was "dominated" by schools from middle class areas, particularly the Home Counties. For example, 12% of schools in Kent applied compared to less than 2% in Middlesbrough. A later list published by the Department for Education said a total of 1,907 schools had expressed an interest. By 23 July 2010, 153 schools in England had applied for academy status. The list included 12 faith schools and more than 20 grammar schools. Ultimately, 32 new academies (including seven primary schools) opened under the provisions of the Act in the autumn term of 2010. A further 110 schools (including 40 primaries) are planned to convert at a later date. By January 2011 a total of 407 primary and secondary schools with academy status existed (twice as many as before the 2010 election), with the 371 secondary academies representing 11% of the total number of secondary schools. Reaction and analysis Opposition MPs and the Conservative chair of the Education Select Committee Graham Stuart accused the government of "rushing" the bill through Parliament, to which the government replied that there was "ample time" to debate the bill. Julian Glover said the "rush hides not the enormity but the thinness of the measure; opposition outrage enhancing the impression that something big must be under way" and the Act "concedes no new powers of any importance". The Act aims to enshrine greater freedoms for schools given academy status. Janet Daley says this will liberate schools from "monolithic local authority control" while journalist Toby Young said the Act will revitalise the goal of the existing academies system to provide an increased level of choice for parents. Professor Alan Smithers of the University of Buckingham said that the plan to increase autonomy for a select number of schools will be divisive and disadvantaged children would lose out. Supporters say that the "pupil premium" (which is not included within the Academies Act but will be brought forward in forthcoming legislation) will countermand this by allocating extra funds for schools with a greater intake of disadvantaged children. Criticism of provisions in the Act have also come from the British Humanist Association, the Local Government Information Unit, the Liberal Democrat Education Association, teachers' unions, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, the Institute of Education and Sir Peter Newsam, former Chief Schools Adjudicator. The element of the Act which eliminates the requirement for there to be local consultation was criticised as undemocratic