28 April 2006
The sponsor of three of the government's flagship academies has hit back at suggestions that wealthy individuals could make more of a difference to children's lives by channelling their money into different projects.
Carpet millionaire and Conservative peer Lord Harris of Peckham, who sponsors three city academies in south London, said a report from the independent organisation New Philanthropy Capital did not 'hold water'.
'Sponsors like myself strongly support academies because they are beacons of success in their communities and transform lives for the better,' he said.
'The evidence shows academies work and sponsors will continue to back them, knowing the business skills and new ethos they bring helps some of the most disadvantaged children in the country.'
NPC's report On your marks, published on April 25, said private investment in education was to be encouraged but backing an academy was a risky strategy compared with other options, such as supporting anti-bullying projects or out-of-school activity schemes.
Martin Brookes, head of research at NPC, said: 'There simply isn't enough evidence to make a conclusive assessment on whether academies are a good investment for donors. Academies show mixed results for their pupils. But there is enough evidence to raise doubts about their cost effectiveness.'
Sponsors are expected to contribute £2m to the £25m cost of building an academy, a figure the NPC described as 'very expensive', given the lack of a strong relationship between school performance and investment in buildings.
'Perhaps the most powerful criticism of academies is the £8m difference between the cost of building an academy and the cost of building a conventional school,' the report says.
But the Department for Education and Skills insisted that academies were doing better than the schools they were replacing, with GCSE results improving three times faster than those of conventional schools.
A DfES spokesman said: 'Sponsors get involved because they want to put something back into their communities and they have seen the good results academies have achieved in a short time.
'It is wrong to say academies are poor value for money and we don't recognise the £8m figure. They cost exactly the same as similar-sized schools.'
PFapr2006
