​The Department for Education (DfE) has released updated school-level data on the school performance tables website, which can be accessed here.

As part of this new release, the DfE has released MAT (multi-academy trust) results.

Below you will find our summary of the additional data on the performance of multi-academy trusts in England. 

Official statistics: Multi-academy trust performance measures: England, 2018 to 2019

The DfE has published statistics on the performance at key stage 4 of state-funded mainstream schools in multi-academy trusts in England. These statistics are based on measures of progress for MATs with three or more academies that have been with the MAT for at least three full academic years and have results in the 2019 school performance tables. The report provides:

• measures of progress (Progress 8, EBacc entry and EBacc achievement)
• contextual information (including disadvantage and prior attainment)
• underlying data for the 2019 to 2020 academic year for mainstream academies and free schools, university technical colleges (UTCs) and studio schools

Key findings

• The number of eligible MATs included in the key stage 4 measures has increased from 85 in 2018 to 102 in 2019. This is an increase from 494 to 581 schools, and from 69,169 to 87,346 pupils. This represents 16% of the state-funded mainstream key stage pupil cohort, 24% of all secondary academies and 36% of secondary academies that are part of a MAT.
• The national Progress 8 score for pupils in eligible MATs was -0.02, compared to 0.01 for all state-funded mainstream schools.
• In 2019, 31% of eligible MATs had progress scores above or well above the national average and 39% were below or well below the national average. The remaining 29% were not significantly different from the national average.
• The average Progress 8 score in sponsor led academies in MATs was below the national average for all mainstream schools, but above the national average for sponsor led academies. The average Progress 8 score in converter academies in MATs was below the national average for converter academies. The proportion of sponsor led and converter academies can partly explain the difference in Progress 8 between eligible MATs and the national average - in MATs, 59% of pupils included in Progress 8 were in sponsor led academies and 36% were in converter academies. In comparison, nationally 19% were in sponsor led academies and 52% were in converter academies.
• The gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils was smaller in eligible MATs for Progress 8 (0.48) than the national average (0.53), and disadvantaged pupils made more progress in MATs than nationally.
• Looking at Progress 8 scores, the difference between SEN pupils in eligible MATs and nationally was not statistically significant. 
• The national EBacc entry rate for pupils in eligible MATs was 38%, compared to 41% for all state-funded mainstream schools.
• 57% of MATs have an EBacc entry rate below the national average.
• Disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils in eligible MATs had lower EBacc entry rates than the national average for disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils respectively.
• The national EBacc average point score for eligible MATs was 3.87 points, compared to 4.15 points for all state-funded mainstream schools.
• 70% of MATs have an EBacc average point score lower than the national average. 
• In 2019 the percentage of pupils that were disadvantaged, have special educational needs (SEN) or have English as an additional language (EAL) were higher in eligible MATs than the national average.
• Analysis by characteristics shows disadvantaged, EAL and low prior attainment pupils in eligible MATs made more progress than their respective national average. EAL pupils also had a higher EBacc entry rate than the national average for EAL pupils, but a lower EBacc APS. Disadvantaged and SEN pupils had lower EBacc entry rates and APS than their respective national averages.

About the data

• This release provides national aggregate figures for MATs, which only cover the subset of academies and MATs included in the MAT measures. These statistics, therefore, cannot be interpreted as how academies or MATs are performing as a whole.
• The schools and MATs included change each year, meaning comparisons over time in attainment measures should be treated with caution.
• Progress measures are in-year relative measures which, in combination with the changing composition of MATs each year, means they should not be compared over time.

Read the full report here. 

First published 29 January 2018