Exploring the Impact of Academisation in the UK: Did First & Second Wave Academisation Deliver on Their Promises?

Add a comment

By Deborah Fajuyitan (BSc Economics And Finance With A Placement Year)

[This essay was written for the Government, Welfare and Policy third-year undergraduate module. Students were tasked with writing a blog-style essay on a topic linked to a group poster project. Topics were chosen by students and reflect their own interests. The essay gave them experience of writing content in an engaging style for a non-expert audience. What you see below is one of this year’s top-marked blog-style essays. Christa Brunnschweiler]

Since the early 2000’s the structure of the British school system has drastically changed due to the introduction of academisation policy enabling schools to transition from being maintained by local authorities to becoming “academies, owned, and run by not-for-profit trusts” 1. Academies have the autonomy to appoint their own governing body and access extra funding from institutions, such as businesses. Sponsored academies are underperforming schools that convert to academies run by sponsors, whereas converter academies (introduced in second wave academisation) are schools with good performance that opt to convert into academies. Currently, 39% of primary schools and 80% of secondary schools are academies 2. Most academies are in chains, with 73% of academies being run by a Multi Academy Trust (MAT) in 2017 1. The government’s decision to introduce academies in 2002 aimed to improve educational standards, particularly for disadvantaged students, by enabling schools to benefit from greater autonomy over their financial decisions and education 3. The impact of high-quality education, which boosts social mobility for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, increases their projected future earnings, and their likelihood of attending university, cannot be overstated 4. Academisation policy remains a source of controversy, receiving both wide support and critique. Was academisation a successful government intervention?

The Original Government Intervention: First Wave Academisation

In 2002 Blair’s labour government introduced the Academies Act, enabling schools to become academies, in response to growing concerns regarding the education system’s failure in providing equal opportunities, highlighted by the positive relationship between underperforming schools and disadvantaged areas 5. With the aim of reducing the gap between schools in disadvantaged and advantaged areas, increased freedom was allowed in underperforming schools to improve educational standards 6. 203 secondary school academies were established by 2010 7. Most schools that became academies were in a disadvantaged local education authority and were performing below national average KS4 grades. In 2002, 35% of students attending academies achieved 5 A* to C GCSE grades, compared to the national average of 51%. Notably, 32% of students attending academies were eligible for free school meals, compared to a 17% national average 5.

Did First Wave Academisation Deliver on Its Promises?

First wave academisation created a move towards equality of outcome for students from differing backgrounds, as academized schools gained greater control over their budgets enabling efficient allocation. Academy leaders also made beneficial adjustments to education, staffing, and teaching. Schools used their financial autonomy to improve facilities and resources, which translated into improved academic performance 8. Sponsored academies led to improved GCSE results, particularly for disadvantaged students, decreasing the attainment gap 9. Furthermore, improvements were seen in student behaviour, and teaching quality 5. In 2020-21, Ofsted found that of 75 low-performing academies, 40 were deemed to provide ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ education following academisation, demonstrating that first wave academisation had a marked impact on improving education standards for British students 10. This is supported by an evaluation of academies from 2002-2008 which found that pupils’ GCSE grades improved more substantially at academies than at similar schools 11. Specifically, the Chief Inspectors Annual Report for 2010/11 found that although academies had a proportion of students gaining 5+ A*-C grade GCSEs below the average, academies improved at a faster rate than maintained schools with similar intakes 10. The effect of better grades was lower for academies that already had some freedom, indicating that increased autonomy was a key driver of improved student performance 5. As such, academisation proved an effective policy in improving student outcomes and fostering a move towards equality of outcomes for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Although first wave academisation had some positive impacts, it also brought about some negative consequences. Schools were able to exercise greater autonomy, but unfortunately, some schools exploited this newfound independence to cherry-pick students based on their previous academic ability, as measured by KS2 scores. During the first three periods following academisation conversion, KS2 scores consistently increased, while the number of students eligible for free school meals admitted decreased 12. As such, the fairness of academisation policy is questionable. Although GCSE results improved after academisation, this was largely due to changes in the pupil cohort 13. Academisation also had no impact on A-level results, which has led to questions regarding the efficiency of the academisation policy 14. Academies used their increased independence to focus on core subjects and specific specialities, reducing access to students to learn languages, and limiting choice. Additionally, the benefits of academisation varied significantly across different academies, depending on their location and pre-conversion attainment 15.

