A
Telegraph article claims to rebuff a “hysterical” Guardian piece about profit-making educational providers by providing a catalogue of facts. But this seemingly robust debunking missed the mark.
FACT re free schools, academies and profit: academies and free schools are managed by charitable trusts but there’s nothing to stop them outsourcing to a for-profit Educational Management Organisation (EMO). IES hopes to make a profit from managing Breckland Free School.
Zenna Atkins, who also bid for the Breckland contract, said that "the deconstruction of the education function within local authorities" offered a chance to "make a substantial return to investors”.
FACT re outsourcing school management: the article is correct in saying that this policy began under Labour but that doesn’t make the policy right.
FACT re profit-making academies: the article is correct - there are no academies yet run by for-profit EMOs. But plenty are run by educational charities and these can prove profitable for those who run them. The
ex-director of E-Act was the best-paid man in education. And the
National Audit Office (NAO) has warned about potential conflicts of interest between academies and sponsors.
FACT re public support for profit-making EMOs: the article is correct – the
YouGov poll revealed that support is mixed which is hardly a ringing endorsement for the policy.
FACT re support for academy conversion: the article didn’t mention that the YouGov poll found that the largest group (29%) did not think conversion would make any difference to standards. Neither did it mention the
lukewarm support for either conversion or free schools among Tory voters.
FACT re accountability: the article is correct – academies are directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Education. There is no middle tier. Even Mr Gove recognises that this will bring problems and there ought to be an
intermediary level – the article didn’t mention that.
FACT re results in academies: only ARK academies are mentioned. Overall,
academies performed worse than any other type of school in 2011 – a smaller percentage of pupils reached the benchmark 5+ GCSEs A*-C including Maths and English. This figure is even smaller when the equivalent exams are stripped out.
FACT re Swedish EMOs and results: the evidence cited was from the New Schools Network (NSN) – hardly an unbiased source. The
Institute of Education (IoE, 2010) found that “The Swedish experiment (using for-profit private providers) has proved expensive and has not led to significant learning gains overall.”
FACT re “revolving doors”: the Guardian raised concerns about “revolving doors” whereby public sector policy makers subsequently find employment in the private sectors affected by their policies. This could lead to
conflicts of interest. The Guardian gave two examples: Zenna Atkins, ex Ofsted chair and now chief executive of Wey Education, and Sir Bruce Liddington, ex-director of E-Act. The Telegraph article said Zenna Atkins was not applying to set up free schools. However, the
New Academy Guide believed she was working with seven free school proposers. And ex-schools commissioner,
Sir Bruce Liddington, earned £280,816 when he was E-Act’s director general, a post he unexpectedly left last week.
Toby Young, the article’s writer, tried very hard to disprove suspicion about profit-making education providers running English state schools. Why, then, did he tell the
TES that for-profit companies should be allowed to “set up, own and operate” schools in England? Perhaps there are grounds for suspicion after all.
Comments
I should have made it clear that Sir Bruce Liddington earned £280,816 per annum according to the TES article linked by clicking on his name above.
You might well have found reason to disagree with Toby Young's *opinions*, and agree with Seumas Milne's *opinions*, but on the matter of whose article was factually correct you have said nothing that gives anyone any reason to doubt that Milne's article was factually incorrect on multiple points, and Young's wasn't.
Perhaps you can explain where the facts in the evidence are only opinion. For example, the DfE's evidence showed that all types of school outperformed academies overall in the 2011 GCSE tables. Is this merely the opinion of the DfE?
Like I said, you seem keen to add to the policy debate, but the key point of the article was that Milne was *factually* incorrect. It just seems bizarre to look at that article and say "well, let's not worry about who is telling the truth, let's just raise new points".
I am puzzled by your reference to "new points". Every one of the points in the thread was raised in Young's article. That's a fact.
Where? Have you found even one factual inaccuracy in the article?
You seem to have decided to critique *details* in the Young article and have refused to even acknowledge the main issue it discussed i.e. whether Milne's article was factually inaccurate. I think you pretty much acknowledge this when you describe the Young article as being a response to "suspicions" rather than to actual claims made.
