2 Evidence of effect of academy status
on standards and closing the gap
Government
policy
16. The DfE's long-term vision, as set by its board,
is that of a "highly-educated society in which opportunity
is more equal for children and young people, no matter what their
background or family circumstances".[22]
To achieve this, the Department has identified five "mutually
reinforcing strategic aims":
· raising
standards of educational achievement;
· closing
the achievement gap between rich and poor;
· reforming
the schools system;
· supporting
all children and young people, particularly the disadvantaged;
and
· improving
the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department.[23]
The Department considers that the academies programme
is central in achieving these aims and has therefore been restructured
to support it. The DfE's latest Annual Report states that "As
part of that drive for improvement, the Department has substantially
expanded its Academies programmes. These are the most resource-intensive
of the Department's discretionary work, driven by Ministerial
priorities."[24]
17. Reiterated statements by Ministers, most markedly
the previous Secretary of State, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, attest
to the strength of the belief within the DfE that academisation
can and will lead to school improvement and to the narrowing of
the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children.
It is therefore appropriate that the effectiveness of academy
status should be measured by means of Ofsted ratings, general
progress of all students and improved outcomes for disadvantaged
students in particular. These different elements have often been
conflated in analysis and even 'spun' by both supporters and detractors
of the academies programme. It is important to recognise from
the start that sponsored academies have usually replaced struggling
schools; starting from a low base, they could be expected to improve
at a faster rate than the national average. Likewise, converters
largely represent those schools rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted
and so could be expected to have higher than average attainment.
Statistically, both could be expected to revert to the mean. It
is therefore imperative that these different indicators of success
are distinguished and addressed if analysis of impact is to be
meaningful and robust.
18. Given the very different nature of sponsored
and converter academies, it is also appropriate to examine the
evidence for effectiveness separately for the two groups. Evidence
for the latter is very sparse, because of the short time that
they have been in operation in any number. Evidence for the former
is often drawn from examination of the impact of the pre-2010,
Labour Government sponsored academies programme, which differed
from the Coalition programme in terms of scale and funding.[25]
Link between school autonomy,
collaboration, accountability and attainment
19. The DfE stated that "autonomy and accountability
are the two key pillars of academies reform" and that "International
evidence shows that greater autonomy drives up educational standards,
and is most effective when coupled with accountability".[26]
A third factor is how far improvements spread throughout the system.
The DfE cited research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) which found that "At the country level,
the greater the number of schools that have the responsibility
to define and elaborate their own curricula and assessments, the
better the performance of the whole system, even after accounting
for national income".[27]
The DfE also referred to research into the effectiveness of charter
schools in the United States in closing the gap between disadvantaged
students and their peers,[28]
and further US work showing that "the improved performance
of autonomous schools can improve the quality of schools in the
neighbouring area".[29]
20. Andreas Schleicher, the Deputy Director for Education
and Skills at the OECD, expressed his strong support for the principle
of the value of autonomy. He told us: "What our data do show
is that school systems which offer a greater deal of school autonomy
tend to have higher performance, but they do not say anything
about trends".[30]
He also told us: "I view the trend towards academies as a
very promising development in the UK, which used to have quite
a prescriptive education system, if you look at this through international
comparison".[31]
He cited a number of caveats to the link between autonomy and
raising standards, explaining that "We cannot say that increasing
school autonomy will necessarily yield an increase in outcomes
because autonomy always operates in a context".[32]
He later added that, in creating a high-performing education system,
"there are many aspects that are at least as important [as
autonomy]: the level of standards, the level of people you get
into the teaching system and the investment countries make in
their teachers".[33]
Far from criticising the extent of autonomy, Mr Schleicher argued
that the UK's increased managerial autonomy should be extended
to curriculum and teaching. He judged that "With regard to
resource management [
] there are a very few countries with
such a high level of discretion in schools' capacities to manage
their resources, make funding decisions and so on" as England
but he was "not so sure" that English schools had high
