FOR the past five years government policy has sought to drive more and more schools, both secondary and primary, to become academies.

In 2010, the coalition government railroaded through its Academies Act with the minimum of consultation, and with a haste comparable to the Dangerous Dogs Act.

The Academies Act made it impossible for new schools to be opened unless they were academies or free schools.

The promise was that free schools would be parent-led, but in reality they are predominantly the preserve of academy chains or private companies.

The Academies Act was driven by ideology, not evidence, and the current Education and Adoption Bill builds on this.

In addition to so-called “failing” schools it introduces a new category of “coasting” schools that will come under the academy cosh.

It removes opportunities for consultation and legal challenges by schools targeted in this way.

Governors will be unable to object to an academy order and will even lose their right to a say on which sponsor takes over their school. Parents will have no say in the process whatsoever.

This is symptomatic of a government which is increasingly hostile to people’s democratic right to challenge decisions made in Westminster.

Many parents, teachers, head teachers and local authorities have not wanted to go down the academy route, yet have been coerced or forced to.

We have seen hired hands — education “advisers” and academy brokers — contracted to travel the country, bribing and bullying schools into becoming academies.

Many of these have had outrageous conflicts of interest in which they have simultaneously worked for academy chains or as Ofsted inspectors.

Where schools have met targets imposed by government, the government has simply moved the goalposts and upped the targets, then forced them to convert to an academy.

Disturbingly there is no evidence to support the coalition government’s claims that academies raise standards of attainment for pupils.

On the contrary, there is now a body of evidence to show that schools are more likely to improve their academic attainment if they continue to be maintained by the local authority.

Being cut off from the support and provision of specialist services that councils provide is not seen as an advantage by many schools, particularly primaries which have overwhelmingly rejected academy status.

Academy chains cannot be held to account by parents and the wider community.

As a result it will be pupils, often the most vulnerable, who will suffer from the loss of local authority services and the undermining of local accountability of schools.

This is quite extraordinary when you think the whole free school and academy programme has been dressed up as giving parents and communities more “choice.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sweden, which went down the route of free schools, has seen its position in international league tables for education plummet and social divisions widen.

Its own government accepts that the free school experiment has been a disaster.

New guidance quietly issued by the Department for Education before the summer break announced that any new school will now be designated a free school.

Could this be an admission that the government would otherwise be unable to achieve its manifesto committee of 500 new “parent-led” free schools in this parliament?

Or perhaps at last it recognises that free schools are not a route to “improved standards” — especially since 15 per cent of their teachers are unqualified — and that it is a costly programme which fails to address the school places crisis.

The Conservatives appear desperate to break up England’s national education system and place it in private hands. But education must not be subjected to the private market. It is an essential public service and must be run as such.

If education is opened up to market forces we will see a decline in the standard of provision.

Academy chains will answer to shareholders, not the community and profit. Neither educational excellence nor equity will be their driving force.

Education funding is another area of real concern. The government is freezing funding per pupil in cash terms, so schools and academies face significant cuts in real terms due to the impact of inflation and increases in employee pension and national insurance contributions.

Sixth form colleges and FE colleges have already suffered savage actual cuts in funding, with more to come.

An NUT survey shows that almost 80 per cent of colleges have already cut A-level courses, almost half have reduced teaching time and three-quarters have increased group sizes.

Needless to say, local authorities’ funding to provide support services to schools is also under considerable pressure.

All of this will hit students the hardest. Class sizes will go up, tutorial support and activities will be cut, teaching jobs will be lost and those teachers who remain will find it harder and harder to help students succeed.

The NUT is asking Congress to support the establishment of a broad-based campaign on education funding.

Just like other areas of the government’s austerity programme, cutting funding for schools and colleges is simply the wrong approach — it will harm students now and it will harm our economic prospects in the longer term too.

It is not structures that improve standards of education but the support and funding that schools receive.

The London Challenge and the City Challenge programme brought about sustained improvements in the quality of education in some of the poorest areas in the country.

This was achieved by schools working collaboratively together, not in competition with each other, sharing best practice and resources at a fraction of the cost of the academy and free school programme.

Schools received tailored support, not the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the academy programme.

Privatisation of education is a real and pressing danger and must be resisted for the benefit of all our children both now and in the future.

Christine Blower is general secretary of the National Union of Teachers.