Your article (£2.5bn ‘lurking’ in academies’ bank accounts, 19 January) claims that money prudently kept by academy schools in reserve is not spent on teaching or learning. Academies are responsible for spending around £1bn each month, which they receive in advance. The amount in reserve, though a large cash amount, is less than three months’ income – a sensible amount, especially when compared with the vast reserves of local authorities. What is important is what academies do with the money. In many cases, they will have plans to reinvest this money directly into teaching resources. And, unlike schools still under council control, academies will also use reserves for capital projects – money to build the excellent classrooms and facilities needed to learn. Unlike council-run schools, academies cannot operate while insolvent. Many, therefore, take the sensible decision to keep a healthy amount of money in reserve to meet any liabilities. We rigorously check the accounts of academies and probe any reserves that appear too large.
It is also crucial to recognise that the majority of secondary schools are academies, which naturally have far larger budgets than primary schools. That academy trusts are able to reserve funding for future investment in teaching and learning should be welcomed by those interested in seeing our young people flourish. It shows the futures of many of the best schools in the country are safe – encouraging news for our hard-working teachers. Our research is clear that these reserves have no impact at all on the standard of education offered. In fact, the latest Ofsted data also shows both primary and secondary academies are more likely to be rated good or outstanding than local authority schools.
The higher cash balances held by academies are a reflection of the freedom and responsibility that this government’s plan for education has given to schools – resulting in more than a million more children in good or outstanding schools than in 2010.
John Nash
Schools minister
• Assessing the impact of major school reforms is a tricky, imprecise, value-laden business (School reforms undermined by failure to track success or failure, says OECD, 19 January). It’s not simply a question of “what works”. Too often, encouraged, by the OECD itself, success or failure has been measured by test results of dubious reliability and validity, which by their very nature cannot do justice to the wide-ranging outcomes of major school-wide reforms. Such reforms cannot be measured, only judged; and judgments of complex outcomes can only be rendered by those knowledgeable and experienced enough in the fields in question. England used to have such a cadre of experts (HM inspectors) who reported without fear or favour. But they were regarded as “turbulent priests” by the government of the day and neutralised through incorporation into Ofsted. They or their ilk need to be reinstated, not just in England but elsewhere within the OECD.
Professor Colin Richards
Spark Bridge, Cumbria
