- In June 2015, the Government put forward the Education and Adoption Bill which would lead to further forced academisation (see the NUT briefing on the Bill). There is simply no evidence to support the idea that academy status raises attainment or promotes school improvement.
- In October 2014, the National Audit Officereport, ‘Academies and maintained schools: Oversight and intervention’, found informal interventions such as local support were more effective than academy conversion.
- In January, 2015, the House of Commons Education Committee concluded that: “it is too early to judge whether academies raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children”.[1] They stated that: “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school”.
- The Education Committee[2] also highlighted significant variation between different academy chains. Similarly, a 2014 report[3] by the Sutton Trust found only three chains performing well for disadvantaged children. It 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”.
- The Government is resorting to increasingly desperate measures to force primary schools into becoming academies. However, the Education Committee[4] also concluded that: “We have sought but not found convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment in primary schools.” Analysis of the 2014 school-by-school KS2 results shows sponsored primary academies’ results increase at a slower rate than similar non-academies in the immediate period after conversion[5].
- The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) has said that the DfE has made incorrect use of SATs data. In advocating for academies, the DfE uses data showing that results have improved faster in sponsored academies than in non-academies. However, they neglect to mention that sponsored academies usually take over schools with poor results and improvement in such schools has been a general trend which is not restricted to academies. The UKSA says that, in future, the DfE should not use the data to imply a “causal link” between academy status and improvements in test results.[6]
- The Government has also frequently claimed that GCSE results show that sponsored academies are improving at a faster rate than non-academies. But sponsored academies are generally those schools whose exam results were lower in previous years, so the rate of improvement tends to be higher. Detailed analysis of the exam data shows that when schools with similar results in previous years are compared, sponsored academies do no better, and sometimes do worse[7] .
- The Local Government Association (LGA) commissioned NFER to look at the evidence on academy performance and NFER has now published, ‘Analysis of academy school performance in GCSEs 2014: Final report’[8]. NFER state that “The analysis shows that the amount of attainment progress made by pupils in sponsored and converter academies is not greater than in maintained schools with similar characteristics”.
- Ofsted’s annual report for 2013/14 pointed out that the rate of improvement in GCSE attainment in schools that converted to academy status in 2010/11 was less than in comparable local authority maintained schools. Converter academies improved GCSE attainment by one percentage point whereas maintained schools that were rated ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ improved by two percentage points.[9]
- In the past, sponsored academies have also been more likely to rely on equivalent qualifications to bolster performance in the GCSE benchmark measure[10]. The Government was critical of the extent to which equivalents were taken in some schools and, in 2014, significantly reduced the number of equivalent qualifications in the benchmark figures. This change meant that overall results fell much more in sponsored academies in 2014 than in similar maintained schools.[11]
- Among children with low prior achievement, Professor Stephen Machin and Dr Olmo Silva found that the effects of a school becoming a sponsored academy on students in the bottom 10 and 20 per cent of the ability distribution were “insignificantly different from zero - and possibly negative for later [school] conversions…suggesting no beneficial effects on students in academies”.[12]
- Analysis by Professor Stephen Gorard, looking at school performance and intake from 2004 to 2012, found no clear evidence that academies outperformed the schools which they replaced or similar local authority schools with equivalent intakes. He also found no evidence of any benefit for schools which are already performing well converting to academies.[13]
- 133 academies are rated as ‘Inadequate’ (June 2015). An investigation by Schools Week[14] found 28 schools that were ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ when they first converted to academy status but which have subsequently fallen into special measures.
- In June 2015, Henry Stewart[15] analysed Ofsted data for secondary schools where there have been two inspections. He found that for secondary schools previously rated as ‘Inadequate’, sponsored academies are twice as likely to stay ‘Inadequate’ as maintained schools (18% v 9%). Non-academies are over three times more likely to move from ‘Inadequate’ to ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ than sponsored academies (27% v 6%). Sponsored academies are twice as likely to fall from ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Inadequate’. For secondary schools previously rated ‘Good’, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to ‘Inadequate’ if they are sponsored academies.
- The NUT believes the Government should focus on school improvement initiatives such as City Challenge which are cost-effective and proven to drive up standards. Professor Merryn Hutchings, lead author of the DfE’s evaluation of the City Challenge programme found that: “The evidence that the London Challenge was a successful approach to school improvement is overwhelming. It was also comparatively cheap; over three years the funding for City Challenge was £160 million, considerably cheaper than the £8.5 billion reportedly spent on the academies’ programme over two years”[16].
Produced by the National Union of Teachers
[1]Education Committee (January 2015), Academies and free schools. Fourth Report of Session2014–15, London: The Stationery Office Limited. p. 23. (
[2] See Note 1.
[3]Chain Effects: The impact of academy chains on low income students in sponsored secondary academies (July 2014, Professors Becky Francis, Merryn Hutchings and Robert De Vries).
[4] See Note 1.
[5] Henry Stewart (2 February 2015), ‘Does academy conversion actually lead to slower improvement in schools?’, [Available at:
[6]
[7] Henry Stewart (25 February 2014), ‘2011 GCSEs: What the data tells us about academies and non-academies’, [blog post]. Available at: and Stewart (30 May 2013), ‘The Academies Illusion: What the data reveals’ [blog post]. Available at:
[8]The report is available at:
[9] Ofsted (2014), The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspectorof Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2013/14, London: Ofsted. p.17. Available at:
[10] Henry Stewart (13 August 2014) ‘DfE accepts (in court) that academies do no better once GCSE equivalents are stripped out’ [blog post]. Available at:
[11] Henry Stewart (29 January 2015) ‘GCSE tables: Sponsored academy results fall more’ [blog post]. Available at:
[12]S. Machin and O. Silva, (2013) ‘School structure, school autonomy and the tail’, in P. Marshall (ed.), The Tail: How England’s schools fail once child in five – and what can be done, London: Profile Books, p. 99.
[13] Stephen Gorard (2014) 'The link between Academies in England, pupil outcomes and local patterns of socio-economic segregation between schools', Research papers in education, 29 (3). pp. 268-284.
[14]
[15]
[16]5 Merryn Hutchings (2013), ‘Why is attainment higher in London than elsewhere?’ [online]. Available: