In defence of MATs: Part II

When I was a kid corporal punishment was very much in vogue in schools and hating black people was all the rage in government circles. You see, I grew up in South Africa in the dark days of the 1980's. To say it was strange - not sharing suburbs, public transport, beaches, restaurants, anything with anyone who wasn't white - is an understatement.  Getting the ever living proverbial knocked out of you by your teachers was a bit weird as well.

However, I did learn a lot about society and people during that time, about right and wrong, about freedom and oppression and the grinding reality of what that means. I learned to be scared of the police. I learned that however ineffectual they may seem sanctions do actually work. I learned that Victor Hugo was right - there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. You simply cannot scare everyone into submission. Most people like me buckle but not everyone.

But the thing that really got branded on my psyche was that if you define yourself by what you hate you are probably on the wrong side of the argument. It is something Nigel Farage will never understand. The National government never got it and judging by the horrific events in Durban over the last couple of weeks some of my compatriots still haven't got it. You see, if you are defined by what you hate then you have no idea what you or the people aligned with you actually stand for. So there is no shared vision. There is no alternative. And that, my friend, makes you a mob. You may think you're a political party as UKIP undoubtedly do. You may think you're a revolutionary as Russell Brand undoubtedly does. But you are neither. You are just part of a mob and everything that implies. And as we are talking about mobs that brings us neatly to the unblinking hatred of those against the Academies programme.

How can you possibly be against academies in principle if they work? That is just so stupid. Who in their right mind is against a child getting a good education? Now, the principal tenet of an academy - independence from a local authority covering (to a degree) admissions, curriculum, staffing and finance - isn't in itself inherently evil or even flawed for that matter. It is a management structure, a governance framework. The worst criticism you can level at this inanimate thing is that its a little dull. If you do impose either good or evil on it then you might be mentally ill.

And if this is the case then surely every single academy or multi-academy trust (MAT) has to be judged on its own merits. If a MAT is rubbish and cannot improve then shut it down. Take the management outside and put them up against the proverbial wall and offer them a blindfold and a cigarette. I have no time for incompetent but well-meaning amateurs who suckle at the public sector teat. I don't care how unionised they are.  Whilst I feel we should have a tougher line on persistent failure I cannot abide celebrating it. What is so upsetting and why these groups are no better than mobs is the joy expressed on Twitter etc. by some of these 'swivel-eyed loons' when a MAT or Free School fails or when a principal loses their job. To express schadenfreude over a failed school means you are driven by hate. It also shows you lack class.  But if these MATs are working, if they are turning schools around, improving the life chances of children then what is the problem? Surely they should be celebrated?

I also tear out the tiny amount of hair I have when the concept of MATs as a backdoor to the privatisation is raised. I question whether the people who vocalise these opinions actually know what privatisation means. These schools are not run at a profit, they are not vehicles for people to sell their own services back into schools. If they are then let's get on top of it and stamp it out. They are trusts. They are charities. When I was at ARK I got the repeated question "Who owns ARK?" My response was always the same - that is like asking who owns Oxfam. No one. Everyone. It is owned by our collective belief that things could be better and in the context of education ARK might - just might - have an answer.

So don't judge MATs as a group. Judge them by how they perform. Make sure OfSTED get all up in their business and ask the difficult questions. Challenge the failing MATs to improve and if they don't shut them down. But define yourself by what you believe because the opposite is … is … well, just plain awful and not company you want to keep. It puts you in the same camp as Nigel Farage, Russell Brand and PW Botha … and that, my friend, is a bad thing no matter how earnest and self-righteous you are on Twitter.