At the end of January the Department for Education published a massive amount of information, 208 items of data on GCSE results for every school in England. This makes it possible for the first time to carry out a full analysis of how academies and non-academies compare. And, despite all the claims of government supporters, there is no evidence of better GCSE performance in academies.
The first thing to watch out for is the practice of policy-making by anecdote. Academy supporters have a tendency to focus on schools like Mossbourne and Burlington Dane, or the ARK chain. These are the best performing academies but the fact that these have done well does not mean academies as a whole have done well (though it would be good to study and learn from these schools, as from high-performing non-academies).
The government tends to quote growth figures for academies, which generally look impressive. However the analysis below shows two faults in this. First, schools in disadvantaged areas have generally done well. When academies are compared to similar schools, there is no clear pattern of extra growth. Further when GCSE equivalents (like Btecs) are removed the academy growth is generally less than in non-academies.
These are the key Local Schools Network posts analysing the data released by the DfE on the 2011 GCSE results, and comparing the performance of academies and non-academies:
Did academies grow more in 2011? Not when compared to similar schools
The main Dfe claim about growth from 2010 to 2011 in the GCSE results of academies, that it was twice that of non-academies, does not stack up when they are compared to similar schools.
Sir Michael Wilshaw is right: Most outstanding schools are not academies
The evidence shows Sir Michael is right on two counts: most outstanding schools are not academies and many schools in disadvantaged areas are doing amazing work.
DfE Press Release condemns academies performance
The DfE criticism of schools where few students take academic subjects is, above all, a condemnation of academies
DfE data shows success of local schools
The last three years has seen a transformation in the performance of schools in the most disadvantaged areas, with % achieving 5 GCSEs including English and Maths rising from 35% to 50%.
Established academies: still no evidence of better performance
The DfE argues that a fairer comparison would be with academies that are at least 5 years old. The evidence shows that these also perform no better than comparable non-academies.
Academy chains: No case for expansion
The record of the academy chains is poor and gives no basis for expansion.
"Failing schools": Do academies do better?
The answer is No. Even with this group, they fare better as LA schools.
Students with low prior achievement: Inner city London comprehensives do best
Nationally only 6.5% of students of 'low prior achievement' get 5 A-Cs including English and Maths. Inner London schools do over twice as well, with Hackney achieving 22% and Tower Hamlets 23%.
Academies: The evidence of underperformance
When compared to comparable schools (in terms of levels of disadvantage), the data show academies under-perform on a range of criteria.
Post-script
The above analysis was
used as the basis of an article in the Observer on 26th February. Crucially it states " DfE spokesman did not deny the accuracy of the statistics"
Sources outside Local Schools Network
Liberal Conspiracy:
Why more academies will make education worse
Anti-Academies Alliance:
GCSEs, academies and disadvantage: a higher standard of government misinformation
Note: This is a reference page, and further links will be added to make this an easy-to-use link to all the 2011 GCSE data analysis. The date of publication is updated to keep it prominent.
Data Notes: The Academies figure, throughout these posts, refers to the category of sponsor-led academies, of which there are 249. It does not include the ‘converter academies’, of which there were just 25 at this point. Non-academies include those classified as community, foundation, CTCs or voluntary aided schools, 2,681 in total. Special schools are not included.)
Data sources: The DfE data release can be obtained here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/26/secondary-school-league-tables-data?INTCMP=SRCH#data
Some people have found it difficult to download this file. If you have difficulty, feel free to email me on
henry@happy.co.uk and I will send you a copy of the file. The above analysis was generally done in Excel with Pivot tables.
Comments
Comprehensives 57.8%
Selective 98.7%
Modern 50.8%
Academy (sponsor) 46.8%
Academy (convertor) 77.1%
Sponsored academies were set up to tackle underachievement and raise standards, and there have been high-profile successes like Mossbourne. But the good results achieved at these successful academies are insufficient to raise the overall percentage of pupils gaining the benchmark GCSEs in sponsored academies as a group.
These figures show that academy conversion is not a magic bullet which will automatically raise standards. And they also show that those people Mr Gove attacks as being "enemies of promise" because they oppose academy conversion may actually have a point.
*page 4 Stats First Release
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001056/sfr02-2012.pdf
Comprehensives: 81.2% 54.9%
Selective: 99.2% 98.9%
Modern: 78.5% 45%
All academies 82.6% 39.4%
These figures show that academies are relying more on the equivalent examinations than other types of school. (NB the figure for academies includes converter academies which had converted on or before 12 September 2010. Converter academies were previously designated "outstanding" or "good".)
