The problem is that academies actually take power away from local authorities and from those systems of schools that encourage parental involvement through offering things such as more parent seats on the board of governors, and instead transfers the power to a private sponsorship. More information about the power that transfers to a private sponsorship is detailed below. A second objection I have is that treating people in such a complex system as individuals is a very vague term and needs some justification. Obviously this is just a quote, however even from wider reading of labours manifesto one cannot find any policies that would achieve this goal. Having moved from low set classes to top set classes during my school career, I would say that in my experience having a streamed system in education best achieves treating pupils as individuals and allowing them to progress. Oh, and speaking of individualism and moving away from a centralised system of government whilst having a national curriculum is slightly contradictive.

Another aspect of academies that seems contradictive to the governments stance on education is the fact that it detracts from offering diversity in education as most academies are specialist in business - unsuprising as most sponsors are from business backgrounds. Added to this is that Blair actually envisions a future where every school will either be an academy or a trust school. Click here for the story. Does this not encourage the "one size fits all" type of education that Blair is so agaisnt in the above speech?

With regards to management of funds, as well as receiving more money than state schools already, academies also have the option to select 10% of its pupil intake. The Emmanuel school foundation, a foundation funded by Peter Vardy dedicated sponsorship of city academies, saves this 10% for children with special needs. Now, while this may seem good on the surface, there's a deeper story to it. Children with special needs receive more funding for things such as helpers etc. However, stories have already come out that helpers aren't always available, and the money is going elsewhere. Added to this is the fact that when an academy expels its pupils it still receives funding from them for the rest of the teaching year whilst other schools seem not to. This was an issue that even my local labour MP criticised the academy for. If the academy was a comprehensive school though, the LEA would decide the funding. Also, despite receiving all the money it does, the school has laid off many of the dinner staff, making prefects do their jobs. I wonder how much the principal gets paid?

The governing body consists of 5 members of the sponsorship, 1 parent (potentially representing hundreds of families) and 1 member of the LEA. This completely de-values the role of the parent, as well as giving the sponsor a clear majority in any decision they want to make. The token parent seat is decided by the sponsorship, also calling into question the fairness of the views being represented on the board.

Ultimately, too much power is placed with individuals who are not locally or publicly accountable. Power is therefore open to grave exploitation.

Also, I don't believe that the places where academies have been placed are fully deprived areas. I'll use my own example. On one side of the school I went to (before closure) is a very much deprived area, socially, financially etc. Most of the kids from this area went to the school. Yet, on the other side is a very much more affluent area, with significantly less crime, social and financial problems etc. A great majority of kids from this area were sent to schools with "better" reputations. Or shall we assume with less disruptive kid's. Now, naturally when the academy was opened, these kids, and indeed the kids who would have been sent elsewhere came flocking to the academy. I put it to you that the biggest leap in exam passes comes from this scenario.

So what about the failing kids? What to do, what to do. Well indeed the number of people being expelled in academies has significantly increased (which would effect the statistics of academies in a most favourable way, however negligible it may be). They'll probably just go elsewhere to bring down their statistics so they can be called a failing school also or perhaps not even bother with education. But hey, who cares? As long as the rich kids get there's why should anyone be bothered? A number of these kids are being persuaded to GNVQ's, again effecting stat's in a most favourable way.

I put it to you that the only way's in which academies make things "better" could have easily, and in fact so much more cheaply done in the schools that were shut down. Parents want to believe the school that they send their children to is the best one possible. With so much propaganda crap coming from government, added with indeed beautiful modern buildings, parents probably have no choice but to be persuaded.

 1. After 25 years the sponsor actually gets to own the land on which the academy is built. Considering they have only donated around 10% of what the school is actually worth, added with the amount the land will appreciate over the years, makes it an investment worth having!

2.        Sponsors also have the power to appoint whatever contracts they wish. Now, why OH why would a business be interested in this? I don’t think it takes a genius to work out that having such an option means that sponsors can make their money back in no time.

It has been reported that not all sponsors have paid the full amount promised.

The academy scheme is privatisation in almost every form imaginable. But indeed, the greatest way in which it is so is that it’s guaranteed to make the sponsor profits. Or at least, as we have seen in the press, a peerage in the un-elected House of Lords.