Schools Secretary Ed Balls has condemned Conservative councillors in Dudley for “blocking” new academies which he claims will raise standards in deprived areas – he claimed in the House of Commons that Tory-run councils were sabotaging the academies policy. Dudley Council has axed plans for state-of-the-art academies, in Dudley and Kingswinford, which were due to open this September.
Academies are schools within the state education system which are managed by private organisations such as businesses or community groups. The Dudley schools would have been run by Christian organisation Oasis Community Learning. But the proposals have been scrapped due to lack of funding.
The authority decided instead to concentrate on its bid for funding under the Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which allows councils to rebuild or renovate schools. This has also been the subject of controversy, after the council delayed plans to apply for funding of £200 million to begin building work next year. But the council hopes it will win the money it needs to begin rebuilding schools.
Mr Balls was quizzed in the House of Commons by an MP who criticised her council in Mitcham, Greater London – but mentioned Dudley in his answer. He said: “Academies in disadvantaged communities are driving up results faster than the average, which shows that academies work. The second point, which she made about her constituency but which is equally true of Dudley, is that, for all the bluster from the Opposition, it is Conservative councils that are blocking academies round the country.”
Mr Balls attacked the council again, after an MP asked him about Rotherham: “Some people believe the academies programme is right because it takes out the role of local authorities. Presumably that is because they are Conservative local authorities that oppose academies, as we have seen in London and Dudley. We are also seeing it in Rotherham.”
Coun Liz Walker, the council’s cabinet member for children’s services, said: “The rules have changed over recent months and it is possible to enter Building Schools for the Future on its own. At the same time there is a considerable financial obligation to building academies which was not there in June 2006.”