*page 6 Stats First Release linked above
Thanks for this. It really illustrates the dumbing down and all must have prizes attitude and ethos that occurred under Labour. It looks like all schools apart from private and selective bought into this.
It is great that the current Government are bringing emphasising academic rigour.
Would you agree then that the 'academy effect' is overstated once the curriculum changes have been factored in?
My students achieved outstanding results in maths, for example, because I and other worked on creating lessons and curricula which engaged them and creating choices for them which were relevant to their futures and allowed them to plan coherently into their futures. Once they were following a path into life which was meaningful for them and they felt like their maths lessons were in touch with what they could do and took them on from their they tended to knuckle down and drive for their exams and deliver great results.
Is that academic rigour or is that dumbing down? I'm curious as to what you think. It sounds like it's dumbing down because I actively drew on students visions of themselve and inspiration from their vocations subjects. I'm also curious to know how you would inspire deprived cohorts with substantial behavioural issues to deliver outstanding maths grades while forcing them to choose courses they didn't want to do and they felt were irrelevant to their future?
Do you fully understand the difference being forced to study French instead of allowing a child to choose Health and Social care will make and the many opportunities the latter qualification allows that child to picture themselves in different futures and meet people who are working in them and to repeatedly see the importance of their maths GCSE?
Perhaps you think that 16-years-olds should be 'kept young' and more fully forced to learn to do what they're told instead of taking responsibility for preparing themselves for their futures? I understand there are people who feel this way but though they were only in Dickens' books?
This shows the difficulty in using data to discover how well schools raise the achievement of disadvantaged pupils. The figures need to be viewed together with the intake of a school.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/26/thomas-telford-school-le...
http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=12...
The OECD has warned that the academy and free schools programme needs careful monitoring if it is not to increase the gap between disadvantaged and advantaged pupils. Yet the Government aggressively promotes this policy even when the evidence does not support an automatic link between academy status and raised results.
Mr Gibb said, “But there are great examples of schools achieving the best for their disadvantaged pupils. If they can get it right, then so can all schools”. He then highlighted 21 schools which had more than 10 disadvantaged pupils where 80% reached the benchmark of 5+ GCSEs including Maths and English. What he didn’t say, however, was how many of these 21 schools are grammar schools or schools, like Thomas Telford mentioned above, which are comprehensive in name only and have an intake heavily skewed towards the top end.
http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00202531/secperftables12
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/departments/6
Most are supportive,one or two have entirely missed the point and one or two others throw the usual Twitter style personal abuse.
But the regular state school bashers have remained remarkably quiet.
The posters in the guardian are Fiona, Melissa benn, Alan Bravia and Janet Downes. Of course they are not going to disagree with the data produced on an anti academies website. What would be the point?
I thought they only had this one - where the kind of free debate about policy which is prevented on other major education discussion forums is allowed?
Rebecca - I think Guest meant that the Local Schools Network is an anti-academies website. That's probably because many of the comments debunk Government propaganda about academy conversion being a silver bullet to raise standards.
What we are against is the government trying to impose one model onto schools and communities, whether they want it or not. We will also seek to expose any dubious claims made for academies and we are suspicious of where this is leading - especially given the debate starting on the right about privitisation in education.
Are there any pro-academies websites? I think even those major education discussion forums which systematically get rid of contributors who express coherent criticism of this government's policy are struggling to express a pro-academies line.
Could someone point me to a discussion forum where there is substantial credible support for the new academies, free schools or this government's reforms to Ofsted? I'd be surprised to find one as they are so overwhelmingly despised by teachers.
Henry, are you aware of any verified information about how much money academies and free schools are getting per pupil. I would like to see this so that it would be possible to see whether it is a fair playing field when you are making your academies/ non academies comparisons. My gut feeling( and I am happy to be proved wrong!) is that maybe they are more generously funded but I cannot see the data anywhere.
There were 60 comments below the Guardian's article - Guest seems to be suggesting that four people are responsible for them all.
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001056/sfr02-2012.pdf
http://www.education.gov.uk/
Exactly. In any case, the key point is not how many people approve or disapprove of a piece it is the fact that no one has challenged Henry Stewart's figures. Yet if they are correct education ministers have repeatedly misled the public and parliament in recent months about the performance of academies.
Mr Gove is becoming increasingly like the emperor with new clothes. And, as Lord Griffiths of Burry Port said, "Such men are dangerous."
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/%e2%80%9csuch-men-are-dang...
Reply to a guest above - the school performance tables 2011 don't give the spend per pupils for academies. It is only available for non-academies so we can't make a comparison. If spend per pupil is to be a useful measure then the figures should be available for all state-funded schools.
Add new comment