Academy Schools and Devolution of Power

Apparently, Cameron is obsessed with handing power back to local communities; he's all about giving power away from central government.

It's interesting, then, that the first thing he's done in terms of local government is to freeze council tax. Which should be the decision of elected local councils - it should be local people making local decisions. But instead, he's decided that diktat from above is the best way to approach this. Frankly, it bodes ill. It bodes ill, too, in terms of evidence that he actually cares about cutting debt - because you do actually need to raise tax as well as cut spending.

And there's lots of evidence that he's prioritising and fetishising stuff ahead of cutting the deficit and debt - why ringfence healthcare? why ringfence defence? why prevent councils from raising tax?

In particular there's today's announcement of allowing absolutely every school in the country to apply for academy status. It's madness. Academy schools cost lots more per pupil than LEA schools. So here's yet another insane spending commitment, throwing more cash away. It also removes the schools from local, community, control and brings them under central control - so this rather gives a lie, again, to the Cameron agenda of giving power back to local people. And, finally, it's deeply unprogressive. Academy schools appear to have been fairly succesful at helping deprived pupils in deprived areas, so there's some argument that throwing extra cash at them has a genuine progressive benefit. It helps bring the disadvanataged a bit further forward and gives them more opportunities.

Now, though, all schools that are graded excellent can have the chance to apply. And, of course, almost all "excellent" schools are in nice, polite, gentile neighbourhoods. This is not because they're better schools. It's because it's much easier to employ good teachers to go and teach well read, middle class pupils with engaged parents; it's because it's much easier for those pupils to get good grades. It's because the measurement process is flawed. But, it turns out, it's a rather nice way for that moderate Mr Cameron to throw lots of cash at the advantaged, well off, pupils in public education in areas where education is already good. Which, inevitably, means it takes cash away from the disadvantaged.

I wonder if this is a rather cynical way of counteracting the Lib Dems "pupil premium" on pupils from disadvantaged areas, so that Cameron's normal support in the shires doesn't get too annoyed with him helping out people who need help, rather than helping people who don't need help but vote Tory.