Do you not see a problem with raising questions about whether the article is biased or selective (two things that this sort of article is expected to be) and ignoring the question of whether it is *right* on its substantial point, i.e. whether the Milne article was factually incorrect?
I'm sure Toby Young's coterie of supporters and hangers-on cheer him on with every article he pens but it is impossible to read what he writes without knowing that most of his utterances can't be taken at face value. Every word, every sentence, every opinion appears designed to curry favour with right wing politicians and media barons in order to advance his financial and career prospects, now culminated in apparently a political column in The Sun on Sunday, perhaps a reward for the years of Murdoch brown-nosing. Michael Gove as next Prime Minister? Perhaps Toby has his eye on being the next Andy Coulson...?
"FACT: The Anti-Academies Alliance, the organisation behind nearly every "parent-led campaign" against a new academy, is a front for the Socialist Workers' Party. They were Trots last time I checked.!"
hmmmmmm any of you lot trots? I suspect if you've had the trots in the past that would count..... My children have definitely had them so that would be me in -)
But in amongst this garbage Toby makes and interesting and important point. There is indeed still a very substantial cohort of extremely noisy ideologues in the right of the Conservative party who still believe the simple maxim that less organisation = more efficiency. You would think that people with so little life experience that they can still wallow in ideologies which dissolve so rapidly when they encounter reality would not be selected to stand for parliament let along would still be vocally ranting their ignorance nearly 2 years into government but they are and this is the reality we have to deal with.
http://talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=2267
Nonetheless they are learning and many are beginning to engage with the people who understand what they are talking rather than just labelling them as being ignorant and self interested ideologues about so stick with it guys....
https://www.ncetm.org.uk/community/thread/97905
I actually agree with Andrew when he described Young's article as "biased or selective" but not with his opinion that "this sort of article is expected to be". Odd, though, that he says he would expect such an article to be biased and selective while at the same time attacks be for allegedly being biased and selective even though I provide linked evidence (highlighted in blue) from reputable sources so that readers can check their accuracy.
Young made it quite clear he was dealing with FACT (the capitals are his). Where his facts were true, I acknowledged this. Where his facts were false, I rebuffed them with linked evidence (highlighted in blue). Where his facts were blinkered (eg only discussing the results of ARK academies), I pointed this out, again with linked evidence (highlighted in blue).
Old asks me whether I had found "even one factual inaccuracy in the article". At the risk of stating the obvious - yes. These were made clear in the original post with linked evidence (highlighted in blue).
Instead, you completely ignored the main substance of Toby Young's article, i.e. that Milne's article was inaccurate, and instead simply dismissed it as "missing the mark" by quibbling over details or introducing new points.
This is what interests me about your posts, and why I often reply to them: the way you seem to care only about expressing your political opinions, and care nothing at all about whether you are being consistent, accurate or on-topic.
I am just fascinated to see whether you are able to acknowledge that Young was right that Milne was inaccurate. Doing so would involve be willing to acknowledge the truth even when it isn't convenient for expressing your opinions. Your usual response when faced with having to admit inconsistency or inaccuracy is to evade and then run away. I'm really just curious to see how long you can do it here.
So, was Young right that Milne was inaccurate? Please tell us.
Well he certainly wasn't right about where the Socialist Worker lot hang out in cyberspace - was he Andrew! :-)
Could it be that Young was trying to divert attention from something he hopes will happen surreptitiously? And was he concerned that the Guardian article (which he described as "hysterical") threatened to expose the real reasons behind the Coalition's academy conversion and free school programme?
If Andrew wants more proof of the Government's intentions, then perhaps he should read this earlier thread on this site. The evidence is highlighted in blue.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/10/gove-is-in-favour-of-profi...
*the TES article can be found by clicking on the word TES in the final paragraph of the post. It is highlighted in blue.
Or in other words:
"Andrew's insistence that all my arguments be consistent and honest is a distraction from the more important business of making as many arguments as possible".
Time to concede defeat to Andrew, I think.
