1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

MATs are ‘below average’ for poorer pupils

Discussion in 'Education news' started by TES_Rosaline, Dec 20, 2018.

  1. TES_Rosaline

    TES_Rosaline Administrator Staff Member

    ‘A new report has named 38 academy chains that were last year below the national average for the performance of disadvantaged pupils.

    Chain Effects 2018, published by the Sutton Trust today, compares the average scores for disadvantaged (pupil premium) pupils in 58 academy chains with the national average for disadvantaged pupils.

    The researchers calculated the overall ranking using data for Progress 8, Attainment 8 and the percentage of pupils who gained GCSE grades 9-4 in both maths and English in 2017.’

    What are your thoughts about the report?

  2. gainly

    gainly Star commenter

    Blazer, do you still have those stairs you borrowed? I think we might need them!
  3. blazer

    blazer Star commenter

    It would be interesting to find out how the three Academy chains that are above average do it? Harrs being one and we know that some of their schools have been caught falsifying data.
    thekillers1 and JohnJCazorla like this.
  4. JohnJCazorla

    JohnJCazorla Star commenter

    If we're going to have to judge MATs by measures like these then the academy chains are going to have to jettison these under-performers and cherry-pick the good ones.

    Hang on...…...
  5. install

    install Star commenter

    And it seems Ofsted are strangely quiet ...but they will blow with the wind soon as they always do:rolleyes:
  6. Lalex123

    Lalex123 Established commenter

    It depends why MATs take the schools over in the first place. Many schools have been taken off the council because they were failing and given to a MAT so this will take time to improve.

    I do know of several academy chains that only open in the most deprived areas and that’s not easy to turn around.

    Also, it depends on what is meant by failing. Does it look at just data because as teachers you all know that data doesn’t explain family trauma, gang involvement, death of a family member, assault etc which can all have an impact on results (and usually there are a lot of outside influences on students from deprived areas).
  7. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Those criteria used to judge were fine when they were being used to judge the LA schools though.

    MATs have failed in many areas. This is just another example.
    install and JohnJCazorla like this.
  8. Lalex123

    Lalex123 Established commenter

    I’d like to see the comparative data. In real terms everything has changed since Gove. There have been more rigorous inspection frameworks for Ofsted, a change in the structure and content at GCSE and new measures such as progress 8 so I don’t know how the LA schools of yesteryear and the MATs of today are on a level playing field.

    I do agree however that MATs have failed in many areas. Mainly the retention and support of staff. From experience, you don’t have to follow the curriculum, directed time and the capability procedures are extremely swift.
    JohnJCazorla likes this.
  9. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    They are on a level playing field now and MATs are still failing despite all the help and favourable status they enjoy. They are not working.

    They have also failed in terms of the stupidly high salaries, related party contracts, off-rolling, financial mismanagement and the failure to deliver a statistically significant difference in results. When you throw in the fact that they are failing the disadvantaged compared to LA schools, the fact that they have been helped by Ofsted turning blind eyes or pushing schools into MATs and the DfE promoting and supporting them at every turn, the only conclusion is that they have been a massive waste of money for no positive effect on society.
    Summerhols6 and JohnJCazorla like this.
  10. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Wouldn't most MATs be underachieving by their nature? I'm presently working in an underachieving school, when they made us an Academy we HAD to join a MAT, no choice of becoming an independent Academy because our rating was RI.

    So... if MATs are taking on underperforming schools then becoming part of a MAT isn't going to change that really...

    Not defending them, would prefer if they were all scrapped and return to LA control. But... just saying.
    hammie and Lalex123 like this.
  11. Incommunicado

    Incommunicado Established commenter

    It doesn't matter what you are measuring … if it is possible to be 'average', there will be 'below average'. (And 'above average', of course).
    hammie likes this.
  12. hammie

    hammie Lead commenter

    a good point that is always over looked by those in charge, still finding it hard to believe that we had a head who told all departments that they had to be above average according to the internal school stats.
    JohnJCazorla likes this.
  13. Incommunicado

    Incommunicado Established commenter

    That's why that person is a Head, hammie, and we aren't.
    JohnJCazorla likes this.
  14. blazer

    blazer Star commenter

    Only parroting the mighty Gove.
    JohnJCazorla likes this.

Share This Page