Julian Drinkall, chief executive of the Academies Enterprise Trust, has been reported as saying that long-standing schools in areas of “over-capacity” should be closed. His comments are, at best, insensitive; at worst, they overlook the responsibility that multi-academy trusts should feel for the wellbeing of all students in all their academies, and for their communities.

His concern for keeping down costs does not take into account the price victims of his rationalisation; the students in examination classes who would have to pay, should their school close suddenly in the middle of their courses. It is highly unlikely that parents or students would be philosophical about the importance of conserving funds.

His comments must alert all communities served by large multi-academy trusts, and no doubt AET in particular, that should numbers fall, there will be no stay of execution. Educational institutions in these conglomerates seem to be regarded as little more than disposable assets; as, indeed, seemed the case with Sandown Bay Academy on the Isle of Wight, an AET academy until last year. Sandown Bay’s history and local popularity - as Sandown Grammar School, and then as Sandown High School, a successful 13-18 comprehensive, bursting at the seams in the 1990s - suggests that other factors need to be taken into consideration before simply attributing its decline to an excess of school places in the area.   

It was government policy based on “choice” that created this excess, with the founding of a large and expanding faith school in 2008 and a new free school in 2014. And, undoubtedly, competition has been tough between schools and academies, but those most ably supported by their sponsors and partners have been best-equipped to survive.

There is a strong element of unfairness inherent in Julian Drinkall’s fiscal-based philosophy. Schools in London and large urban areas are well-served by frequent convenient public transport. This permits greater take-up of after-school activities for students with short homeward journeys, adding considerable educational benefit. Students in rural areas would have to travel further to the large institutions Julian Drinkall envisages, which is tiring and can be alienating. Rural and seaside communities suffer more than their fair share of educational disadvantage without adding excessive travel, its costs to parents, and environmental damage as well.

‘A threat to community cohesion’

Mr Drinkall sounds like an economist assessing the viability of supermarkets in an area, rather than schools.  He overlooks the fact that schools serving rural communities provide much more than a repository for teenagers during the school day and sports facilities to be hired out at night.

At their best, local or community schools provide a range of events (productions being only one example) that can be put on by students and enjoyed by parents. Local schools are easier places for parents to attend information and curricular evenings. In places where there is little other access to cultural activity, closing down schools damages community cohesion.

Large schools may be convenient, rather like supersize supermarkets. Both can deliver bewildering levels of choice to consumers. But it is very interesting to see a growing reversal of the trend away from out-of-town shopping and towards smaller stores to serve locals. Big is not necessarily beautiful. And the needs of children, their parents and communities are more complex than those of simple customers.

In the aftermath of Michael Gove’s expensive academy expansion, a more sober approach is taking shape. MATs are, quite rightly, expected to account for their expenditure. As of yet, they are not fully answerable to Ofsted for the service they provide to the schools they’ve taken responsibility for. Former comprehensives were rather more mindful of the role they played in their neighbourhoods, and inspection reports reflected this context. 

Sandown Bay was the first school to ask for a “divorce” from AET, as the community and local politicians became increasingly disenchanted and deeply concerned about the fate of their local school. Debate raged in the local press with an intensity far greater than that suggested by Julian Drinkall’s parallel with “NIMBY-ism”.  While the resistance of a community to the building of an unsightly structure in its locality might be considerable, it is not to be compared with the anger provoked when an academy trust attempts to force the closure of a local school on a disadvantaged and dispersed community. Julian Drinkall’s parallel is, unfortunately, miscalculated.

The record of MATs serving their public has been rather mixed. Of course, the public would expect a company at top level to have an eye on the bottom line, but shouldn’t there be more to running an educational trust?  

Yvonne Williams is a head of English and drama in the south of England

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook