Article in the Times. Explanation from a real education expert who wishes to remain anonymous.
Link
Academies are in two distinct groups: those that select their pupils through 'fair banding', and those that don't. Fair banding requires all applicants to take an IQ type test (usually the NfER CAT test). The intake is then selected with quotas for each IQ band so as to match the national Normal distribution of IQ. Poor areas have much higher proportions of pupils in the lower bands (this is the factual elephant in the room that no-one dare mention even though it is utterly beyond dispute), so banded academies in poor areas avoid taking such neighbourhood children, and fill up their higher bands from more affluent children that live further away. Walsall Academy is the classic example. Such schools should produce results that match the national figures. It should be no surprise that they do.
Academies located in poor areas that take their own neighbourhood children have intakes with a MUCH lower average IQ and so produce poorer results. The average IQ in poor areas is often below the 20th percentile.
The main hurdle in meeting the government 'failing school' threshold of 30% 5+A*-C including English and maths is maths, where despite the deliberate facilitation of teaching to the test by the exam boards, results are still very strongly IQ dependent. If all schools in the country were equally effective then the outcomes would still be the same unless the IQ profile of intake pupils was changed. Schools with low IQ intakes CAN get the 30% but only by hyper-teaching-to-the-test that removes the last vestiges of educational merit from their maths courses so the pupils in such schools are even bigger losers than they would be if the school got apparently poorer results with the proper distribution of grades that would reflect teaching for understanding (ie a Normal Distribution).
When you analyse the results of academies it is ESSENTIAL to divide them into those with and without banded intakes (not easy, you have to look at the Admission Policy in the prospectus of each school). When you do this you will find that ALMOST ALL of the 'failing' academies are in the unbanded category. These means that they are like (unbanded) state schools, the average for which is MUCH better than the unbanded academies. All that is needed for a school in a poor area to massively increase its results is band its intake. Only academies are allowed to do it. This is separate and on top of the vocational curriculum scam.
The same logic easily explains why 11+ LAs like Kent get a higher proportion of 'failing schools'. It is all down to IQ and nothing to do with pupils being demoralised by failing the grammar school selection test. If you ranked every pupil in Kent by IQ and then creamed off the top third for grammar schools it is obvious that 100% of these would achieve the government target, and that the bottom two thirds would contain a higher proportion of 'failing' pupils than a non-selected sample. This is exactly what happens.
The government and the Conservative opposition are both utterly blind to these statistical and educational facts. It is essential to note that the factual relationship between IQ at 11 and social class/deprivation etc says nothing about how this relationship came about. The tragedy is that the SATs culture in primary schools neglects the possibility of raising IQ through teaching, in favour of teaching-to-the-test, which depresses IQ and disadvantages the pupils from poor areas that attend 'high performing' primary schools by depriving them of a stimulating and cognitively developmental curriculum.
There is NO HOPE of rescuing our education system until the science of learning is once again allowed to drive educational policies. It is like trying to improve the quality of ships while denying the Principle of Archimedes that governs the physics of floatation, or the pre-war Soviet Union trying to improve agriculture while denying the genetic basis of plant reproduction.
Is this tragic or what?
Academies are in two distinct groups: those that select their pupils through 'fair banding', and those that don't. Fair banding requires all applicants to take an IQ type test (usually the NfER CAT test). The intake is then selected with quotas for each IQ band so as to match the national Normal distribution of IQ. Poor areas have much higher proportions of pupils in the lower bands (this is the factual elephant in the room that no-one dare mention even though it is utterly beyond dispute), so banded academies in poor areas avoid taking such neighbourhood children, and fill up their higher bands from more affluent children that live further away. Walsall Academy is the classic example. Such schools should produce results that match the national figures. It should be no surprise that they do.
Academies located in poor areas that take their own neighbourhood children have intakes with a MUCH lower average IQ and so produce poorer results. The average IQ in poor areas is often below the 20th percentile.
The main hurdle in meeting the government 'failing school' threshold of 30% 5+A*-C including English and maths is maths, where despite the deliberate facilitation of teaching to the test by the exam boards, results are still very strongly IQ dependent. If all schools in the country were equally effective then the outcomes would still be the same unless the IQ profile of intake pupils was changed. Schools with low IQ intakes CAN get the 30% but only by hyper-teaching-to-the-test that removes the last vestiges of educational merit from their maths courses so the pupils in such schools are even bigger losers than they would be if the school got apparently poorer results with the proper distribution of grades that would reflect teaching for understanding (ie a Normal Distribution).
When you analyse the results of academies it is ESSENTIAL to divide them into those with and without banded intakes (not easy, you have to look at the Admission Policy in the prospectus of each school). When you do this you will find that ALMOST ALL of the 'failing' academies are in the unbanded category. These means that they are like (unbanded) state schools, the average for which is MUCH better than the unbanded academies. All that is needed for a school in a poor area to massively increase its results is band its intake. Only academies are allowed to do it. This is separate and on top of the vocational curriculum scam.
The same logic easily explains why 11+ LAs like Kent get a higher proportion of 'failing schools'. It is all down to IQ and nothing to do with pupils being demoralised by failing the grammar school selection test. If you ranked every pupil in Kent by IQ and then creamed off the top third for grammar schools it is obvious that 100% of these would achieve the government target, and that the bottom two thirds would contain a higher proportion of 'failing' pupils than a non-selected sample. This is exactly what happens.
The government and the Conservative opposition are both utterly blind to these statistical and educational facts. It is essential to note that the factual relationship between IQ at 11 and social class/deprivation etc says nothing about how this relationship came about. The tragedy is that the SATs culture in primary schools neglects the possibility of raising IQ through teaching, in favour of teaching-to-the-test, which depresses IQ and disadvantages the pupils from poor areas that attend 'high performing' primary schools by depriving them of a stimulating and cognitively developmental curriculum.
There is NO HOPE of rescuing our education system until the science of learning is once again allowed to drive educational policies. It is like trying to improve the quality of ships while denying the Principle of Archimedes that governs the physics of floatation, or the pre-war Soviet Union trying to improve agriculture while denying the genetic basis of plant reproduction.
Is this tragic or what?
Academies do not have to adhere to the same policies as those of 'normal' schools. They are exempt from publishing their attendance. This is why the Academy can exclude so many kids, could you imagine if Dowdales, Bernards or Walney excluded all those kids, their attendance would drop like a stone and trigger a visit from Ofsted. The Academy does not have to publish this and therefore can get away with murder. Academies were introduced to help failing schools. The only way they do this is with providing 'vocational' qualifications to all and with a distorted picture of their attendance - go figure!!!!!! Any school in the land would improve (on paper that is)