The effects of the academisation of Englishschools on educational trajectories of childrenwith Special Educational NeedsPresentation at NPD User Group 2018, Bristol
Yi Liu21 Alexey Bessudnov23 Alison Black1 Brahm Norwich1
19 September 20181Graduate School of Education; 2Q-Step Centre;3Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology,University of Exeter
Academisation and educational inclusiveness in England
• Over the last 30 years there have been two key policy initiativesin schooling in England:
• Academisation of schools with higher level of autonomy;• Provision for more pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in
ordinary / mainstream schools rather than in special schools.
• Existing maintained schools• are encouraged to convert to Academies and be self-governing
(academisation to Converter Academies),• or are required to convert under a sponsor due to poor
performance (academisation to Sponsored Academies).
• Anecdotal evidence of Academies being more unwilling to offerplaces to pupils with significant SENs (IPPR, 2014).
Previous studies
• Charter schooling and effects on academic performance(Abdulkadiroğlu, Angrist, Dynarski, Kane and Pathak, 2011;Abdulkadiroğlu, Angrist, Hull and Pathak, 2016; Fryer Jr, 2014).effects of academisation on educational performance forprimary and secondary pupils (Eyles and Machin, 2015; Eyles,Machin and McNally, 2017).
• Effects of sponsored academisation on inclusion of SEN pupilsin the 2000s (Wilson, 2011). Effects of attending charter schoolson the special education classifications (Winters, Carpenter andClayton, 2017).
• Special educational needs (Norwich, 2014; Norwich and Black,2015), and the past and current trends of academisation andeducational inclusiveness, and their implications (Black,Bessudnov, Liu and Norwich, 2018).
2017 NPD User Group presentation
We need to analyse the effect of academisation on SEN at pupil level.
89%
65%
51%44%
40% 36% 33%
8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 17% 18%
3.0%
25%
36% 39% 41% 42% 44%
0.8% 2.1% 3.4% 3.9% 4%0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
Per
cent
Typea aa a
Maintained School Sponsored Academy
Converter Academy Free School
School Composition, Mainstream Secondary Schools
19.3%18.3%
17.0%15.9%
12.4%10.9% 10.7%
1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
Per
cent
Classification a aSEN Support Statement EHC Plan
Pupils with SEN, secondary schools
Source: Black et al. (2018)Check out our web app: sen-england.shinyapps.io/sen-england-shiny
Academisation and Special Educational Needs
Academisation of schools:
• Converter Academisation( CA ): initially from highattaining predecessors.
• Sponsored Academisation( SA ): sponsors keen to raiseacademic standards.
Special educational needs (SEN):
• SEN Support ( SENS ): administeredby schools. School Action andSchool Action Plus prior to 2014.
• Statements, Education, Health andCare Plans ( EHC ): administered byLocal Authorities.
Type Year Schools Pupils % NoSEN % SENS % EHC
Maintained School2004 4,578 2,995,558 81 14 42010 3,955 2,697,908 75 21 42015 1,951 1,072,452 81 13 6
Converter Academy2012 841 771,910 81 17 22015 1,476 1,224,385 85 12 2
Sponsored Academy2004 12 9,459 67 29 32010 201 162,452 69 29 22015 556 403,368 81 17 2
Our access to the NPD
The primary data in our research needs to be accessed fromAdministrative Data Research Centre Wales:
• Physical access in two secure rooms in:• Wales Institute of Social & Economic Research, Data & Methods
(WISERD), Cardiff University.• Medical School, Swansea University.
• Data hosted by Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL)databank, Swansea University.
• The ”work station” is a virtual machine of standard Windowsdesktop transmitted from the HPC at Swansea.
• Commonly used statistical packages and databases areprovided. R can access packages from an online CRAN mirror.
• Output is released after reviews.
Data structure
NPD datasets:
• Pupil Level School Annual Census:pupils’ SEN status andsocio-economic variables. SENstatus harmonised to No SEN( NoSEN ), SEN Support ( SENS ),Statement EHC Plan ( EHC ).
• NPD Key Stage 2. An averaged scorefrom standardised numeric scores ofKS2 Reading and KS2 Maths .
External datasets:
• Open Academies: linkage ofPredecessors to Academies.Cases of “one-to-one” and“many-to-one”.
• Edubase: consistentclassification of school types.
Sample:
• Our sample is a pupil levellongitudinal sample from the2002/2003 academic year to2014/2015 academic year.
