More evidence that Tory education policy is terrible

[noblegiraffe]

There have been lots of threads about the school budget cuts, £3bn by 2020, with teacher redundancies, increased class sizes, subjects cut from the curriculum and reduced pastoral support.

Plans for new grammar schools have been so thoroughly slated by everyone involved in education that the government has been forced to bury the consultation responses ('oh dear we can't release them any more, purdah, so sad').

The government response to the consultation for plans to make the Ebacc compulsory are over a year overdue (wonder why?)

There is increasing evidence that the government's plans for every new school to be a Free School has resulted in the DfE paying 20% over the odds for land for them, wasting millions of taxpayer money. They've been opening schools where they are not needed or wanted resulting in new Free Schools closing almost immediately or never opening at all, while current school buildings crumble due to lack of investment.

But what of the other Green Paper plans, to force universities, private schools and grammar schools to open free schools? It turns out that universities, private schools and grammars that are already doing this aren't very good at it. More than half of schools sponsored by universities or grammars are failing, and a third of those sponsored by private schools, compared to 22% of schools nationally.

www.google.co.uk/amp/schoolsweek.co.uk/low-ratings-for-grammar-sponsored-academies/amp/

It should hardly come as a shock that people that are very good at managing a selective school with a fairly homogenous intake aren't necessarily well equipped to take on a challenging school with a massively wider spread of ability. Why is it that everyone with a personal stake in education understands this, but they just plough on regardless.

The schoolsweek article 'forgot' to link to any data (or have I missed it?) However I found Lucy Powell's question to Nick Gibb here;

www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-01-18.60529.h

Nick Gibb's answer;
"As at the 1 March there were 14 multi academy trusts established by grammar schools approved to sponsor a total of 31 academies. The vast majority of the schools included in this data were previously underperforming when taken over by multi-academy trusts established by grammar schools. Since then nearly three quarters (71%) of those inspected have improved their Ofsted judgement – with more than half now rated good or outstanding."

Are we expecting an instant improvement/magic wand approach?

Clavinova

There is no evidence that academies raise standards in schools. A quick google search shows this.

Clavinova Gibb gave a weasel answer. We could look at that same data and say 'of the schools taken over by grammar school run academy trusts who have been inspected by Ofsted since being taken over, the majority are requires improvement or inadequate'.

He can only say more than half are now good or outstanding by including those who were already good or outstanding when taken over who haven't been inspected since.
But you wouldn't know that from his answer without the data because he fudged the two together. Dishonest.

I've already googled in relation to noble's post regarding grammar school sponsored academies - it took me 10 seconds.
The 'evidence' appears to be that nearly three quarters (71%) of the grammar school sponsored academies that have been inspected have improved their Ofsted judgement – as stated by Nick Gibb. I'm more than happy to look at School Week's 'evidence' to the contrary.

Where is the list of academies we are talking about?
Presumably some of them have improved from 'inadequate' to 'requires improvement. Schools Week are also glossing over the fact that half of the academies have yet to be inspected and so their statement, 'More than half of schools sponsored by universities or grammars are failing'...' is also misleading.
I didn't think that 'requires improvement' meant the same as 'failing'.

Clavinova

from
2015

from 2016

Academies also do not have to follow the national curriculum so any results taken from some academies is not going to be linked to state schools.

Taking into account the change in ofsted inspection criteria any improvement stated is not link-able to previous data as the criteria is not the same.

it would also be interesting to see the "evidence" that the Prospects Academies Trust, Durand Academy Trust, Lilac Sky Academy Trust and others of that ilk are included in the numbers

there is also this from 2017

Neil Carmichael MP, has said there are “significant concerns” about the performance, accountability and expansion of multi-academy trusts (MATs).

BoneyBackJefferson
Do any of your links relate to grammar school sponsored academies and the Schools Week article? Otherwise I'm not going to read them or make a comment.

Since then nearly three quarters (71%) of those inspected have improved their Ofsted judgement – with more than half now rated good or outstanding."

Says Nick Gibb. Do you agree it is misleading to say that? It certainly suggests that of the ones who have been inspected more than half are good or outstanding when in fact that's not true, doesn't it?

Happy to glance at the inspections reports for these academies but Schools Week have omitted to name them or provide a link to any data whatsoever.

Clavinova

So now you are only interested in grammar schools?

As for only relating o the schools week article. there are other sources out there.

But if you are going to only accept information that backs up your point of view. It begs the question why are you asking the question if you are going to deny the answer?

I am responding to the op's thread and her link to the Schools Week article.

and other sources have been introduced that back up the information or have expanded on it.