People speculated on your motives for years and most have them have proved to be correct. Some people are just so transparent even when they try not to be!
The short answer is that I don't know your motives and I am quite happy to admit it. But it seemed odd that you tried so hard to produce facts (which weren't all facts as I demonstrated with linked evidence) to debunk the Guardian article and then told the TES that you thought the government should allow what you were at great pains to deny. It was contradictory - hence my confusion.
I will leave it to readers to decide whether I have been defeated. I have provided the evidence - readers can read it if they wish. They can make up their own minds.
Hello Toby,
Isn’t it wonderful when a teacher gives up their free time to run wonderfully inspiring sessions which stretch the academic abilities of teachers while exemplifying best teaching practice? I attended such a session last year on elliptic curves which totally refreshed me.
http://www.s253053503.websitehome.co.uk/jg-msc…/intro-elliptic-atm.ppt
Isn’t it wonderful when a teacher gives up their free time to write incredible teaching resources which they then share on the web for free and which I have personally used to great effect with my students.
http://www.risps.co.uk/
Isn’t it wonderful when a teacher then creates vidoes to explain those tasks and again shares them for free:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUrYMcxsGNw
Perhaps you think it’s impressive if a teacher spends years regularly contributing great teaching tasks to teachers journals – again for free – and also writes a column which poignantly describes the realities of teaching.
http://www.atm.org.uk/journal/
Ah no – you think -
“The tragic thing about the flight from excellence in our state schools is that teachers like this believe they’re acting in the best interests of their pupils.” and you express your horror that such a person is a teacher.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9082053/Dumbing-down-of-state-educa...
Nice one Toby. Carefully researched and well judged as ever.
Did you? Which one of Toby's facts have you demonstrated wasn't a fact?
Rebecca, your comment doesn't invite a response since it merely confirms what I acknowledged in my Telegraph piece, namely, that the teacher in question has good intentions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9108612/Charlotte...
You don't give a @@@@ what damage you do just so long as you don't expose yourself to being sued.
I suppose you feel it is necessary to get rid of columnists who've spent 30 years teaching and command the respect of all in their profession. Why should they block up the column inches which cleared to make way for you to impart your wisdom?
But you should understand that teachers will be relentlessly genuinely shocked by you because are a vocational profession where people with your value set are screened out at the interviews for BEds, PGCEs and jobs.
This is why Hayek's economics theories fall apart completely in state education you know Toby - because he assumes that altruism does not exist.....
Anyway I'm sure this clarification will just be cause for celebration for you as more controversy = more traffic through your blog = more money and status.
and I'm sure you will excuse me while I quietly vomit in the corner.
I don't think there's any contradiction. I would like for-profit EMOs to play a greater role in England's taxpayer-funded education sector, but the fact is they aren't – which is why only one taxpayer-funded school has let a management contract to a for-profit EMO in this Parliament.
Toby - this Parliament hasn't ended yet. It's still got about three years to go. And IES has bid for other schools although not been successful - the City of Peterborough Academy was one. According to New Academy Guide, Wey Education were working with seven free school proposers. Nord Anglia was working with a proposed Steiner school. And there are the primary schools lined up for enforced conversion. The list of proposed sponsors of targeted Birmingham primaries posted on LSN gave the names of for-profit EMOs.
As I've said numerous times, Janet, I'd be surprised if more than handful of these hybrids are established in the next few years because of the complexity of the legal and regulatory frameworks that have to be navigated. My view is that for-profit EMOs won't enter the sector in a big way until they're permitted to set up, own and operate taxpayer-funded schools (i.e. absolved of the need to enter into partnerships with charitable trusts) and that's unlikely to happen during this Parliament. If I prove to be wrong about that, I will happily eat humble pie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/26/schools-crusade-gove-murd...
Andrew asks which of your facts has has rebutted. Well, the one on academy results for a start (as you know, I have some interest in this subject). Your fact (that Ark schools and good results) is correct but Janet points out that this in no way is an answer to Seamus' point. he states that the 249 sponser-led academies under-performed. To say in response - but the six Ark schools did really well - in no way contradicts what he said. Indeed the fact you, and Fraser Nelson, focus on the performance of just six schools suggests you know that academies as a whole have not done so well.
