It's time to hold ministers to account for their waste of public money, starting with Gove

The mass expansion of academies and free schools, regardless of need, shows the incompetence and extravagance of the Education Secretary.

All eyes are fixed on decisions about the level of public spending in the Spending Review later this month. But how well - not just how much – public money is spent is an equally essential part of sound government finances.   

The Chancellor’s obsession with the politics of austerity and spending cuts means he is overlooking waste, inefficiency and ineffectiveness across government. Labour should make value-for-money central to its Spending Review response and to its alternative for government. We must expose every department to the full force of a value-for-money strip search starting with the inefficiency, incompetence and extravagance of the Education Secretary.

After three years, the evidence on cost simply doesn’t support the government’s flagship policy of mass academies. The independent Academies Commission, in the most in-depth study of the academies and free schools programme so far, found substantial progress among many Labour-era 'sponsor academies', but no marked evidence of improvement in more recent waves. My questions in Parliament have revealed that none of the free schools inspected by Ofsted have been classed as 'outstanding', and a third have been judged as 'requires improvement'. So not only is an academy no quick fix, it is often no fix at all. And it certainly can’t be used as the only answer for under-performing schools.

But the financial performance of policy also demands close scrutiny. Publicly-funded education must come with a guarantee that the public pound is being well spent and that government, parents and pupils are getting good value for money. This is not currently the case.

After axeing investment in the re-build of 735 schools under Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010, it took Michael Gove another two years to identify 261 schools he judged in need of the most urgent repairs. Even by the end of this year, 18 months later, building work will still not have started on over 90 per cent of these school projects.

Meanwhile, money has been made immediately and plentifully available for free schools. We face a crisis in school places, with a quarter of a million more needed by the start of the 2014 school year. Yet evidence suggests new free schools are not all being targeted at the areas that most need school places. More than half of the first wave were opened in the country's least deprived areas and recent research by the National Union of Teachers has suggested that millions of pounds are being wasted on new free schools in areas that already have excess places. Such decisions fail the test of good public policy and good public spending.

The government’s ten-fold expansion of academies and free schools brings other value-for-money risks. Academies and free schools receive more direct public money but they have less financial accountability. It is harder to follow the public pound through the system and this can lead to misuse of public money. Examples of malpractice are growing.

The head of the second largest academy provider E-ACT recently stood down after serious concerns were raised about financial irregularities and extravagance. Before that, the CEO of the Priory Federation of Academies Trust was forced to resign after siphoning off school funds. Lax controls and light-touch reporting requirements add to the risk that public money may be misspent in free schools and academies.

There is also no sound control over salary escalation in the academies system, with top pay starting to spiral up. The CEOs of E-ACT and the Priory were earning £300,000 and £200,000 a year respectively when they stood down, while data from the School Workforce Census reveals that the average pay for academy and free school principals is now almost £7,000 a year higher than other school heads. No one becomes a better head or does a tougher job just because the structure of their school changes.

The National Audit Office also reports academy costs being driven up by the lack of local authority bulk purchasing power which has resulted in many schools spending more money on buying their own services such as insurance and ICT (NAO, Managing the expansion of the academies programme, p. 36) Some academy chains are outsourcing school management functions to private companies, including services from the profit-making arms of their own sponsors or academy trusts. The risks of inefficiency, profit-taking and conflicts of interest are all obvious but obscured by a lack of public reporting and almost no school-level financial data for local authority maintained schools on the one hand, and academies and free schools on the other.

This lack of transparency makes it all but impossible to know whether or not individual academies and free schools are providing value for money, especially compared to established schools that choose to remain a part of the local education authority.

If people see or suspect that public money is being misspent or failing to bring the benefits that politicians claim, they lose faith in the policy. And if the Chancellor won’t hold his cabinet colleagues to account for their waste of the public’s money, then Labour must.

Education Secretary Michael Gove leaves 10 Downing Street in central London on November 21, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

John Healey is the Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne and was formerly housing minister, local government minister and financial secretary to the Treasury

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.