Why though? Is it simply that these academies aren't run by the government? Places like Harvard or Oxford aren't run by the government either, yet they're not bad teaching establishments.
(I'll ignore the fatuous Harvard/Oxford argument here since even a fool can see the difference between selective, elite, almost incomprehensibly wealthy institutions and the right every child has to a decent education in the face of government underfunding. Actually, no I won't - Shame on you, Bruce)
"These academies"
are, in one very real sense, run by the government in as much as the chain of command leads straight to Whitehall. They are in no way locally accountable (something both you and I, in our different ways, value highly).
Don't kid yourself that these schools are "free" or "liberated" in any way. They are run by wholly unaccountable, antidemocratic bodies who often have no background whatsoever in education. Almost invariably, their chief executives draw enormous salaries for no discernible effect.
Let us be absolutely clear here: There is no evidence to support the idea that Academies increase children's life chances. Even the loathsome Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted, is dismissive of their worth.