And, as Janet points out, the core point is that "the suspicions about for-profit EMOs being given the green light to run English state schools are correct". Your argument against this is "most Conservatives I know are frustrated that Michael Gove isn't doing enough to privatise English education". You know, somehow that isn't very reassuring.
Now if you'd said 'I don't know any Tories who want to see education privatised', that would have been a reassuring rebuttal. But to tell us lots of Tories are raring for privatisation of education, and suggesting you support it too, seems to me to back up what Seamus was saying. Our worry is that everything will be in place for a second Tory term (without the Liberals) to lead to privatised schools. That may seem a good idea to you, but I suspect it won't be to the majority of voters.
As more and more people understand that Academies have not - and do not - perform better than LA maintained schools (as this site has revealed), so they will realise that local authorities have been systematically trashed by the Tories and their supporters not because they are all uniformly incompetent or bureaucratic, but because Gove and his fellow Atlantic Bridge cronies want to hand the services they provide to schools over to profit making companies.
"Our results suggest that moving to a more autonomous school structure through academy conversion generates a significant improvement in the quality of pupil intake, a significant improvement in pupil performance and small significant improvements in the performance of pupils enrolled in neighbouring schools. These results are strongest for the schools that have been academies for longer and for those who experienced the largest increase in their school autonomy. These findings matter from an economic perspective, in that they suggest the increased autonomy and flexible governance enabled by academy conversion may have had the scope to sharpen incentives to improve performance. They also matter from a public policy standpoint because recent years have seen the increased prevalence of an education system that is being allowed to become more and more autonomous. In essence, the results paint a (relatively) positive picture of the academy schools that were introduced by the Labour government of 1997-2010. The caveat is that such benefits have, at least for the schools we consider, taken a while to materialise."
http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps//ceedp123.pdf
My point about the frustration that many Conservatives feel about the slow pace of the government's education reforms wasn't intended to reassure Left-wing defenders of top-down, one-size-fits-all state education that all was rosy in the garden so I'm not quite sure what point you think you're scoring there. Far from backing up what Seamus was saying – that hundreds of taxpayer-funded schools are already being run by for-profit EMOs, which is what he appears to think many of the multi-academy sponsors are – it flatly contradicts it.
Whether there's anything in the next Conservative manifesto committing the party to permitting for-profit EMOs to set up, own and operate taxpayer-funded schools remains to be seen, but I certainly hope there is and I don't think it will be a vote-loser. I summarised the latest YouGov polling on education policy in my response to one of Seamus's points: "The YouGov poll Seumas links to reveals that the public is split on the issue of whether free schools should be able to let management contracts to for-profit EMOs: 24% are in favour, 48% are opposed and 28% don't know. Asked specifically about Breckland, 30% supported the decision to bring in IES, 41% opposed it and 29% didn't know. Overall, 27% thought turning more schools into academies would raise standards, against 24% who thought it would make them worse."
The most striking thing about that poll was how many "don't knows" there are. It seems to me that the question of how large a part for-profit EMOs should play in taxpayer-funded education is one that the electorate has yet to make up its mind about. What we should be doing is having a proper debate about it, instead of pretending it's happening already. One of the most frustrating things about these policy debates in education is that they're almost always about secondary issues – proxy wars rather than the real thing.
My view, which I've expressed before, is that the issue doesn't turn on whether *all* taxpayer-funded schools run by for-profit EMOs in any one region perform, on average, better than *all* taxpayer-funded schools run by the state/public officials in that region. It's clear that the evidence is mixed if that's your starting point. Rather, it's whether *some* for-profit EMOs perform better than *comparable* taxpayer-funded schools – and it's clear that *some* do, IES being a case in point. This suggests that creating an efficient market in this sector, removing barriers to entry and exit, will drive up standards in the long run.
No, I asked which of his facts has turned out to be "factually incorrect".
