When I left the legal profession after working at two leading international law firms, it was with a clear aspiration: to develop an educational model that would offer children from some of the most disadvantaged communities the same opportunities enjoyed by many of my more privileged peers.
I was fortunate to be granted the rare privilege of founding a government-funded state school in Newham, the second most deprived borough in London. Thanks to the freedoms afforded by the academies programme, that school now outperforms many independent and grammar schools. It regularly sends pupils to Oxbridge and Ivy League universities on full scholarships worth £250,000 each. I am by no means alone in this achievement. Across the country, others have used the opportunities of academisation to become beacons of hope in their communities and rank among the highest in national league tables for educational outcomes.
I later moved to Star Academies, a high-performing multi-academy trust (MAT), and am now at the City of London Academies Trust. I have seen first-hand the transformative impact that well-led MATs can have on schools that were chronically underperforming. Across the country, MATs empowered by academy freedoms are changing the life chances of children in some of our most challenged communities.
It is this insight that underpins my concern about the Government’s Schools Bill. From my perspective, the bill represents a regressive step. Rather than addressing the most pressing issues — teacher shortages, underfunding, escalating behavioural challenges, a fragmented complaints system, the special educational needs (SEN) crisis, and the enduring impact of the pandemic — the bill centres on the centralisation of control in ways that risk dismantling a decade of hard-won progress.
One particularly concerning element is the proposal to remove automatic academisation for underperforming schools
One particularly concerning element is the proposal to remove automatic academisation for underperforming schools. Replacing this proven approach with untested Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence (RISE) teams creates additional bureaucracy and delays the support that vulnerable pupils desperately require. Equally concerning is the proposal to enforce a national curriculum across all schools, including academies. A key strength of the academy model has been its curricular autonomy, enabling schools and MATs to design educational experiences that respond to their specific contexts. However, this approach increasingly conflicts with emerging curricular trends that prioritise concepts such as “diversity”, “relatability” and “belonging,” terms that, regrettably, have become synonymous with a diluted academic offering.
The bill’s approach to school uniform policy overlooks the subtleties of school culture. Uniform may seem trivial to outsiders, but it plays a crucial role in setting expectations, promoting equity and reinforcing adult authority. In communities facing deep-rooted socioeconomic challenges, uniform policies can be powerful tools for shifting student perception and raising aspirations. Another perplexing proposal is the restriction on the expansion of successful academies. Preventing high-performing schools from growing limits access to quality education in areas where provision is lacking. Local authorities, some of whom are more concerned with propping up underperforming schools than ensuring high-quality education, should not be empowered to block expansion.
The requirement for all teachers to hold or be working towards qualified teacher status further illustrates a disconnect from reality. Schools increasingly rely on professionals from non-traditional backgrounds, those with valuable industry, sporting or creative experience, who bring rich perspectives and skills into the classroom. Restricting their employment reduces flexibility, increases dependence on supply staff and limits students’ learning opportunities. While the aspiration for fully qualified teachers is commendable, it is not reflective of current recruitment realities.
A glaring omission is the lack of detail on smartphone use in schools
The bill also fails to address the most urgent challenges facing schools. Behavioural issues have intensified in recent years, yet there is no serious national strategy to support schools in managing these complexities. Attendance is another critical area. Some local authorities often act too slowly, layering bureaucracy onto schools that must meet increasingly complex criteria before fines or legal action can be pursued. This undermines efforts to uphold standards. Meanwhile, schools are forced to offer incentives, trips, rewards, even minibus collections, to encourage attendance, while other diligent students who rely on public transport receive no such allowances. This inequity breeds resentment and diminishes the perceived value of education. The reluctance to enforce fines reflects a broader discomfort with holding parents accountable for their children’s education, weakening the social contract.
A glaring omission is the lack of detail on smartphone use in schools. The harmful effects of mobile phone overuse on student wellbeing, concentration and behaviour are well documented. Yet, in the absence of national guidance, schools are left to devise individual policies. A clear, consistent framework would empower schools to take firmer stances and better protect learning environments.
In essence, the Schools Bill advances a centralised, standardised approach that disregards the diversity of pupil needs and the deep contextual knowledge of school leaders. What education requires now is not more top-down control, but meaningful support at the frontlines.
Mouhssin Ismail is chief standards officer at City of London Academies Trust
