The White Paper, Education Excellence Everywhere, sets out plans to force all maintained schools to convert to academy status within multi-academy trusts (MATs) by 2022.
The plans see a key role for the Regional School Commissioners (RSCs) and their advisory Headteacher Boards in brokering and encouraging academisation.
Currently, the boards advise RSCs on issues including academy performance, free school applications, funding agreements, academy orders, sponsor applications and models of governance.
However, if the White Paper’s plans are passed through Parliament, the Headteacher Boards will be charged with deciding which schools will join or form new or existing MATs.
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) is concerned that too many members of the Headteacher Boards will have potential conflicts of interest in this scenario and that this could lead to some MATs “cherry-picking” the best schools and avoiding taking on more challenging institutions.
The NUT says that the current National Schools Commissioner, some RSCs and most members of the Headteacher Boards have links to academy trusts and MATs.
General secretary Christine Blower explained: “Government has put scant measures in place to ensure that academies and MATs are held accountable and are transparent in their practices.
"Representatives of academy trusts and MATs dominate the Headteacher Boards which advise RSCs on a number of important decisions including whether schools should receive an academy order and which schools should join a particular MAT.
“There are no safeguards to prevent the cherry-picking of schools which are deemed most desirable by the MATs in which Headteacher Board members themselves have an interest. Equally there could be a situation in which some schools, perhaps because of their pupil intake, dilapidated school buildings or the existence of an expensive PFI agreement, are regarded as less desirable.”
Ms Blower said current safeguards, where headteachers are required to “step out of the room” if a Board meeting discusses a school or trust in which they have a connection, were “unacceptable”.