• Include schools that areknown to academise betweenSeptember 2002 to February2018 (DfE, 2018).
Effect on SEN inclusion
14.5%15.4%
16.5%
17.6%
19.2%
20.6%21.1%
20.7%
19.6%
18.2%
17.2%
13.5%14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
20.00%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Per
cent
% of pupils with SEN Support
20.5%
29.9%31.1%
32.8%
0.3%0.4%0.6%1.1%1.9%
3.1%
4.8%
6.5%
8.0%
9.8%11.0%
12.4%
Converter Academy Sponsored Academy
2012
2013
2014
2015
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
7.5%
10.0%
12.5%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Year
Per
cent
TypeAcademy a aConverter Academy Sponsored Academy
Academisation
To what extentcan we attributethe declines inSEN inclusion toacademisationof schools?
Effect on SEN (re)classification
6.2%
6.7%7.0% 6.9%
6.2%
5.8%5.5%
5.0%
3.7%
26.9%
23.9%22.9%
22.3%23.5% 24.1%
25.4%26.5%
37.1%
NoSEN−>SENS SENS−>NoSEN
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
Year
Per
cent
Recls a aNoSEN−>SENS SENS−>NoSEN
Reclassification at secondary enrollment
20.5%
29.9%31.1%
32.8%
0.3%0.4%0.6%1.1%1.9%
3.1%
4.8%
6.5%
8.0%
9.8%11.0%
12.4%
Converter Academy Sponsored Academy
2012
2013
2014
2015
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
7.5%
10.0%
12.5%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Year
Per
cent
TypeAcademy a aConverter Academy Sponsored Academy
Academisation
To what extentcan we attributethe declines inSEN(re)classificationto academisationof schools?
Estimation strategy
• The average treatment effect of academisation on the outcome:the difference in the means of the outcome measure, between
• schools (and their pupils) that have converted to Academies,• and schools (and their pupils) that are yet to convert to Academies.
• Estimate with panel fixed effects models controlling for schoolsand academic years.
• Controls for socio-economic background in gender, eligibility forfree school meals, White British, English as first language.
Methodology: “intake” model sets
The academisation effects on pupils with SEN, at the Year 7enrollment stage:
1. Inclusion: School’s inclusion of pupils with SEN at Year 7.
2. Reclassification: Pupil’s probability of being reclassified atenrollment at Year 7, e.g. SENS->NoSEN , and the school levelreclassification.
Intake: school level measures
0.456
1.851
−0.035 −0.393
0.333
−1.658
0.2241.135
−0.124 −0.193
−0.025 −0.063
%NoSEN−>SENS %SENS−>NoSEN %NoSEN−>EHC
%NoSEN %SENS %EHC
CA SA CA SA CA SA
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
AcademyRoute
Coe
f
AcademyRoute a aCA SA
Effect size, intake models, school level
95% confidence intervals from heteroskedasticity-consistent SEestimators
• SponsoredAcademisationleads to takingin fewer pupilswith SENSupport.
• SponsoredAcademisationleads to morepupils with SENSupport beingreclassified toNo SEN.
Intake: pupil level measures
−0.2−1.6
−0.1 0.03
−0.1
4
−0.1 −0.1
0.01 0.01
−0.41.1
EHC−>NoSEN SENS−>EHC EHC−>SENS
NoSEN−>SENS SENS−>NoSEN NoSEN−>EHC
CA SA CA SA CA SA
−2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
−2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
AcademyRoute
Coe
f
AcademyRoute a aCA SA
Effect size, intake models, pupil level
95% confidence intervals from heteroskedasticity-consistent SEestimators
• Effects scaledto percentagepoint changesin linearprobabilities.
• Primarygraduates withSEN Supportwho areenrolled inSponsoredAcademies aremore likely tolose their SENstatus.
Methodology: “within” model sets
The academisation effects on pupils with SEN, within the secondaryphase (Year 7 to Year 11), adding pupils’ year group to controls.
1. Pupil’s probability of being reclassified through the secondaryphase.
• Standard fixed effect specification.• Estimate “compliers’ effect” with the “intention-to-treat” (Fryer Jr,
2014; Abdulkadiroğlu et al., 2016; Eyles and Machin, 2015; Eyleset al., 2017) as an instrumental variable.
