Poll: Should this Bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (39)
84.78%
Of the contrary, no. (3)
6.52%
Abstain. (4)
8.7%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks 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(a) Section 24 is repealed
(b) Section 25 is repealed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(a) Section 28 is repealed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Repealed: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
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Aye!
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
Aye this will bring much needed change!
0
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
The minister should grow the balls to ban MATs rather than create inefficiency to try to shut them down.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The minister should grow the balls to ban MATs rather than create inefficiency to try to shut them down.
If you wish to see the abolition of MATs then submit a motion on the subject. Depending on how it is done, I may support or oppose it. This isn't about balls and this doesn't need to be personal.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by 04MR17)
If you wish to see the abolition of MATs then submit a motion on the subject. Depending on how it is done, I may support or oppose it. This isn't about balls and this doesn't need to be personal.
I am not the one opposed to MATs, I'm just opposed to BS justifications for bills.

If you want to remove inefficiency this bill should be opposed as all it does it create inefficiency, almost as if the objective has nothing to do with cost effectiveness but rather opposition ot MATs and a lack of balls to go for abolition.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I am not the one opposed to MATs, I'm just opposed to BS justifications for bills.

If you want to remove inefficiency this bill should be opposed as all it does it create inefficiency, almost as if the objective has nothing to do with cost effectiveness but rather opposition ot MATs and a lack of balls to go for abolition.
Almost as if (not for the first time) you are fixated on a short sentence in the notes rather than the actual bill.

If you aren't opposed to MATs, I'll assume you wouldn't vote for a bill abolishing MATs, and therefore there is little merit in you arguing for it, or even me entertaining such a conversation.

Have a lovely evening.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#9
The following votes have been removed: Aye: El Salvador (Not an MP)
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#10
Order, order

The Ayes to the right: 38
The Noes to the left: 3
Abstains: 4

The Ayes have it, The Ayes have it. Unlock!
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 (150)
14.61%
I'm not sure (45)
4.38%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (306)
29.8%
I have already dropped out (27)
2.63%
I'm not a current university student (499)
48.59%

Watched Threads

View All