levels of autonomy with regard to "curriculum and instructional
policies and practices".[34]
21. Andreas Schleicher stressed the importance of
accountability and inspection in ensuring that autonomous schools
achieve results. He told us: "the more autonomy you provide
to schools, the more discretion schools have, the stronger the
system you build around it to share good practice and knowledge
and make sure you have effective ways to deal with underperformance".[35]
The OECD rated England "very strongly on the accountability
system", with "a good combination [of
] internal
evaluation, external evaluation, inspection and the testing regimes".[36]
22. Mr Schleicher also told us that "the only
area of decision-making that has a measurable impact on outcomes
is the level of decision-making at the school".[37]
One paradox of the academy programme is that for schools in chains
it may well lead to less autonomy at the school level than in
maintained schools. Decision-making within a chain is a matter
for the trust and, as David Wolfe QC pointed out, is "subject
to how much it decides to delegate down to a local governing body".[38]
Sponsored academies
Improvement in attainment
23. The DfE painted a very positive picture of the
impact of academisation upon schools which had become sponsored
academies, stating that:
In 2013, in secondary sponsored academies, the
percentage of pupils achieving five or more good GCSEs rose by
1.8%. As academies mature, they continue to improve. Sponsored
academies that have been open for three years have improved by
12% since opening (to 48.2%), compared to a 5% increase in maintained
schools over the same period.[39]
24. The latest data from Ofsted shows that there
has been a "positive and sustained impact on attainment"
achieved by sponsor-led academies, although it also shows that
"improvement in those that have been open the longest is
beginning to slow as they reach national levels of attainment
and results are declining in some individual sponsored academies"
(see figure 1 below).[40]
Overall, the level of attainment in sponsored academies (on average)
remains below the national average for all schools.
25. The more mature sponsored academies (those open
for more than four years) are schools established under the previous
Labour Government programme. Inevitably, because of the timelag,
the DfE's own analysis referred to academies open prior to 2010,
rather than those opened as part of the post 2010 academies programme.[41]
Ofsted agreed that this group of academies had improved attainment,
albeit from a very low baseline. For schools established in the
academic year 2007/08:
In the first year of establishment, the performance
of these schools was 11 percentage points below the national level
for the key GCSE benchmark of 5 or more GCSE passes at A* to C
grade, including English and mathematics. This was exceptionally
poor and reflected the weak educational performance of the previous
schools. Five years later, these schools had narrowed the gap
by eight percentage points.[42]
26. An analysis of the early sponsored academies
by Andrew Eyles and Professor Stephen Machin also found that student
outcomes rose at a statistically significant rate, even after
controlling for change in intake.[43]
Within this average overall improvement, there was a lot of variation
in the estimated effects, with some big improvers and some not
improving.
27. Eyles and Machin stressed that the effects they
detected should not be extrapolated to the Coalition academies.[44]
In a 2012 article, Professor Machin expressed surprise that his
work was "used extensively by supporters of the coalition's
policy on academies", since "translating the evidence
over from the old programme to the new, without appropriate reservations
about whether the findings can be generalised, is, at the moment,
a step too far."[45]
28. Witnesses, including Lucy Heller, CEO of ARK,
considered that that it was too early to judge whether Coalition
sponsored academies have been a success,[46]
but some research is now beginning to emerge on the post-2010
schools. Taking the 2013 GCSE results, the NFER found that "progress
between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 outcomes [
] is higher
after 2 years in sponsored academies compared to similar non-academy
schools". However, when outcome was measured in GCSE points,
excluding equivalent qualifications such as BTECs, the NFER concluded
that "Pupil progress in sponsored academies compared to similar
non-academies is not significantly different over time".[47]
This reflects an established trend for sponsored academies to
make greater than average use of equivalent qualifications.[48]
The Government has been concerned at the extent to which equivalents
are taken, and has significantly reduced the number of equivalent
qualifications that count for the 2014 league tables.[49]
29. The DfE dismissed the NFER's research as "limited,
particularly as it considers change over only a two year time
period when we know from our own published analysis, that the
longer sponsored academies are open, the better they do".[50]
CLOSING THE GAP
30. Sponsor-led academies are often concentrated
in disadvantaged areas: Ofsted told us that half of all such academies
were located in the most disadvantaged communities compared to
just over 10% of converters, with "well above the national
average" proportions of students eligible for free school
meals.[51] The DfE told