Second Wave Academisation

Under Cameron’s conservative government, the second wave of academisation was introduced in 2010, allowing all schools (including primary schools and schools with good performance) to become academies. The policy aimed to enable all schools to benefit from increased autonomy and improved educational standards. As second wave academisation included schools with good performance (converter academies), second wave academies had a more advantaged pupil cohort, in comparison to first wave academies. Additionally, there was a drastic increase in the number of academies, with 4500+ in 2015 16.  The Education and Adoption Act 2016 enhanced the rate of academisation, requiring that schools which were deemed ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted were converted into academies 17. 

Was Second Wave Academisation Effective and Equitable?

The second wave of academisation faced more critique than the first wave and generated mixed results. Some studies indicated that second wave academisation led to improvements in student outcomes, in both primary and secondary schools, particularly when comparing sponsored academies to similar schools. Additionally, improvements were seen in pupil behaviour and the quality of teaching18. As academies formed partnerships with other schools as part of MATs, they were able to exchange best teaching practices, thereby benefiting students.

However, the academisation of schools brought about a decrease in transparency in the education system, with some academies facing accusations of financial mismanagement. Second wave academisation had many unexpected impacts with increased teacher turnover and decreased teaching quality, particularly in disadvantaged schools. Some sources determined that second wave academisation had minimal impact on educational outcomes and did not improve social mobility, particularly regarding converter academies 19. Additionally, academisation had no significant impact on pupil attainment, exclusion rates 13 or the percentage of schools achieving ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ Ofsted ratings 20.  It is noteworthy that academisation effectively widened the attainment gap, as schools that were underperforming did not improve their educational outcomes as much as those who were already performing well. In essence, second wave academisation fostered inequality as good schools were able to access more resources thereby widening the attainment gap. Interestingly, the increased autonomy that academies gained enabled them to cherry-pick students, with converter academies intakes including less free school meals eligible students, and sponsored academies intakes having higher prior attainment 12. Ironically, second wave academisation led to a decrease in autonomy for over 70% of academies as they are now run by MATs, minimising the benefits of academisation 1.

The Overall Benefits & Shortcomings of Academisation Policy

Considering both waves, first wave academisation had a greater impact on improving equity and proved a more effective policy. Overall, academisation policy can benefit students through increased autonomy for schools, enabling budgets to be allocated more efficiently. However, with the freedoms of academisation policy comes an increased risk of poor educational standards and decreased teacher retention 1.

Suggested Government Interventions

The government currently aims for all schools to be part of a MAT by 2030. However, analysis by the National Education Union has disproved the government’s claim that MATs outperform local authority schools. In contradiction, the NEU found that schools that join MATs have a decreased likelihood of improving their Ofsted rating and their findings were supported by the Office for Statistics Regulation 21. As such, academisation is a suboptimal policy, and failing schools would be better served remaining under local authorities. Based on the insights gained from the first and second wave of academisation, the government must implement policies to ensure equity, such that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have access to the same opportunities as those from advantaged backgrounds. Furthermore, to decrease the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students, the government must provide targeted support to failing schools.

A bespoke approach is needed for underperforming schools, as the factors that drive their poor performance vary among them. As such, a review should be conducted on the schools with the worst performance to determine the causes. Additional funding should be provided by the government in necessary areas, such as infrastructure, teacher training and resources. These improvements will translate into better student outcomes, levelling the playing field for the disadvantaged students who attend these schools. Additionally, teaching quality is positively correlated with student outcomes, as such teacher development training should be provided for all teachers at underperforming schools and policies should be put into place to attract high-quality teachers to underperforming schools 22. With regards to existing academies, these institutions should be mandated to follow teachers’ pay and conditions to ensure that high-quality teachers are not deterred from working at these institutions 23. The benefits of academisation result from increased autonomy, as such schools that are part of MATs should gain separate legal identities. Although these government interventions may incur high costs, these costs are outweighed by the significant benefits. Improved educational outcomes will result in higher earnings, reduce the financial and social costs associated with crime and boost the economy 24&25.

