(x)(d)it provides education for pupils who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which it is situated,
(x)(x)(x)(e)it is not an alternative provision Academy (see section 1C), and
(c) Insert in Section 12 "Charitable status of Academy proprietors", subsection 2:
(x)(x)(x)(e) which is the proprietor of a single academy school.
(d) Amend Section 12 "Charitable status of Academy proprietors", subsection 2 to read:
(x)(x)(x)(c) which in pursuance of Academy arrangements is the proprietor of an Academy,
(x)(x)(x)(d) whose object as expressed in its articles or memorandum of association (or each of whose objects as so expressed) is a charitable purpose, and

(2) The Education Act 2002 is amended as follows:
(a) Section 24 is repealed
(b) Section 25 is repealed

4. Amendments to Statutory Instruments
(1) The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2020 is amended as follows:
(a) Section 28 is repealed

5. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This bill shall come into force on 1st September 2021
(2) This bill may be cited as the Multi Academy Trust Act 2020
(3) This bill extends to England


Notes
Spoiler:
Show


Definitions as per the Academies Act 2010:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/32/section/1A

Amended are:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/32/section/1A
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/32/section/12

(Sub section 3b and 3d of this bill is simply amending the word "and" within the list)

Repealed:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/section/24
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/section/25
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...lation/28/made

Justification:
This bill changes the way academy schools in England are funded. At the moment, Academy Schools that are part of a multi-academy trust receive funding via that trust. This creates further bureaucracy between the government handing over money, and children receiving their education. The Government wishes to simplify this process by funding directly to academy schools, rather than to multi-academy trusts. It is then up to the governing body of the school (and the HT) how that money is spent - if they wish to pay an amount to a larger organisation in exchange for services and collaboration between other schools - that is their choice. There are a series of very highly-paid MAT executives across the country who do not visit classrooms on a regular basis. This Government intends to fund education in the classroom, not the boardroom.

This bill changes nothing for maintained schools that are not academies. This bill changes nothing for academy schools that have their own trust and do not form part of a MAT. Also importantly, this bill does not abolish MATs, they can still exist - they just need other sources of funding.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/mat-saving...in-new-report/
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/top-slice-...ch-do-you-pay/

0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Aye Aye Captain! :pirate2:
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
I'd like to see MATs abolished altogether and an end to the academy-maintained school dichotomy, but this takes things in the right direction and I'll happily support it.
2
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
I dislike MATs, and this bill rectifies much that I perceive to be wrong with how they currently operate.
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
Saracen's Fez put my opinion on the matter quite succinctly and, as with him, i will support this as it is going in the right direction.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Mr Speaker, i support this bill as per the will of Her Majesty's Government.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
I would rather an outright ban on MATs. Academies are great, MATs aren't.
0
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
Aye. Less bureaucracy = Better.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Aye! Right step forwards.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
If you're doing this you should also get rid of MATs, if you aren't getting rid of MATs then that step in the funding probably needs to be maintained.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
I'm pleased to see the house is supportive of the bill
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
I'm pleased to see the house is supportive of the bill
Is it fair to assume that internal opposition is the reason for not being more ambitious in phasing out MATs?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Is it fair to assume that internal opposition is the reason for not being more ambitious in phasing out MATs?
Not entirely. There are MATs who do good work and there are great benefits to inter-school collaboration. If keeping a Mat-like structure suits the school then it's not for the DfE to take a working system away. I'm certainly no fan of MATs but I'm also no fan of education policy that cause short term damage - which a simple switch would cause, especially at the moment. This bill should see some MATs die out and other MATs lose power to their respective schools. Total abolition would be a step further along the same route but I'm keen not to leap too far in one direction and risk tearing my trousers, so to speak.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by 04MR17)
Not entirely. There are MATs who do good work and there are great benefits to inter-school collaboration. If keeping a Mat-like structure suits the school then it's not for the DfE to take a working system away. I'm certainly no fan of MATs but I'm also no fan of education policy that cause short term damage - which a simple switch would cause, especially at the moment. This bill should see some MATs die out and other MATs lose power to their respective schools. Total abolition would be a step further along the same route but I'm keen not to leap too far in one direction and risk tearing my trousers, so to speak.
Except this make MATs less efficient because instead of the money flowing down through the MAT to the academies it has to be pulled up from the Academies to the MAT
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Except this make MATs less efficient because instead of the money flowing down through the MAT to the academies it has to be pulled up from the Academies to the MAT
Which I said some Mats will die out as a result of this bill. It isn't accidental.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by 04MR17)
Which I said some Mats will die out as a result of this bill. It isn't accidental.
No, you just don't have the balls to go for statutory abolition.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
No, you just don't have the balls to go for statutory abolition.
So you don't think this bill would put some Mats out of business?
0
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
I'm happy to support this, aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by 04MR17)
So you don't think this bill would put some Mats out of business?
I believe most would cease to exist, as I believe is the true purpose of the bill.

This is in no way about efficiency but trying to get rid of MATs while lacking the stones to write a bill to do just that. If the model were inefficient why is it the standard model used across both the public and private sector? If it is inefficient why is it not being changed for local authorities? If it is inefficient why is the government not shifting NHS facilities to direct funding?

The answer is simple: claims of inefficiency are just an excuse.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I believe most would cease to exist, as I believe is the true purpose of the bill.

This is in no way about efficiency but trying to get rid of MATs while lacking the stones to write a bill to do just that. If the model were inefficient why is it the standard model used across both the public and private sector? If it is inefficient why is it not being changed for local authorities? If it is inefficient why is the government not shifting NHS facilities to direct funding?

The answer is simple: claims of inefficiency are just an excuse.
I'm unfamiliar with a similar model existing in the private sector - perhaps you could elaborate there.

It isn't being changed for local authorities otherwise that would be removing the very definition of an academy. Local authorities are also elected and therefore accountable for handling of public money. Academy CEOs are not.

Direct funding of NHS services is something I'd be happy to think about certainly - and potentially support depending on exactly what is proposed.

The answer is simple: an absence of a specific policy does not mean the government doesn't believe in a thing, and instead simply means we are not prioritising it at present. If you wish to see specific action to be taken, you know what to do.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (85)
14.19%
I'm not sure (27)
4.51%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (189)
31.55%
I have already dropped out (12)
2%
I'm not a current university student (286)
47.75%

Watched Threads

View All