us that "sponsored academies do better for the most deprived",
on the basis that "In 2012, the proportion of FSM pupils
gaining five or more good GCSEs (including English and mathematics)
increased by 2.4% in sponsored academies, compared to 0.9% in
similar LA schools".[52]
31. Not all witnesses agreed with the DfE's conclusions
on the beneficial effect of sponsored academies on disadvantaged
students. Several cited work by Henry Stewart of the Local Schools
Network, who has compared data from schools with similar proportions
of FSM students.[53]
Based on the same 2012 GCSE results, Mr Stewart found that "Academies
do better in the 2 least disadvantaged bands but worse in the
others".[54] The
Sutton Trust examined the impact on low income students of academy
chains operating from at least September 2010 to July 2013 and
found a more varied picture.[55]
The Trust's research concluded that:
On average, the improvement for disadvantaged
pupils in 5A*CEM in sponsored schools in the analysis group was
greater than the average for all mainstream schools between 2011
and 2013. However, there was enormous variation between chains,
with only 16 out of 31 exceeding the figure for all mainstream
schools in 2013.[56]
32. Looking at schools that converted between 2002
and 2007 and from 2008 to 2009 (again pre-Coalition academies),
Machin, working with Dr Olmo Silva, examined the impact of sponsored
academies on the attainment of pupils in the bottom tail of the
achievement distribution.[57]
Machin and Silva concluded that "the effects of academy conversion
are insignificantly different from zero-and possibly negative
for later conversions-in the bottom 10% and 20% of the ability
distribution, suggesting no beneficial effects on tail students
in academies".[58]
They hypothesised that this was due to the influence of the accountability
framework, which concentrates on final attainment rather than
educational progression.[59]
If this is the case, the introduction of the new Progress 8 measure
may have a positive effect on the achievement of disadvantaged
students in academies, as indeed it is designed to do in all schools.
33. Ofsted pointed out that sponsor-led schools have
higher than average proportions of students from ethnic minority
backgrounds and that those schools with high proportions of such
students are "the most successful in terms of the end of
Key Stage 4 attainment of disadvantaged students and reducing
the size of the 'attainment gap'".[60]
As our recent report on Underachievement in education by white
working class children has shown, the challenge for these
schools is to address the comparatively poor performance of all
their disadvantaged students, including white British pupils.[61]
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
34. Ofsted ratings may be taken as a measure of the
overall effectiveness of a school. Again, it is important to remember
that sponsored academies are starting from a low base and it might
take time for improvements to show in inspection results. According
to Ofsted in December 2013 56% of sponsor-led academies were good
or outstanding, compared to 78% of all schools. This proportion
"varies widely across the country", with 85% of sponsor-led
academies in London rated good or better compared to 33% in the
East of England.[62]
Of the 159 sponsor-led secondary academies inspected by Ofsted
between 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2014, the national picture
showed 7% were outstanding, 23% were good, 45% required improvement
and 25% were inadequate.
35. There is some evidence that the change in status
might lead to improved standards. Eyles and Machin found that
for city academies, the trend amongst schools that had been judged
to be inadequate prior to becoming an academy was generally positive,
and many such schools moved out of the bottom Ofsted categories.
On average, the pre-2010 sponsored academies moved up more in
Ofsted inspection rankings than comparable schools.[63]
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHAINS
36. A key finding, whether examining attainment,
improvement or closing the gap, is that there is significant variation
between the performance of different chains. Ofsted's Annual Report
on Schools for 2013/14 found that several MATs had succeeded in
raising GCSE attainment above the national average in 2013, including
the Harris Federation where attainment had risen to 73.3% (five
GCSEs at A* to C) for all pupils and to 67.6% for children eligible
for free schools meals.[64]
The Sutton Trust also found that there were several high-performing
chains. On the other hand, the Trust researchers pointed out that
"most [chains] are not achieving distinctive outcomes compared
to mainstream schools; and there are actually more that perform
significantly worse, than there are chains that perform significantly
better".[65] The
Sutton Trust concluded that "The very poor results of some
chains-both for pupils generally and for the disadvantaged pupils
they were particularly envisaged to support-comprises a clear
and urgent problem" and that there was "a pressing need
for further monitoring and transparent provision of publicly available
data in order to ensure accountability".[66]
37. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding this
warning, the Sutton Trust found that sponsored academies in chains
on average outperform solo sponsored academies.[67]
Converter academies
38. Converter academies have been operating during
