Some initial extracts from today's
DfE data release. The DfE press release made great claims about the contribution of academies. Do these stand up to scrutiny?
Sponsored academies twice as likely to use GCSE equivalents
Sponsored academies: 14.8% pts from equivalents, on average
Maintained schools: 7.3% pts from equivalents, on average
This means any claims of greater increase from academies needs to be treated with caution. And it poses big questions for 2014, when most of these equivalents will no longer be counted towards the GCSE %. Will we see big falls in GCSE results, especially among sponsored academies?
Ebacc still low in Sponsored academies
The DfE press release boasts that the proportion of students taking the ebacc in sponsored academies had doubled, from 11% to 22%. However it doesn't mention that the proportion achieving the ebacc in those schools has increased far less, from 8% to 11%.
As last year, for pupils in sponsored academies, they are far less likely to take the traditional GCSEs so favoured by Mr Gove and far more likely to take the GCSE equivalents that he dismisses.
Half the schools below the floor target are academies
The DfE states that 154 schools this year fell below the floor target of 40% on the GCSE benchmark. The DfE press release says: Schools below the floor and with a history of under-performance face being taken over by a sponsor with a track record of improving weak schools.
However 79 of these schools (over half) appear to be academies. Maybe they should be taken over by local authorities?
.......... More analysis to follow later.
Comments
Today I had the fortune of looking at four datasets to help me make some simple comparisons that go beyond the SFA. School leaders do not have time to tell their story in relation to the true contexts which are often not applied or understood when judgements are made. I think that the answers lie in the datasets and that leaders need tools that better enable them to make comparisons.
The DT published the data before the DfE issued its press release so the DT's stats couldn't be verified. The DT mentioned the "failing" schools ("comprehensives" actually, thereby "proving" that comprehensive education doesn't work). But it didn't mention that just over half (79 out of 154) were academies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10579345/GCSE-league-...
And it came to pass....
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/11/dfe-ignores-report-which-f...
The DT was referring to the number of pupils it alleges are in "failing" secondary schools (aka "comprehensives").
When does "around 180" = "nearly 200"? A pattern is emerging. You've no doubt spotted it. It's the DT again.
The "nearly 200" figure was wrong. The "around 180" is also wrong (see comment above).
Oh, dear.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/250000-fewer-pupils-in-underperformin...
You’d expect the figures to be the same but they aren’t.
If you click on the question mark next to each heading you’ll get an explanation. The first description of “vocational students” describes them as “academic students” getting A levels, IB and other non-vocational exams. The second description of “vocational students” describes them as you would expect: “vocational students” gaining vocational qualifications.
So, in the first explanation, vocational = academic and vocational exams are non-vocational ones. In the second explanation, vocational means vocational and the vocational qualifications are non-academic ones.
Confused? So am I. Again.
Add new comment