London, UK – The Labour Government’s proposed Schools Bill has sparked alarm among leading educationalists, many of whom fear it risks undoing a decade of hard-won progress in some of Britain’s most disadvantaged communities. Among the critics is a former solicitor-turned-school founder, who warns that the Bill’s centralising agenda could hamper the very institutions that have transformed children’s life chances across the country.
Having traded the City’s legal circles for the classroom, the educationalist established a government-funded state school in Newham – one of London’s most deprived boroughs. Thanks to the freedoms afforded by the academies programme, that school has since outperformed many of its independent and grammar school counterparts, regularly sending pupils to Oxbridge and Ivy League universities on full scholarships.
This success story is far from unique. Across the nation, the academies model has enabled visionary leaders to drive up standards in areas long plagued by chronic underperformance. At Star Academies, a leading multi-academy trust, and now at the City of London Academies Trust, the transformative power of well-led MATs (Multi-Academy Trusts) has been plain to see.
But the Labour Government’s Schools Bill threatens to undo this progress. Rather than confronting the most pressing issues – such as teacher shortages, mounting behavioural challenges, the special educational needs (SEN) crisis and chronic underfunding – the legislation focuses on tighter centralised control. Critics say this approach is out of touch with the complex realities facing schools today.
One particularly troubling aspect of the Bill is the proposal to scrap automatic academisation for underperforming schools. Instead, it introduces so-called Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence (RISE) teams. Far from offering immediate intervention, these new bureaucratic bodies risk delaying the vital support struggling schools and their pupils so urgently require.
Another flashpoint is the push for a national curriculum across all schools, including academies. While some welcome standardisation, many argue that the strength of the academy system lies in its curricular freedom. This autonomy allows schools to design bespoke educational programmes tailored to their local context. Such innovation, however, is increasingly at odds with national trends prioritising themes like “relatability”, “diversity” and “belonging” – concepts which, though well-meaning, are often perceived to dilute academic rigour.
The Bill also wades into the seemingly minor issue of school uniform. But for many headteachers, uniforms are anything but trivial. In communities grappling with socioeconomic inequality, a strong uniform policy can foster a sense of pride, equality, and discipline. The attempt to standardise these policies disregards the subtleties of school culture and undermines leaders working hard to raise aspirations.
Equally baffling is the restriction on expanding successful academies. Preventing high-performing institutions from growing limits access to quality education in regions where it’s desperately needed. Critics argue this measure empowers local authorities to stifle excellence, particularly when some remain more focused on preserving underperforming schools than delivering real outcomes for pupils.
Perhaps most out of step with classroom realities is the requirement that all teachers either hold or work towards qualified teacher status. In a time of acute recruitment crises, schools have increasingly drawn on professionals from varied industries – artists, engineers, athletes – whose real-world experience enriches the learning environment. By narrowing the talent pool, the Bill risks increasing reliance on supply staff and diminishing educational quality.
More Read
Notably absent from the legislation is any serious strategy to address growing behavioural issues, worsening attendance rates, or the long-term impact of the pandemic. Many schools now deploy extraordinary measures – including incentives, trips, and even minibus pick-ups – simply to encourage pupils to attend. Meanwhile, inconsistencies in local authority enforcement leave diligent students feeling penalised, breeding frustration and resentment.
Even on the matter of smartphone use – widely recognised as detrimental to pupils’ focus and wellbeing – the Bill remains silent. Without clear national guidance, schools are left to create ad hoc policies, often without adequate backing to enforce them.
In short, the Schools Bill signals a return to centralised, standardised education – a step backward from the innovation and responsiveness that academies have delivered. What’s needed now isn’t more control from Whitehall, but trust in school leaders, real investment on the frontlines, and policies that reflect the diverse needs of Britain’s pupils. Without this, it’s the most disadvantaged children who stand to lose the most.