an even shorter timeframe which makes evidence on their effectiveness
even more sparse. Dr Olmo Silva of the Centre for Economic Performance,
London School of Economics, told us that "we need at least
to wait four or five years in order to be able to see something
meaningful". This would allow a cohort of students to go
through the full course of secondary education.[68]
Other witnesses agreed.[69]
ATTAINMENT
39. Converter academies are likely to have been previously
high attaining schools, since they required a good or outstanding
rating from Ofsted in order to convert. It is therefore not surprising
that, according to the more recent DfE Academies Annual Report,
covering reporting year 2012/13:
In 2013:
· 81%
of pupils in primary converter academies achieved level 4 or above
in reading, writing and mathematics, compared to 76% in LA maintained
schools;
· 25%
of pupils in primary converter academies were above the expected
standard at age 11 compared to 21% across all LA maintained schools;
· In
secondary converter academies, 68% of pupils achieved five or
more A*-C grades at GCSE including English and mathematics, compared
to 59% in LA maintained mainstream schools.[70]
40. The issue for converter academies is therefore
whether they can raise attainment still further. Several witnesses
highlighted the potential for autonomous schools with affluent
intakes to become "coasting" schools or to "go
off the boil" and "lose their edge".[71]
In looking at school performance in the 2013 GCSEs, the NFER found
that while "Analysis of 2013 exam results appears to show
more progress amongst converter academies than all non-academy
schools [
] A more robust longitudinal analysis shows no
significant difference in attainment progress after two years
between converter academies and similar non-academy schools, suggesting
the school performance benefits are limited, at least in the short
term."[72]
CLOSING THE GAP
41. Ofsted told us that "Although the attainment
of disadvantaged students is highest in converter academies [46%
5 GCSEs at A*-C in 2013, compared to 40% in sponsored academies
and 42% in maintained schools], it is still well below that of
students from more advantaged backgrounds".[73]
The gap at the end of Key Stage 4 in 2013 was 27 percentage points
in converters and 20 percentage points in sponsored academies.[74]
There was regional variation again in these results, with London
schools of all types cited as examples of where attainment had
been raised for all children at the same time as the attainment
gap had been narrowed significantly.[75]
42. The percentage of disadvantaged children in converter
academies is also lower than in other types of schools: in 2013
22% of children in converter primaries and 20% in converter secondaries
were eligible for free schools meals, compared to 51% in sponsored
primary academies and 44% in sponsored secondary academies. The
figures for local authority maintained schools were between the
two, at 27% and 30% respectively.[76]
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
43. A higher proportion of converter academies than
other types of schools are good or outstanding for overall effectiveness:
according to Ofsted, "As of 31 August 2013, 88% of converter
academies were good or better with over a third outstanding".
Ofsted suggested that this could be because "these schools
in the significant majority of cases are good or better when they
convert".[77] Ofsted
also pointed out that "there are variations in the overall
effectiveness of converter academies across different regions",
ranging from 94% good or better in the North West to 80% in Yorkshire
and the Humber.[78]
44. The DfE suggested that academy conversion led
to higher school quality for these schools:
Converters do better than LA maintained schools
against the new tougher Ofsted framework. Converter academies
in both phases are more likely to retain their 'Outstanding' rating
from Ofsted, with 33% of primaries, and 35% of secondary academies
maintaining their rating, compared to 25% and 33% respectively,
in maintained schools. Converter academies are also more likely
to improve from 'Good' to 'Outstanding' than LA-maintained schools,
with 27% of primary academies, and 16% of secondary academies,
compared to just 12% of maintained primaries and 10% of secondaries
improving to an 'outstanding' rating.[79]
45. Ofsted raised the "concern that some converter
academies, albeit a minority, struggle to maintain their previously
high performance".[80]
In 2013/14 Ofsted found that 89 converter academies had declined
since their previous inspection to requires improvement or inadequate.
Of these 66 were stand-alone schools, underlining a general concern
about these schools becoming isolated.[81]
Ofsted has changed its inspection arrangements to give more frequent
attention to those schools at risk of coasting or declining in
their overall effectiveness".[82]
Raising standards across the
local area
46. The aim of a self-improving school system is
that as one school improves its own position, it will also raise
standards across the local area, either through competition or
through collaboration. Dr Silva told us that:
In terms of the systemic improvements an academy
might bring about, I had to say that I had very strong hopes to
be able to detect a competition-of-choice effect in the UK education
system when I started analysing these data a number of years ago.
