By Gavin Mackintosh-
The British government has been accused of “misreporting” Ofsted grades to support its academies reforms, with union leaders attacking its case for full academization.
The National Education Union has accused the Department for Education of cherry-picking and “manipulated” data to create the impression that schools operated by academy chains perform better than those run by councils.
The NEU accused the Department Of Education of deliberately omitting data on pupil deprivation, with top council-run primaries teaching a higher proportion of disadvantaged children than those in academy chains.
Kevin Courtey, (pictured)the union’s joint general secretary, said: “We think the evidence is extraordinarily weak. It’s using data that we think is manipulated.”
“We are comparing schools with much less disadvantage, with schools with more disadvantage, and then saying that the reason they’ve done better is because of their governance status,” Mr Courtney said.
“It’s not right that people should produce documents that are not telling the truth,” he added.
The union was reacting to the British government’s target for all schools in England to be part of or joining an academy chain by 2030, has accused the government of dishonesty in its claims.”
The NEU flagged a number of areas where it said the DfE had cherry-picked figures, most notably the DfE pointed out that “more than seven out of 10 sponsored academies are now rated good” compared to one in 10 when the same schools were council-run.
However, the NEU said this was not a “fair comparison” because schools generally become sponsor-led academies, because they are underperforming.
Fully Trust-Led System
The National Education Union has released analysis it claims calls into question the government’s “case for a fully trust-led system”. Its own analysis found that that 90% of maintained schools previously rated less than good improved to ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, compared to 74 per cent of sponsored academies.
Its analysis showed that 11% of maintained schools currently rated ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’ were previously ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. In comparison, 28 per cent of sponsored academies were downgraded.
The document was published alongside Monday’s schools white paper, which set a target for all schools to be in strong multi-academy trusts, or have “plans to join or form one”, by 2030.
The UK government claims that moving underperforming schools into academy trusts had been “transformative”, with more than 7 in 10 sponsored academies now rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, compared to around one in 10 LA maintained schools they replaced.
However, NEU joint general secretary Kevin Courtney rubbished the analysis which he said: “renders nonsensical the government’s drive towards academization in the name of standards”.
“It demonstrates that there is no compelling reason for a school to join a trust. Nadhim Zahawi says he wants to be driven by evidence. He must respond to this evidence and must pause this ideological drive.”
The NEU also accused the DfE of using “small samples” in its analysis of the performance of schools in MATs, given MATs are much smaller on average than local authorities, and said leaving pupil premium data out was “misleading”.
The DfE’s paper claimed that the best MATs “transform outcomes for pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, and deliver improvement in schools and areas where poor performance had become entrenched”.
It claimed that the best MATs outperformed the highest-performing LAs, including for disadvantaged pupils.
However, the NEU said the DfE had “re-sorted” its list of MATs to find a “new group of best MATs for results of disadvantaged pupils”.
The analysis also revealed that the best-performing MATs were less likely to educate poorer pupils than the worst. Its own analysis found 29 per cent of pupils in the top 10 per cent of MATs based on performance were disadvantaged, compared to 47 per cent in the bottom 10 per cent of MATs.
Disadvantaged Pupils
The DfE denied misreported Ofsted ratings and using small sample sizes, and said the NEU’s analysis “fails to acknowledge that we clearly set out that we were using the data in question to make the case for how MATs help underperforming schools to improve”.
It also denied that not including pupil premium data in its tables was misleading, and said the NEU’s data also showed that “disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils in the best performing MATs get outstanding results on average”.
“The claims made are incorrect and based upon selective data, mispresenting our published evidence,” a spokesperson said.
“We have a decade of evidence that academy trusts can transform underperforming schools.”
But Courtney said the government’s “latest call in the white paper to encourage or force more schools into academy trusts will not achieve what it sets out to do”.