Academies: Freedoms and intervention

26 January 2026

This article is part of our series of briefings on The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Part 2 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is the part of the Bill that directly relates to schools, enables us to piece together what has, until recent weeks, been a somewhat elusive government policy position on school structures and academies.

What does the Bill mean for academies and maintained schools?

The Bill seeks to put maintained schools and academies on the same legal footing. Some provisions codify existing practice. Others represent a more contentious erosion of core academy freedoms, moving the education landscape away from a preference for academy status.

Our briefings on the sections of the Bill covering admissions, new schools, attendance and teacher pay and conditions all reflect this theme. The academies section of the Bill is also particularly notable in this respect. It reverses one of the core freedoms granted to academies when the framework was originally established: the freedom to design their own curriculum.

In addition, this part of the Bill contains some important changes to the Secretary of State’s intervention powers, for both academies and maintained schools.

Key changes at a glance

Academies must teach the National Curriculum from September 2028.
Off-site direction powers extended to academies on a statutory footing.
New power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to academy trusts.
Trust-level Ofsted inspection placed on a statutory footing.
Mandatory directive academy orders for failing maintained schools removed.

For maintained schools, the Bill may represent a further significant shift in the government’s approach to structural intervention, building on recent policy changes made earlier this academic year.

National Curriculum requirement for academies

The Bill introduces a statutory requirement on academies to teach the National Curriculum, bringing academies into line with maintained schools and removing one of the flagship freedoms of the academies programme.

The Academies Act 2010 already requires academies to offer a “balanced and broadly based curriculum”, which under the terms of the funding agreement must include English, mathematics, science and (subject to the academy’s specific characteristics) religious education. However, this Act did not previously require academies to teach the National Curriculum.

The Bill amends that Act so that as well as being “balanced and broadly based”, an academy’s curriculum must also include the National Curriculum. The amendments will also operate to disapply any provision of an academy’s funding agreement which conflicts with this statutory requirement, removing any scope for academy trusts to negotiate alternative arrangements.

How will funding agreements be affected?

When will the requirement take effect?

The requirement will not have immediate effect: it is intended to apply to the revised National Curriculum, due to be implemented for teaching from September 2028.

What should academy trusts do now?

To plan ahead, academy trusts should review the government’s response to the recommendations contained the final report from the Curriculum and Assessment Review, and pay close attention to forthcoming developments, including the planned consultation on improvements to Progress 8 and Attainment 8.

Off-site direction powers for academies

The governing body of a maintained school currently has a statutory power under s.29A of the Education Act 2002 to require a pupil to attend another educational setting to improve their behaviour.

This legislation does not apply to academies, although it is accepted that academies can arrange off-site provision for such purposes under their general powers (see the DfE’s statutory suspensions and exclusions guidance).

The Bill makes provision for the s.29A statutory power to be extended to academies, placing academies on the same statutory footing as maintained schools when it comes to directing off-site.

What does this mean in practice?

The clarity that comes with an express power is likely to be welcomed. However, the change means academies will also be required to have regard to the DfE’s statutory guidance on Alternative Provision. This contains obligations relating to the management and review of placements made under the power to direct off-site.

Recommended actions for trusts

Compliance with these obligations is currently “encouraged” under the suspensions and exclusions guidance, so for many academies this is unlikely to result in any significant change to current practice. We do though recommend that trusts review their current processes against the guidance to ensure any areas of non-compliance can be addressed.

Power for the Secretary of State to give directions to an academy trust

This provision grants the Secretary of State a significant new power to give directions to an academy trust, equivalent to the powers it has to direct maintained schools and local authorities under the Education Act 1996.

The provision has been subject to amendment. Initially, the Bill granted a sweeping power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction in response to a breach or likely breach of a relevant legal duty, or where a trust was acting or proposing to act unreasonably.

How has the power been amended?

The proposed amendment seeks to limit the use of this power, to circumstances when the trust has breached a duty imposed by academy arrangements (which in most cases will refer to the duties under the academy funding agreement). This amendment seeks to alleviate concerns that the power was too broad in scope, giving rise to uncertainty and undue risk.

