You may have read an earlier design history about how schools can become academies and how we decided to describe those routes.
How we described conversion routes
We described conversions as sponsored or voluntary.
- Voluntary conversion - Ofsted rates a school Good or Outstanding. It decides it would like to become an academy and can join any trust
- Sponsored conversion - Ofsted rates a school inadequate. The school must become an academy and join a sponsor trust
This worked while there were 2 basic routes for a school to become an academy.
Changes to how schools can convert
There has been a recent change to policy.
Schools can become academies after intervention by DfE. They're not required to convert, but they choose to convert to try to improve performance.
In this scenario, the conversion would be voluntary in so much as the school would want to do it. But, it would not meet the existing criteria for a "voluntary"or "sponsored" conversion.
This is a more nuanced way of converting. The funding they can get is more flexible, depending on their circumstances.
How this alternative conversion route differs from the others
For example, Ofsted may rate a school as Requires Improvement.
The school may feel that the best way for them to improve is to convert, so they apply. This would usually be considered a voluntary conversion. They would get the standard conversion grant.
But DfE may decide that the school needs more funding to help it improve. The kind of funding usually be available to schools given an Inadequate rating.
DfE may also decide that the school needs to join a trust with sponsor status to give it the best chance of success. Working with an experienced trust with the skills and resources to transform a school can be a big help.
With no legal obligation to convert but a need for more funding the project is in a bit of a liminal space.
This created a third way to convert.
It meant caseworkers had to do tasks meant for sponsored conversions on some voluntary ones.
Confusion for users
This created confusion for the users.
Caseworkers only do work on "voluntary" projects. The third route made it hard to decide when caseworkers should pick up some conversions.
It meant caseworkers would have to do work and use legal documents they were not familiar with.
They would need more help from delivery officers who usually did sponsored conversions. That could cause delays and conflate the types of work that the 2 different user groups do.
It also meant the language was less useful. It was no longer definitive if a project was voluntary.
What we did
We removed all reference to sponsored or voluntary in the product.
There are too many variables for language to be consistently accurate. But, we can provide clarity by showing what is definitive.
Users need to know:
- which academy order was used
- if the conversion is due to DfE intervention
- which grants they will get
We show this elsewhere in the project information.
This allows the digital product to do what it does best: store and display information.
Humans are excellent at understanding nuance and context. Our users can use those skills to interpret the information we capture and show in the product. They can then apply that knowledge to a project.
What this means for transfers
The words used to describe transfer routes are different to conversions.
This means the language could get less clear as we introduce transfers to the product.
That's why we have decided not to reference transfer routes either.
What we'll do next
We'll continue to respond to user feedback. If it becomes clear that they need the route information we'll consider adding it back in.
We're confident users can get what they need from information about the academy order, grant type and if the conversion is due to intervention.