Sceptical MPs quizzed education officials on the billion-pound academies programme last week.

Permanent secretary David Bell was joined by Peter Houten, his director of academies and capital, when he appeared before the public accounts committee to talk about the 46 schools built at a cost of £1.3bn over the last six years.

Although a report by the National Audit Office was generally positive about the scheme, MPs were unimpressed by the department’s project management of building works and did not appear convinced that the programme was delivering value for money.

A report by the National Audit Office found that 17 out of the first 26 schools had overrun, at an average cost of £3.2m, with the department often made aware too late to rectify the problem.

Labour MP Ian Wright described this situation as “appalling” and Houten, who was facing the committee for the first time and consequently did not look entirely comfortable, could only say that the department’s monitoring of project managers had improved since then.

But this did not satisfy Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh who said it was “a reckless way of conducting your public investment programme. Should you, as a senior civil servant, have needed to learn that lesson?”

Bell, who was much more at ease with the committee’s questions, said a 30-year hiatus in school building had left the Department for Education and Skills out of practice.

“The department, really from a standing start, put in place 46 academies and there are more to come.”

He described that as a “very significant achievement”. He added: “Often government departments are attacked for not getting things done, but we are getting things done.”

But Khan could not understand how academies had been able to go over budget one after another. “Why weren’t lessons learnt?” he asked.

Bell – who said there were good reasons for some of the additional costs – assured the committee that best practice was shared through the network of principles and through the DfES’ own project leads.

The NAO has also recommended that established academies be asked to list their top ten lessons and called for post-project reviews of all newly opened academies.

The committee also touched on the VAT problems faced by academies.

Years of discussions between the DfES and HM Revenue and Customs have made little headway meaning that communities are still prevented from using the academies as much as they would like and the schools cannot fulfil remit of helping their local area.

Committee chairman Edward Leigh described it as “absurd, asking Bell: “You do accept that it is ridiculous.”

Bell said he was optimistic, but accepted there was “frustration” over the issue.

Adding value?

Some members of the committee questioned whether state schools couldn’t have delivered the same improvements if they had been given the same resources.

Although the NAO found that GCSE results in the academies had improved in comparison with successor schools and were similar to those schools under the Fresh Start and Excellence in Cities programmes, Labour MP Ian Davidson was not convinced.

“If you have got schools here that have got new buildings, new heads, completely new staff, it’s not appropriate to compare them with schools that had none of those things,” he said.

Wright said schools in his deprived Hartlepool constituency had made massive improvements without resorting to academies.

Bell said the department would stand by the NAO’s judgement that it was on track to give value for money, but added: “It’s not about finding one single solution…Academies have been designed to tackle areas that are on the most difficult end of the achievement spectrum.”

Labour MP Austin Mitchell talked of the DfES’ “impetuous enthusiasm” for academies which “governments only usually show when invading foreign countries.”

He described the academies, which cost an average of £24m to build compared to £18 to £22m for facilities built under the Better Schools initiative, as “the spoiled darlings of the system.”

Bell insisted that the academies were treated equally and said their ongoing funding was always equivalent to other local schools in the area.

But Mitchell believed the extra resources could have gone to state schools. “Why is there this rush to create academies before their even proved.”

That was because improvement had not been forthcoming from the predecessor schools, Bell said.

‘Room for improvement’

Committee chairman Edward Leigh asked whether the NAO’s report should have been more positive considering the level of resources given to academies.

He said there had been a number of disappointing Ofsted reports and one academy was in special measures.

Bell accepted that performance needed to improve but said it was important to recognise the “low base” that the academies had started with.

But Leigh was still sceptical: “Some people might look at this with some cynicism, if there is constantly this answer that they’re coming from a low base.”

The government was putting in “masses of resources”, Leigh said, but not getting the result. “It’s rather troubling, is it not?”

Improvements were not going to happen overnight, Bell said. “These academies have usually taken over in an area where there have been generations of underachievement and failure.”

He was also keen to emphasise that results were not being manipulated by academies cherry picking students

“The research we have got suggests academies are taking a higher proportion of pupils on schools meals, higher proportion with special needs and a higher proportion of pupils who did less well at their last school,” he said.

There had been a “popular perception that there was a creaming off effect” but, Bell added, “they really are succeeding with pupils that perhaps haven’t had a good deal previously.”

He said there was no evidence that academies were failing to enter weak students in order to improve exam results, and when Davidson expressed concern about “social dumping” because of the higher-than-average figures for exclusions, Bell said the numbers had begun to settle down.

But although the DfES chief assured MPs that the academies were subject to the admissions code, Leigh suggested that the academies’ were able to disguise selection behind their specialities.

“I don’t know how you can select someone on businesses acumen at age 11,” he said.

The chairman was also unclear how Bell could emphasise that academies were treated no differently from normal schools, but then say they would ultimately provide better results.

“I’m not sure you can have it both ways,” Leigh concluded.