The Bill amends the Education Act 1996 to incorporate the new power, which will sit alongside the existing power to issue a Termination Warning Notice (‘TWN’) to an academy which has breached its funding agreement by failing to comply with its legal duties.

When might directions be issued?

The new power could see directions issued to academy trusts for failures to comply with provisions in the Bill, as well as with other duties, such as a failure to follow its complaints process in dealing with a parental complaint. The measure appears to be another move designed to level the playing field between academies and maintained schools, and it also offers the Secretary of State a more straightforward route of intervention in cases where a TWN is not considered proportionate to the matters involved.

What is the proposed process?

The policy notes accompanying the Bill set out the proposed process, which makes clear that trusts will be notified in the first instance that the Secretary of State is minded to make a direction, and will be given the opportunity to make representations.

What are the consequences of non-compliance?

It’s worth noting that non-compliance with a direction may still result in a TWN, which ultimately may lead to the termination of the academy funding agreement. A mandatory order could also be sought via the courts.

However, the legal obligations involved are those that trusts should be meeting anyway: provided trusts have clear policies and robust systems in place to ensure compliance with their legal duties, the risk of intervention is likely to be relatively low.

Trust-level inspection and intervention

A late amendment to the Bill seeks to place the inspection of academy trusts on a statutory footing, reaffirming the government’s commitment to introducing trust-level inspection.

The proposed amendments, tabled in January 2026, establish a legal foundation for the routine inspection of trusts by Ofsted, with a power to inspect outside this cycle where concerns arise, similar to the existing framework for school inspections.

New intervention powers for underperforming trusts

The amendments also include a statutory power allowing the Secretary of State to terminate a trust’s funding agreements (via the established process of a TWN) where Ofsted has determined that a trust is “failing to lead, manage or govern an academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard”.

The new power represents a significant expansion of the DfE’s existing trust-level intervention powers, which are currently limited to issuing a Notice to Improve following the identification of weaknesses in governance or financial management.

This new intervention power will sit alongside the existing power to issue a TWN in relation to an individual academy. The DfE’s policy notes accompanying the Bill explain that this power is intended to complement the existing academy-level intervention powers and will be used where the systematic underperformance of a trust is impacting on more than one of its academies.

What remains to be determined?

The Bill sets out only the core principles of trust inspection, leaving much of the detail still to be determined through further regulations, policy and an inspection framework.

The DfE state that the intention behind trust inspection is to improve standards by identifying both the strongest trusts and those where intervention is needed, but questions remain as to exactly how trust-level inspection will fit into the existing regime of school inspection and DfE regulation, and what the impact of an additional layer of regulation will be in practice.

Next steps for the sector

Further consultation with the sector is expected in the coming months as the framework is developed.

Changes to mandatory academy orders

If passed, the Bill will amend the Academy Act 2010, removing the Secretary of State’s statutory duty to issue a directive academy order for a maintained school judged to be in special measures or requiring significant improvement. Maintained schools placed in a category of concern by Ofsted will therefore no longer automatically receive a directive academy order requiring them to convert to academy status.

This follows previous policy changes, including the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers for coasting schools and the removal of the academy conversion grant, which demonstrate a clear shift in the government’s approach away from academisation and structural intervention.

Opposition and proposed amendments

However, this aspect of the Bill has not been without opposition, and an amendment has been put forward to remove this clause from the Bill entirely. Instead, a modification is proposed to the existing statutory duty, making the duty subject to the Secretary of State determining that a suitable sponsor is available.

Where no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school, and to secure its rapid improvement.

What does 'eligible for intervention' mean?

Maintained schools placed in a category of concern will still be ‘eligible for intervention’ under the Academies Act, so if mandatory directive academy orders are withdrawn, the Secretary of State will retain a discretionary power to issue a directive academy order to such schools.

The discretionary element will in theory render any such decision more susceptible to challenge. The government has indicated that the worst performing schools can still expect to be required to academise, but no policy guidance is yet available on how these decisions will be made.

Potential for legal challenge

If the statutory duty is retained, the modification too introduces a discretionary element in the identification of a “suitable” sponsor, opening the door to an additional route of challenge even where the Secretary of State acts under the duty.