Unfortunately, I was not able to detect any benefit brought around
by having more autonomy in the system, at least within the London
area, which we analysed a number of years ago, with one exception:
the schools that have slightly more autonomous governance tend
to respond more to competition incentives.[83]
47. This points to competition being seen as a more
significant driver than collaboration in system improvement under
current structures. The Secretary of State cited an example from
the head of a free school which supported this view:
Since opening our school, the enhanced competition
has resulted in standards in the local area rising. A head of
another school has openly stated that the opening of our school
made him re-evaluate his provision and raise attainment at GCSE
by 25%. [84]
The OECD, however, has concluded that collaboration
is the key to successful systems.[85]
Academy freedoms
48. Part of the autonomy of academies arises from
the package of 'academy freedoms' which comes with the change
in status. Academies receive funding direct from the DfE and so
have more control over their budgets than state maintained schools.
They are required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum including
English, mathematics, science and religious studies, but otherwise
have the freedom to develop their curriculum to suit their needs.
Academies can also set their own term dates and their own school
hours. Finally, they can set teacher pay and conditions which
differ from those in maintained schools and can employ unqualified
teachers.
49. Taken together, the freedoms available to academies
create new opportunities for teachers in academies, especially
those in chains. Andreas Schleicher suggested that "the potential
of academies lies" in the ability to "offer [great]
teachers a work organisation that is simply a lot more attractive
to be in".[86] Dr
Silva argued that chains "are particularly attractive for
young people who are highly motivated and talented, partly because
they promise within-chain careers".[87]
Dame Sally Coates agreed that "in a network you can grow
leaders; you can share teachers; you can grow expertise; there
is good CPD [Continuing Professional Development]".[88]
She considered that people saw working for ARK academies "as
a charity; it is philanthropic; it is making a difference".[89]
50. Evidence available so far suggests that academies
are making limited use of the freedoms available to them. A DfE
report in July 2014, Do academies make use of their autonomy?,
found that few of the 'headline' freedoms are being used by academies.
Of the post 2010 academies, 14% had changed or planned to change
the school day and 9% had changed or planned to change school
terms. Sixteen percent had hired unqualified teachers but only
5% currently had on their staff unqualified teachers of whom none
were working towards QTS. More than half of those who converted
in 2010-12 have changed their curriculum, but that figure falls
below half for those schools that have changed status after 2012.[90]
51. SSAT (formerly the Specialist Schools and Academies
Trust, now The Schools' Network) gave evidence that in 2012 "just
31 per cent of sampled academies had made changes to the curriculum
following academisation".[91]
Theodore Agnew suggested that the slow take-up of freedoms was
only to be expected: "because it is so early in the programme,
people are having to get used to these new freedoms".[92]
He added: "There are little pin-pricks of activity happening
across the system, and it is really important to remember that
and not become frustrated just because there is not this wholesale
gallop".[93]
52. Two thirds of the academies which have made changes
reported to the DfE that the change was linked to improved attainment.[94]
SSAT concurred that "Those schools that do use the freedoms
they have gained are often those that perform most highly and
are most successful in closing the gap. It is therefore imperative
that academies are encouraged, where appropriate, to use their
freedoms and do not feel constrained by accountability measures".[95]
Ofsted told us: "All types of academies must utilise their
autonomy to innovate and raise standards. From January 2014, inspectors
will pay particular attention to the ways in which these schools
are using their additional freedoms to improve outcomes for all
types of students."[96]
The DfE is also looking at how to increase the use of freedoms.
