Henry Stewart looks at the latest report from the Sutton Trust. This was first published on the Local Schools Network website LINK
The Sutton Trust report
Chains Effects 2015, published today, makes clear that there are serious
problems with many of the academy chains: “far from providing a solution
to disadvantage, a few chains may be exacerbating it”.
The government, and its
supporters in the media, are likely to focus on the small number of
high-performing chains that the report finds are performing better than schools
overall. However these represent less than one in five of the sponsored
academies that were included in the study. Even the strong results of these few
chains may, as the report suggests, be explained by the fact that most are
London focused and benefiting from the better performance of London schools.
The government plans to
convert “inadequate” and “coasting” schools to sponsored academies. Yet this
report reveals that 15% of sponsored academies covered by this report are
currently rated “inadequate” by Ofsted (compared to 6% for secondary schools
overall) and that no less than 44%, four out of every nine, would be classed as
“coasting” according to their 2014 results.
This could be partly explained
by the prior low attainment that led to these schools being converted. However
the report only includes schools that had been academies for at least three
years, and some for much longer. In this light it comments, in what may be an
understatement, that these figures “seem quite disappointing”.
The conclusions are stark:
While there are some chains demonstrating “impressive outcomes”, “a larger
group of low-performing chains are achieving results that are not improving and
may be harming the prospects of their disadvantaged students”.
Underperformance of the
lower achieving
The most robust analysis in
the report is that which compares the improvement in results in academy chains
with schools that started with similar results in 2012. It is this analysis
that leads the report to the conclusion that some chains are harming the
performance of the most disadvantaged, and showing no capability to improve.
The study split schools into five equal groups (or “quintiles”) by 2012 GCSE
results.
Of the nine academy chains
in the lowest quintile for results in 2012, four did significantly worse and
none did significantly better than schools overall, in terms of the change in
GCSE results for all pupils from 2012 to 2014. (Across all quintiles, six
academy chains did significantly worse and five did significantly better than
schools overall for the improvement in results for all pupils.)
Of the four academy chains
in the lowest quintile for results in 2012, all did “significantly worse” than
schools overall, in terms of the change in GCSE results for disadvantaged
pupils from 2012 to 2014. (Overall, across all
quintiles, nine academy chains did significantly worse and five did
significantly better than schools overall for the improvement in results of
disadvantaged pupils.)
This is a serious concern.
For the most seriously “underperforming” schools, the fact they are part of an
academy chain is resulting in significantly worse improvement than if they were
still maintained, in the local authority sector. This is especially the case
for the most disadvantaged pupils.
Will the government listen?
Those high-performing
chains that are improving at a significantly faster rate deserve praise and
recognition. However they are few in number. The performance of other chains is
very worrying. For the most seriously “underperforming” schools, the fact they
are part of an academy chain seems to be resulting in significantly worse
improvement than if they were still maintained, in the local authority sector.
The report is clear that action must be taken.
As the report recommends,
will the DfE “act to remove academies from failing chains”? Will it put aside
ideology and place those schools with whatever body is best able to help them,
whether that is another chain, the local authority or a federation?
As the report recommends,
will the DfE ensure chains cannot expand unless they have a track record of
success? Or will they endanger the future of those schools by placing them with
academy chains that are either performing at the average or underperforming?
I would not be surprised if
the government’s main response to this report is to focus only on its praise
for the small number of high-performing chains. If it does so, and fails to act
on the reports recommendations to deal with the poorly-performing ones, then it
seems it is unprepared to base its policy on the evidence and unprepared to act
in the best interest of our schoolchildren.
From the Sutton Report
LINK