I'm quite aware of what political points can be argued over. My interest here has always been with Janet's attitude to the truth rather than the political issue. In particular, her inability to acknowledge factual inaccuracies in an article which agrees with her, and her constant fudging of her disagreements with Toby into the suggestion that Toby was factually inaccurate. I just find it fascinating that she combines frequent use of "here are the facts/evidence" rhetoric with what seems to be complete indifference to both truth and consistency.
You quote at length from the LSE report and I'm please you included the warning about benefits taking a while - probably because the increased quality of intake found by the researchers takes a while to work through to GCSE. The researchers also said more time was needed to assess fully whether academy conversion was beneficial. An earlier National Audit Office report (2010) found that the gap between disadvantaged pupils and advantaged pupils widened in academies suggesting that it was advantaged pupils who benefitted not the disadvantaged ones that the academies were specifically set up to help.
Please explain where you see selection bias. I've taken the comparison from every angle I can think of:
Comparison by similar levels of disadvantage
Comparison by similar levels of GCSE results in 2008
Comparison by similar levels of GCSE result in 2010
Comparison with chains only
Comparison with establish academies only
Comparison based on expected progress in Maths and English
I've even taken the precise stat on which the DfE this year has been resting its claims, growth from 2010 to 2011 in academies over two years old excluding CTC and Independent conversion. On each and every one of these comparisons academies do at best only as well as non-academies.
Here's my challenge, Toby: Tell me what you think is a fair comparison without selection bias, I will add what I think is fair. We then hand both over to Christopher Cook, for him to get the academics to look at.
Will you accept the challenge?
But sadly this does seem to be unexpectedly necessary as they should, of course, have fallen down due to it being impossible to validate them through the proper consultations process which are designed to prevent policies which will clearly not fit for purpose becoming law.
Nobody expected all consultation processes to be completely subverted.
Nobody expected the Spanish inquisition.
Strange old world.
Hand over to Christopher Cook, the education journalist who's been on 18-month crusade to discredit Michael Gove and his Special Advisors? You might as well suggest handing the data over to Fiona Millar.
http://ugent.academia.edu/marijnverschelde/Papers/412332/school_autonomy...
Rather than another hysterical outburst, why don't you answer Henry's question and explain where you see the selection bias? The analysis is based on DfE data.
I thought Labour was proposing an independent body to evaluate education research.
But let's come back to the UK. We have the most comprehensive set of educational data ever released in this country (and possibly in any country). Please explain where you think there is selection bias in the analysis I've done. Sam Friedman suggested I'd omitted some of the star academies but Mossbourne is included in the comparison by deprivation, and both are in the 2010/11 comparison.
But the key point is that this is not independent research. The data is there and provided by DfE. Its just which comparisons we want to make.
Let me ask again: what selection or comparison would you accept from this comprehensive set of data?
1. I've been looking at the data set from the DfE and am getting similar results to Henry - in some cases the academies are getting significantly worse results than every other type of state school. (Performance measure - proportion of students getting 5 A*-C GCSE's inc English and Maths).
2. I have a lot of problems with Machin and Vernoit's research mainly because it doesn't seem to shed any light on what the academies are actually doing. Personal experience says that academy heads are gaming the system which some of Henry's analysis seems to confirm.
I have blogged about the research here http://educationalopinion.blogspot.com/2011/11/opinion-has-sandra-mcnall...
If you're genuinely interested in why I'm a conservative, I wrote an essay on that very subject:
http://www.nosacredcows.co.uk/opinion_pieces/1802/why_im_a_conservative....
You're paid to know these things. It was in your paper a lot recently!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8885995/Liam-Foxs-...
The way in which the supporters of current government policy seem to be be selective in the presentation of facts or obstructing information coming in to the public domain creates a feeling of suspicion about their ultimate motives. The reaction to the Milne article is a case in point. He suggests that there is a wish in the governing party to privatise services, you rebut this as scaremongering yet at the same time suggest that the conservatives as a group want exactly this policy. I may have misunderstood the nuances of the argument, but you seem to be having your cake and eating it.