Among its research priorities as issued in March 2014 are questions
on "How do academies/chains use their new freedoms to encourage
and unleash innovation?", "Is there a risk of particular
models hampering innovation?" and "Are there any additional
freedoms or accountability measures that would further drive improvement?".[97]
53. The vast majority of academy freedoms are also
available to maintained schools, if they choose to exercise them,
including performance-related pay and setting up weekend/after
school clubs. Dr Silva argued that academies were not doing "anything
radically different from what the best schools are doing in a
normal system" but that "It is their autonomy with incentives
that very often are set in place that allows them to do this,
because these incentives bring around this motivation to do it".[98]
He believed that in maintained schools, "this potential for
making the school flourish and the pupils have a better experience
often relies on individuals who are intrinsically motivated and
not incentives that are built into the system".[99]
Sir Daniel Moynihan agreed. After listing measures that Harris
had put in place to assist disadvantaged children, he argued that
"The local authorities could do any of this, there is no
question, but the fact is, for the schools we have, for long periods
of time they did not and would not".[100]
Theodore Agnew argued that "the academy programme and the
way it is structured allows innovation to happen more easily than
in a traditional model".[101]
54. Anastasia de Waal told us that "I would
like to see the autonomy that has been granted to academies granted
to all schools", making clear that she was discussing "professionalism
when it comes to teaching", rather changing pay scales or
pay and conditions.[102]
David Blunkett MP suggested that one freedom which should be given
to all schools was over the curriculum: "there should be
a light-touch National Curriculum that provides an entitlement
for all children, whichever school they go to, whatever the status,
and they can innovate and be really creative on the back of that,
so we are not preventing: we are enabling".[103]
Academy status and improved performance
55. A number of witnesses argued against the existence
of a causal link between academisation and improved performance,
highlighting other factors which affect achievement. For example,
the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) set out to "Reinforce
the point that it is the quality of teaching and leadership and
the support that is in place for a school in terms of parental
support, capital and human resources, etc.-that are the greater
determinant of success than school type. We would warn strongly
against seeing structural reforms as a panacea for school improvement,
despite their seeming simplicity to track and manage from the
centre; structural change is at best a means to an end and at
worst a distraction."[104]
56. This view was echoed by the Church of England,
which described the turnaround in fortunes of one of their academies,
which had been underperforming and was now getting excellent results
with a very deprived intake, before detailing the journey from
failure to success for another church school which had not converted
to academy status. The Church was keen to emphasise that, while
academisation offered one route to school improvement, "it
would be misleading to conclude that this is the only, or even
the most effective way of securing such improvement."[105]
Sir David Carter, Regional Schools Commissioner for the South-West,
commented that, "Academies have some fantastic practice,
but they do not have a monopoly on best practice."[106]
57. Christine Gilbert told us that the Academies
Commission had "found no evidence at all that academisation
did anything unless you did a number of things at the same time".[107]
Henry Stewart suggested that "The data appears to indicate
[
] that it is not structures that determine school success
but other factors (such as leadership, teacher development, high
expectations)."[108]
Others agreed strongly that the most important factor is the quality
of teaching and leadership.[109]
58. We heard evidence that academy status has served,
in some cases, to energise schools and headteachers. Dr Olmo Silva
explained the potential benefits of new school structures:
There is the potential in effect for becoming
an academy, which is just like shedding some old habits that might
have made the school crystallise into underperformance and left
it wondering about what to do. Just by turning itself into an
academy, it potentially frees some new spirit that seems to bring
about change. It might simply be an enabling effect that enables
some motivated leaders to use some of the freedoms that were already
available.[110]
59. The Secretary of State concurred, telling us
that:
When I visit academies up and down the country,
it is that sense of excitement about being able to really do what
is right for the school, the pupils and the area. There is a huge
sense of energy.[111]
60. Dame Sally Coates, Head of Burlington Danes Academy
(part of the ARK chain), pointed to the importance of a high quality
chain in challenging and supporting practice in schools:
In a well-run chain of academies, intervention
is much quicker. As soon as the data seems to show that progress
is going down, there is an issue and intervention takes place
[
] Academies bring the scrutiny of data and the monitoring
that comes from the chain. I did not do anything particularly
I could not have done before, but the scrutiny and monitoring
have made the difference.[112]
Conclusions and recommendations
61. The
evidence indicates that there is a complex relationship between
attainment, autonomy, collaboration and accountability. PISA research
does not support a straightforward relationship between attainment
and the academy model of autonomous schools but it suggests that,
together with other factors (including notably strong accountability),
autonomy can work in the interests of raising attainment. There
is less evidence of the impact of autonomy on closing the gap.
The OECD is also clear that decision-making must also be delegated
to the appropriate level if school-leaders and teachers are to
be able to apply their professional skills to gain the best results.