First wave academisation delivered on its promises to some extent, improving pupil attainment and behaviour. However, second wave academisation had mixed results. The UK government must learn from the impacts and shortcomings of academisation policies and continue to take action to improve failing schools.

Bibliography

  1. West, A. and Wolfe, D., 2018. Academies, the school system in England and a vision for the future. Clare Market Papers No. 23. Education Research Group, Department of Social Policy.
  2. Gov.UK, 2022. Academic year 2021/2022: Schools, pupils, and their characteristics. Gov.UK
  3. Eyles, A., Machin, S. and McNally, S., 2017. Unexpected school reform: Academisation of primary schools in England. Journal of Public Economics, 155, pp.108-121.
  4. Brown, P., Reay, D. and Vincent, C., 2013. Education and social mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(5-6), pp.637-643.
  5. Eyles, A. and Machin, S., 2019. The introduction of academy schools to England’s education. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(4), pp.1107-1146.
  6. West, A. and Bailey, E., 2013. The development of the academies programme: ‘Privatising ‘school-based education in England 1986–2013. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(2), pp.137-159.
  7. Department of Education, 2011, Academies annual report 2010/11, DfE.
  8. Andrews, J., Perera, N., Eyles, A., Sahlgren, G.H., Machin, S., Sandi, M. and Silva, O., 2017. The impact of academies on educational outcomes, Education Policy Institute.
  9. Machin, S. and Vernoit, J., 2011. Changing School Autonomy: Academy Schools and Their Introduction to England’s Education. Centre for the Economics of Education (NJ1).
  10. Ofsted, 2011. Ofsted Annual Report 2010/11, Ofsted.
  11. Gorard, S., 2011. Are academies working? The state and education policy: The academies programme, pp.120-132.
  12. Eyles, A., S. Machin and O. Silva, 2018. Academies 2 – The new batch: The changing nature of Academy Schools in England. Fiscal Studies 39 (1): 121-158.
  13. Allen, R., Coldron, J. and West, A., 2012. The effect of changes in published secondary school admissions on pupil composition. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), pp.349-366.
  14. Gorard, S., 2008. Research impact is not always a good thing: a re-consideration of rates of ‘social mobility’ in Britain. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(3), pp.317-324.
  15. NAO, 2018. Converting Maintained Schools to Academies. Department for Education. National Audit Office.
  16. UK Parliament. 2015.  The future of academies and free schools, UK Parliament
  17. Roberts, N., 2019. House of Commons Library briefing paper: Number 07091, 5 August 2019: School inspections in England: Ofsted.
  18. Gorard, S., 2005. Academies as the ‘future of schooling’: is this an evidence‐based policy? Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), pp.369-377.
  19. Morris, R., 2015. Free Schools and disadvantaged intakes. British Educational Research Journal, 41(4), pp.535-552.
  20. Greany, T., 2015. More fragmented, and yet more networked: Analysing the responses of two Local Authorities in England to the Coalition’s’ self-improving school-led system’ reforms. London Review of Education.
  21. National Education Union, 2022. Schools Bill academisation. National Education Union.
  22. Gerritsen, S., Plug, E. and Webbink, D., 2017. Teacher quality and student achievement: Evidence from a sample of Dutch twins. Journal of applied econometrics, 32(3), pp.643-660.
  23. Titcombe, R., 2008. How Academies Threaten the Comprehensive Curriculum. In FORUM: for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education (Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 49-59). Symposium Journals. PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford, OX11 9ZQ, UK.
  24. Garces, E., Thomas, D. and Currie, J., 2002. Longer-term effects of Head Start. American economic review, 92(4), pp.999-1012.
  25. Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L., 2008. The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of economic literature, 46(3), pp.607-668.

Banner Image by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

Leave a Reply