Two in three academy chains 'fail' poorer pupils, study finds

‘Low-performing chains may be harming the prospects of disadvantaged students’

The government’s academies programme has failed to boost educational outcomes for poorer pupils (Getty/iStock)

Two in three academy chains are “failing” pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, a damning study suggests.

Poorer children in 38 of the 58 academy chains performed below the national average last year for all state schools, according to research from social mobility charity the Sutton Trust.

The government’s academies programme has failed to deliver its goal of boosting educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, the report suggests.

There is little evidence to show that the government’s regional schools commissioners (RSCs) – who oversee academies in eight regions – are improving schools, the study adds, as a group of chains have remained at the bottom of the table for years.

The report, which analysed the performance of children entitled to the pupil premium, a fund for poorer pupils, calls on RSCs to act more firmly with chains that do not deliver improvements over time to ensure disadvantaged children do not miss out.

The report says: “A larger group of low-performing chains are achieving results that are not improving and may be harming the prospects of their disadvantaged students.

“There is little evidence that sufficient action is being taken to enable these chains to improve, or that the considerable knowledge base about how to improve struggling schools is being effectively passed on to new and underperforming chains.”

Sir Peter Lampl, founder of the Sutton Trust, said: “Improving their educational achievement was the original reason why academies were set up. In this regard they have not succeeded.”

The study reviews the GCSE results for poorer pupils across a range of headline measures.

Academy chains are judged as performing above or below the average for Progress 8, Attainment 8 (secondary accountability systems introduced in 2016) and the percentage who achieved a pass in English and maths.

Chains were only included in the study if they had at least three academies in 2017, and at least two secondary sponsored academies for a three-year period from September 2013.

Of the 38 underperforming chains, eight had scores which were well below the national average for disadvantaged pupils. These chains have 61 schools.

The group includes Wakefield City Academies Trust, which was forced to hand over all its 21 schools, the University of Chester Academies Trust (Ucat) and Midland Academies Trust.

Professor Becky Francis, director of the UCL-Institute of Education and co-author of the report, said: “Our five-year analysis of sponsor academies’ provision for disadvantaged pupils shows that while a few chains are demonstrating transformational results for these pupils, more are struggling.

“We continue to find it perplexing that the government has done so little to explore the methods of these successful chains and to distil learning to support others.”

Academies were only included if they have been with the same sponsor since 2014 in order to give the sponsor time to have some impact on performance.

The least successful academy chains for poorer children also tended to have poor results for all children, the report found.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said: “This report is a stark reminder that the academies programme is failing to support many disadvantaged children, and is not the answer to the challenges facing our schools.

“Academisation in and of itself does not improve educational standards or outcomes for children, yet the government has continued to treat it as the solution at a time when it has slashed school budgets and seen teacher numbers fall.”

Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), said: “The foundational myth of the academies programme, that it would boost educational attainment among young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, must now be laid to rest as just that: a myth.

“This report conclusively shows that the expansion of multi-academy trusts (MATs) under the academy programme has not delivered on what it was supposed to. In fact it’s done the opposite, with two-thirds of academy chains performing below the national average for disadvantaged pupils.”

The union leader called for schools who have been failed by trusts to return to local authority control – and she urged for a wholesale return of schools to a system of “democratic oversight”.

She added: “The government should reflect on what impact its dysfunctional system is having on children, parents and schools staff across the country. Now is the time to admit failure and move on.”

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, added: “Regrettably, this is yet another report condemning the direction of travel of the government’s policies and highlighting the need for a school system that genuinely works for everyone.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of heads’ union NAHT, said: “Converting to academy status can be a positive step for schools, but as this report, and other evidence shows, academy conversion is not an automatic guarantee of lasting improvement, or a better education for all pupils.”

He added that all schools, regardless of type, face the same barriers to success – including funding cuts, teacher shortages and accountability pressures.

“These are the realities of the current system. We should not presume that one school type is better than another,” Mr Whiteman said.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We are striving for a world class education for all children, regardless of background. Converting to become an academy is a positive choice that is made by hundreds of schools every year.

“The growing number of successful multi-academy trusts are playing an important part in driving up standards in our schools by allowing them to work together to focus their efforts on quality teaching.”