62. The Sutton Trust pointed out that "The level
of complexity and fluidity [in the English school system] has
made it notoriously difficult to analyse the impact of academies
(and academy chains) on educational outcomes for young people".[113]
The Trust also identified "a trend for proponents of the
academies programme to highlight sponsored academies' faster-than-average
improvement (when of course, this is to be expected given that
so many sponsored academies start at a low base); whereas opponents
cite their lower-than-average attainment (when again, this is
to be expected given their low starting points and pupil demographic)."[114]
The Trust cited the DfE as regularly using improvement as a measure
for sponsors rather than attainment and attainment for converters
rather than improvement.[115]
This is exemplified by the evidence presented by the DfE to our
inquiry which makes comparisons difficult and leads opponents
to dispute the assumptions of success. It has led to criticism
that the Government embarked upon an academisation programme in
2010 without the evidence to support the pace and scale of change.
63. Current
evidence does not allow us to draw firm conclusions on whether
academies are a positive force for change. According to the research
that we have seen, it is too early to judge whether academies
raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children. This is
partly a matter of timing. We should be cautious about reading
across from evidence about pre-2010 academies to other academies
established since then. What can be said is that, however measured,
the overall state of schools has improved during the course of
the academisation programme. The competitive effect upon the maintained
sector of the academy model may have incentivised local authorities
to develop speedier and more effective intervention in their underperforming
schools.
64. Some chains,
such as Harris, have proved very effective at raising attainment,
while others achieve worse outcomes than comparable mainstream
schools. What is clear is that the picture is highly variable
across the country and in the case of sponsored academies, across
chains. More information is needed on individual groupings.
65. We recommend that the progress and results
of each Multi Academy Trust (of more than three academies) be
published on a chain by chain basis as well as by individual academy.
66. The majority
of academy freedoms are available to all schools. One of the few
that is not availablebut equally one of the most widely
used and importantis the freedom to vary the curriculum
(whilst still being required to offer a broad and balanced curriculum
to all pupils).
67. We recommend that curriculum freedoms be made
available to all schools.
68. The limited
use of their freedoms by academies suggests that more needs to
be done to encourage them to innovate and explore the opportunities
open to them. We note the inclusion of 'use of academy freedoms'
in the Ofsted inspection framework, but consider that a box-ticking
exercise could be misdirected.
69. We recommend that Ofsted look for evidence
of effective innovation rather than name-checking use of specific
freedoms.
22 DFE Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13, para 2.1 Back
23
Ibid, para 2.2 Back
24
Ibid, para 2.3 Back
25
See p22 of the report of the Academies Commission, Unleashing
greatness (January 2013), for further details on policy changes
and the different types of academies Back
26
Department for Education (AFS0066) pp1, 2 Back
27
Department for Education (AFS0066) para 7, citing OECD (2013)
- PISA 2012 results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources,
Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Back
28
Ibid, citing Dobbie W., and Fryer R. (2011) Getting Beneath the
Veil of Effective Schools: Evidence from New York City. NBER Working
Papers, No. 7632; Hoxby, C.M., Murarka, S., and Kang, J. (2009)
How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement, The New
York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project 2009) Back
29
Department for Education (AFS0066) para 10, citing Bettinger,
E. (2005) The effect of Charter Schools on Charter Students and
Public Schools, Economics of Education review, 24 133-147; 5 Hoxby,
C.M. (2002) School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School
Choice be a Tide that Lifts All Boats?) National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper 8873; Booker, K., Gilpatric, S.M., Gronberg,
T. and Jansen, D. (2008). The Effect of Charter Schools on Traditional
Public Schools in Texas: Are Children who stay behind left behind?