2. Pupil’s probability of switching schools through the secondaryphase.
Within: reclassification measures
−0.7−0.03
−0.8−0.1 −0.40.03
−0.70.2
−0.70.3
−0.30.1
2.2
−0.5
2.4
−1.9
0.3
−2.2
3.2
0.3
3.3
−1.2
1
−1.9
IV
NoSEN−>SENS
IV
SENS−>NoSEN
standard
NoSEN−>SENS
standard
SENS−>NoSEN
0 1 2 0 1 2
−2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
−2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
Period
Coe
f
AcademyRoute a aCA SA
Effect size, within models, reclassification
95% confidence intervals from heteroskedasticity-consistent SEestimators
• Pupils with SENSupport inrecentlyacademisedSponsoredAcademies aremore likely tolose their SENstatus.
Within: switching schools
−0.9−0.9
−2.8
−1.3
−3
−1.8
−1.2−1.3
−3.7
−3−3.1−3.1
NoSEN SENS
0 1 2 0 1 2
−4
−3
−2
−1
0
Period
Coe
f
AcademyRoute a aCA SA
Effect size, within models, changing schools
95% confidence intervals from heteroskedasticity-consistent SEestimators
• Pupils are morelikely to stay inthe academisedschools,regardless ofSEN types.
Discussion
We study the effect of academisation of English schools on theinclusion of pupils with Special Educational Needs, from pupil leveldata in the NPD.
Consistent with our earlier findings, Sponsored Academisation leadsto fewer pupils classified with SEN Support, and more pupils beingclassified unfavourably. We do not find evidence from ConverterAcademisation.
Our study opens many research questions to follow: e.g. underlyingmechanisms in academisation, non-admission of pupils with SEN,and trajectories of pupils with SEN in schools.
The effects of the academisation of Englishschools on educational trajectories of children
with Special Educational Needs
Visit our website and web app:
• sen-england.github.io• ® sen-england.shinyapps.io/sen-england-shiny
Contact:
• Yi Liu (Y.Liu3[at]exeter.ac.uk)
• Alexey Bessudnov (A.Bessudnov[at]exeter.ac.uk)
• Alison Black (A.E.Black[at]exeter.ac.uk)
• Brahm Norwich (B.Norwich[at]exeter.ac.uk)
References i
References
Abdulkadiroğlu, Atila, Joshua D Angrist, Peter D Hull and Parag APathak (2016), ‘Charters without lotteries: Testing takeovers in neworleans and boston’, American Economic Review106(7), 1878–1920.
Abdulkadiroğlu, Atila, Joshua D Angrist, Susan M Dynarski, Thomas JKane and Parag A Pathak (2011), ‘Accountability and flexibility inpublic schools: Evidence from boston’s charters and pilots’, TheQuarterly Journal of Economics 126(2), 699–748.
Black, Alison, Alexey Bessudnov, Yi Liu and Brahm Norwich (2018),‘The growth in the academisation of english schools and changesin the proportions of pupils identified as having SEN in differentkinds of primary and secondary schools by school type between2011-17’.
References ii
DfE (2018), ‘Open academies and academy projects awaitingapproval’. data retrieved from,https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
open-academies-and-academy-projects-in-development.
Eyles, Andrew and Stephen J Machin (2015), ‘The introduction ofacademy schools to england’s education’.
Eyles, Andrew, Stephen Machin and Sandra McNally (2017),‘Unexpected school reform: academisation of primary schools inengland’, Journal of Public Economics .
Fryer Jr, Roland G (2014), ‘Injecting charter school best practices intotraditional public schools: Evidence from field experiments’, TheQuarterly Journal of Economics 129(3), 1355–1407.
IPPR (2014), Whole System Reform: England’s Schools and the MiddleTier, Institute for Public Policy Research.
References iii
Norwich, Brahm (2014), ‘Changing policy and legislation and itseffects on inclusive and special education: a perspective fromEngland’, British Journal of Special Education 41(4), 403–425.
Norwich, Brahm and Alison Black (2015), ‘The placement ofsecondary school students with statements of special educationalneeds in the more diversified system of English secondaryschooling’, British Journal of Special Education 42(2), 128–151.
Wilson, Joan (2011), ‘Are England’s academies more inclusive ormore ‘exclusive’? the impact of institutional change on the pupilprofile of schools’.
Winters, Marcus A, Dick M Carpenter and Grant Clayton (2017), ‘Doesattending a charter school reduce the likelihood of being placedinto special education? evidence from denver, colorado’,Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39(3), 448–463.
