DfE fails to refute LSN analysis: DfE data shows academies do not perform better

Article by Henry Stewart on Local Schools Network (04 March 2012)

"This week the Department for Education issued an attempted rebuttal of our data comparing results from academies and other state schools, as highlighted in last week’s Observer. It is an odd and rather shallow response. The critique bears so little relation to either the Observer article or the extensive analysis on this site that I wonder if the author actually read them.

DfE: “Much of their analysis was based on a simplistic comparison between all schools and Academies – nearly all of which were previously failing local authority maintained schools. As Academies are having to recover from such a low base such a comparison is nonsensical.”

Not true. In fact the Observer article compares academies and non-academies starting from a similar low base. For schools achieving less than 35% in 2008 (in % of students getting 5 GCSE A-Cs including English & Maths), academies increased 18% (from 24% to 42%) and non-academies by 19%, from 24% to 43%. These figures are given in the Observer article. It is hard to understand how the DfE author missed them."

Continue Reading....

Academy Myths

Academy Myths

Ten Academy Myths – True /False quiz*

1. “Academies’ GCSE results improved by nearly twice as much as in non academy schools in 2011” (DfE)
TRUE/FALSE
2. Academies that have been running for a long time get better GCSE results than non academies
TRUE/FALSE
3. Academies with high levels of disadvantaged students do better than similar non academies (The Telegraph)
TRUE/FALSE
4. Academies make their results appear better by getting students to take easier qualifications
TRUE/FALSE
5. Although individual academies have mixed results, the education chains (like Harris) perform strongly
TRUE/FALSE
6. Academies exclude twice as many students as other state secondary schools
TRUE/FALSE
7. Funding levels for academies are available for the general public to see
(David Cameron told Education Select Committee)
TRUE/FALSE
8. The accounts for education chains, like all other charities, are made publicly available by the Charities Comission
TRUE/FALSE
9. Mossbourne is an academy and performs exceptionally well.Therefore all academies will perform exceptionally well
TRUE/FALSE
10. “All those schools that have taken on academy freedoms are working with other schools to help them raise standards more broadly.” (Michael Gove)
TRUE/FALSE

All the information about academies that is used in this quiz was compiled from the Department for Education’s own data by Henry Stewart of the Local Schools Network. It relates only to secondary schools. Why? Because the government doesn’t even have any data for primary schools!

You can find more information and data, including graphs, in this section.

* Answers: 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 T * 5 F 6 T 7 F 8 F 9 F * 10 F
* Q 4 They use GCSE ‘equivalents’ to boost results. When the lesser qualifications are taken out of the picture, the academies do even less well than LA maintained (community) schools.
* Q 9 That’s a bit like saying ‘David Beckham is a man and he’s a world class footballer. Therefore all men will become world class footballers.’ ????

(Source)

Academy Facts

Academies: The Evidence of Underperformance

The massive release of data by the Department for Education (over 200 pieces of data on each of over 5,000 secondary schools) makes possible a thorough analysis of how well different types of school have performed. The evidence is clear and overwhelming: Academies have not been the success story that their supporters have claimed. Instead there is a clear record of under-performance.
Henry Stewart should be credited for the very thorough analysis of those data.


The overall figures have long been clear, for the key measure of % achieving 5 A-Cs at GCSE including English and Maths:


Academies: 47%
Non-academies: 60%


The data now includes a figure for the % achieving 5 A-Cs including English and Maths but without counting non-GCSE qualifications like Btecs. Here the difference is even more stark:


Academies: 34%
Non-academies: 54%


The gap is huge but this is an unfair comparison. We know that the raw % pass rate (though currently Ofsted’s favoured figure) is closely related to the ability of the students at entry. We know that schools in disadvantaged areas tend to achieve lower % for 5 A-Cs and we know that the early academies were more likely to be in disadvantaged areas. So does this explain the discrepancy?
The answer is a resounding no. To analyse this, I split the data into five comparison groups according to the % of students on free school meals. The first group, the most advantaged, is of schools where less than 10% are on FSM and so on up to the most disadvantaged where more than 40% are on FSM. Academies still perform worse than comparable non-academies.

% achieving 5 A-Cs at GCSE including English and Maths:

Figures with GCSEs + equivalents
Overall Academies: 47%
Non-academies: 60%
Related to % children on FSM




Figures with GCSEs only
Overall Academies: 34%
Non-academies: 54%
Related to % children on FSM




The message is clear. When academies are compared to comprehensives with the same level of disadvantage, their results are worse.
Another example: the % making expected progress in English and Maths:







Film to explain the data

(Source)

Dear Mr Gove: Letter from a curious parent

Article by Michael Rosen in The Guardian (30 April 2012)

"I know you're proud of your policy of creating academies, but something happened on 23 April that pressed my panic button. You told the Commons education select committee that eight academy schools have been served with "pre-warning notices" because they are severely underperforming. I immediately thought, how come? Aren't academies the solve-all, the system that will rid us of "underperforming" schools? For the record, let's say it out loud: we now know that academies can and do fail. Perhaps, though, I should suspend my judgment, because the great advantage of the academy system is that the moment something goes wrong, the parents' complaints will be heard and the secretary of state will be on to it?

Let's look closer. First, we're not allowed to know what or where these academies are. With local authority schools, we have accountability and transparency with online Ofsted reports, sometimes followed by local newspaper headlines and TV fly-on-the-wall documentaries, but with academies, we have the schools that dare not speak their name. And we have the academy accounts that dare not be made public."

Continue reading...

Eight academies given improvement notice

Article by Alison Kershaw in The Independant (24 April 2012)

"Eight academy schools have been put on notice that they must boost their standards or face action, it was revealed today.


Education Secretary Michael Gove said the schools have been issued with pre-warning notices because they are severely under-performing.

It comes as MPs raised concerns that a government quango responsible for investigating complaints against academies is failing to do so."

Continue Reading...

Teachers strike over attempt to force school to become sponsored academy

Article in The Guardian (22 May 2012)

"Parents and striking teachers have joined forces outside a school in north London to protest at the government's attempt to force it to become a sponsored academy.

Downhills primary school in Haringey, which was placed in special measures earlier this year after failing an Ofsted inspection, was closed to pupils on Tuesday as all 20 teachers went on strike.

The teachers, all National Union of Teachers (NUT) members, were joined by up to 30 parents for a demonstration against proposals by the Department for Education (DfE) to impose academy status.

Parent Sarah Williams, 40, who has two sons at the school, said: "There is absolutely no evidence that a change in structure improves children's educational outcomes."



Continue Reading...

Primary school paid PR firm £152,000, accounts show

Article by Jessica Shepherd in The Guardian (19 April 2012)


"A primary school regularly praised by the government paid a political lobbying and public relations firm more than £152,000 last year to ensure positive mentions of the school in parliament and the press, among other work, it has emerged.

The latest accounts for the trust that runs Durand Academy in Stockwell, south London, show it paid £152,812 to Political Lobbying and Media Relations Ltd (PLMR) – a London-based firm that boasts of its connections to politicians of all parties.

The trust owed a further £12,455 to the lobbying company at the time the accounts, which are for the year ending 31 August 2011, were published. The academy's website states that between 1 April 2009 and 31 December 2010, the trust paid just over £199,000 to the firm."




Continue reading...