Journal of Economics 64, 123-145. Back
30
Q178 Back
31
Q180 Back
32
Q178 Back
33
Q198 Back
34
Q183 Back
35
Q188 Back
36
Q222 Back
37
Q189 Back
38
Q944 [David Wolfe QC]. Back
39
Department for Education (AFS0066), para 25, based on DfE analysis
of 2013 performance tables data (KS4 provisional and KS2 revised) Back
40
Ofsted Annual Report on Schools 2013/14, p.31 Back
41
Ibid Back
42
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 8 Back
43
Eyles and Machin, The Introduction of Academy Schools to England's
Education, June 2014
Ibid Back
44
Ibid Back
45
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/apr/09/labour-academies-research-coalition-programme Back
46
Q405 Back
47
Analysis of academy school performance in GCSEs 2013: Final report,
NFER (July 2014), p4 Back
48
DfE 2012, cited in Academies Commission, 2013; Hutchings, Francis
& DeVries; Wrigley and Kalambuka, 2012 Back
49
DfE (2012b) press release, 30 January 2012 Back
50
DfE, supplementary evidence November 2014 - Department for Education
(AFS0137) p2 Back
51
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 10 Back
52
Department for Education (AFS0066) para 30, based on DfE (2013):
Attainment by pupils in academies 2012: supplementary analysis
to the academies report 2011/12 Back
53
Eg. Socialist Educational Association (AFS0020); Save Downhills
campaign (AFS0055); Q1069 [Kevin Courtney] Back
54
Local Schools Network (AFS0054) p1 Back
55
Chain effects: the impact of academy chains on low income students,
Merryn Hutchings, Becky Francis and Robert De Vries, Sutton Trust
(July 2014). 5A*CEM means gaining five GCSEs at grades A* to C,
including English and Maths, which is the standard performance
measure for secondary schools. Back
56
Ibid, p.4. 5A*CEM means gaining 5 GCSEs at grades A* to C, including
English and Maths (the standard performance measure for schools)
Back
57
School structure, school autonomy and the tail, Stephen Machin
and Olmo Silva, Centre for Economic Performance Special Paper
no. 39 (March 2013) Back
58
Ibid, p9 Back
59
Ibid, p12 Back
60
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 11 Back
61
Education Committee, First Report of Session 2014-15, Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children,
HC 142 Back
62
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 6 Back
63
Machin and Eyles Back
64
Ofsted Annual Report for Schools 2013/14 Back
65
Hutchings, Francis & deVries (2014) Back
66
Hutchings, Francis & deVries (2014) Back
67
Hutchings, Francis & deVries (2014) Back
68
Q298 Back
69
Q298 [Henry Stewart, Dame Sally Coates, Gabriel Sahlgren] Back
70
Academies Annual Report: Academic year: 2012/2013, DfE (July 2014) Back
71
Q844 [David Blunkett]; Q403 [John Clarke] Back
72
Analysis of academy school performance in GCSEs 2013: Final report,
NFER (July 2014), p4 Back
73
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 13 Back
74
Ibid, para 14 Back
75
Ibid, para 16 and 17 Back
76
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 10 Back
77
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 4-5 Back
78
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 4 Back
79
Department for Education (AFS0066) para 28 Back
80
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 5 Back
81
Ofsted, Annual Report of HMCI of Education, Children's Services
and Skills 2013/14, HC841, Session 2014-15, p18, and Annual Report
on Schools 2013/14, p6 Back
82
Ibid Back
83
Q312 [Dr Olmo Silva] Back
84
Q1198 Back
85
See, for example, Collaborative culture is key to success, Andreas
Schleicher, Times Educational Supplement, 9 March 2013 Back
86
Q217 Back
87
Q302 [Dr Olmo Silva] Back
88
Q302 [Dame Sally Coates] Back
89
Ibid Back
90
DfE, Do academies make use of their autonomy? Research report
(July 2014) Back
91
SSAT (AFS0067) para 7 Back
92
Q893 Back
93
Q893 Back
94
DfE, Do academies make use of their autonomy? Research report
(July 2014) Back
95
SSAT (AFS0067) para 7 Back
96
Ofsted (AFS0088) para 20 Back
97
Academies: research priorities and questions, DfE (March 2014)
Back
98
Q322 [Olmo Silva] Back
99
Ibid Back
100
Q924 Back
101
Q808 Back
102
Q525 Back
103
Q895 Back
104
National Association of Head Teachers (AFS0091) para 6 Back
105
Church of England (AFS0080) para 1 Back
106
Q566 Back
107
Q366 [Christine Gilbert] Back
108
Local Schools Network (AFS0054) p4 Back
109
Q302 [Gabriel Sahlgren]; Q365 [Mike Cladingbowl and Sam Freedman];
Q299 and Q329 [Dame Sally Coates] Back
110
Q341 [Olmo Silva] Back
111
Q1167 Back
112
Q309 Back
113
Hutchings, Francis & deVries (2014), p11 Back
114
Hutchings, Francis & deVries (2014), pp11-12 Back
115
Hutchings, Francis & deVries (2014), p12 Back
|