I am surprised you've never heard of them. Have you heard of Liam Fox, or Michael Gove, both Atlantic Bridge alumni. Are you suffering from willfull blindness as well? I think it's expedient for you to be Conservative. Your zealous declaration to the party and brown nosing (like "dunce", your descrption, not mine) of press barons has finally afforded you the profile you dreamt of decades ago.
The fellow self publicist James Delingpole you are now promoting - this is the same shrinking violet who claimed to have been "intellectually raped" during a polite debate on alternative treatments, accused the people who run London zoo as having "eco-fascist leanings" and who says little of substance but much that is ill informed and designed to ensure that he rouses enough comment to ensure he isn’t booted off the Telegraph Blog parade?
For a proper critique of Watermelons, read this:
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2012/02/climate-change-lynas
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/7667313/seeing-red.thtml
For Ridley's credentials, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
Yes, Yes, Yes, Toby. I've just brunch, so I'm not interested in making myself nauseuos reading about James Delingpole so I won't thanks. A fair-minded and impartial review of Delingpole in The Spectator would seem to be about as likely as Fraser Nelson penning an article in which he attacked the ideology of Free Schools. Would you agree that much of your own writing can be described fairly as "ideologically-motivated hatchet jobs"? Will you explain where the selection bias is please?
David's last comment is spot on about the new school reformers wanting to have their cake and eat it. 'Privatisation? Complete myth; Trot inspired scaremongering...etc' 'Privatisation? Excellent idea let's do more of it....etc.' . In fact, it rather reminds me of the 'comprehensive grammar' idea..... don't hear so much about that these days, I notice.
In your Telegraph article you mentioned only ARK academies. However, by featuring only one chain then this ignores all the other academies that have done poorly, so poorly in fact that they pull down the overall results for academies to the worst of any type of school. There may well be reasons for this - St Adhelm's, Poole, is really a secondary modern. However, the Government push a "no excuses" mantra and would not accept this excuse from a non-academy school.
Toby - you are correct about the YouGov poll and how it shows the large number of "don't knows". This is especially remarkable given the relentless promotion of academies pouring out of the DfE and the large number of media articles who churn this propaganda. What is especially remarkable is the number of Conservative voters who voted against flagship government education policies.
“Our results suggest that moving to a more autonomous school structure through academy conversion generates a significant improvement in the quality of pupil intake, a significant improvement in pupil performance and small significant improvements in the performance of pupils enrolled in neighbouring schools. '
If every school becomes an academy how can they all have 'a significant improvement in quality of pupil intake ' ???
Agreed and what is more Machin and Vernoit seem unable to shed any light on how the increased autonomy manifests itself to generate the improvements mentioned in their report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01by8nr
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/43/48910490.pdf
The only additional freedoms which academies have are the ability to spend that small amount of the budget kept back by LAs for back room services and the ability to set staff pay and conditions. But if schools join academy chains they may find themselves with less autonomy than they enjoyed when LA schools. See evidence by John Burn, OBE, to Education Bill Committee: “Putting Academies into Federations can lead to individual Academies losing a large measure of control over their budgets and the appointment of staff, something which even maintained schools enjoy.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/education/mem...
This criticism equally applies to education providers, whether profit-making or not. And profit-making EMOs could put pressure on their schools to purchase services, resources and so on from them. The National Audit Office 2010 warned about a conflict of interest between sponsors and their academies.
BBC Radio 4, "The Report" pointed out that academy chains imposed conditions which went against the much-hyped autonomy supposedly enjoyed by academies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01by8nr
Toby, can you confirm that in your book "How To Set Up a Free School" you say that when discussing sponsorship of free schools. “…the parent group might have a role on the marketing side, trying to drum up custom and so forth, but beyond that no input”? There doesn't seem to be much autonomy there.
The only extra control over budgets that academies have is over that small part kept back by LAs. This is so insignificant that the Department for Education can wholeheartedly say:
“Schools have autonomy over the use of their budgets and so it is for heads and governors to determine at school level how to secure better value for money”
From Q and A Schools Funding Settlement 2012-13 including Pupil Premium: downloadable from:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/...
Pages
Add new comment