This release presents performance measures for multi-academy trusts (MATs). A MAT must have at least three schools that have been with the MAT for at least three years and have results in 2018/19 to be included. Where an academy sponsor oversees more than one MAT, results are presented under the sponsor rather than the individual constituent MATs. School figures are weighted according to the length of time they have been in the MAT and their total cohort size to produce MAT level figures.
The MAT performance measures at key stage 2 are the percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths (combined), and individual progress measures in reading, writing and maths. The number of eligible MATs included in the key stage 2 measures has increased from 240 in 2017/18 to 297 in 2018/19. This is an increase from 1,408 to 1,788 schools, and from 56,367 to 74,037 pupils. This represents 12% of the state-funded mainstream key stage 2 pupil cohort and 34% of the mainstream academies key stage 2 pupil cohort.
MAT performance data should not be used to infer performance of the MAT system as a whole. This is explained further in the About this release section. More information on the calculation of the measures, eligibility and limitations of the measures is contained in the accompanying quality and methodology document.
Find and download files used in the production of this release.
Explore our range of data and build your own tables from it.
The key stage 2 MAT performance tables only include 37% of all primary mainstream academies (including all-through schools but excluding academies without key stage 2 results in 2018/19). This represents 42% of all primary academies that are part of a MAT and 11% of all state-funded primaries. This release provides national aggregate figures for MATs, which only cover the subset of academies and MATs included in the MAT performance tables. 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.
National figures for all state-funded mainstream schools are shown for context but comparisons between MAT and national averages should be treated with caution as they are not like-for-like. Both national aggregates for MATs and national averages for state-funded mainstream schools exclude special schools, pupil referral units and alternative provision facilities. However, state-funded mainstream schools also include voluntary, foundation and community schools. These are not academies and are therefore ineligible to be included in MATs measures. In addition, the proportion of sponsor led academies is higher in MATs measures than across all academies.
This publication is based on revised data. There is usually little difference between school level revised and final data. MAT level figures are not updated using final data.
Academies are state schools directly funded by the government. Each one is part of an academy trust. Trusts can be single academy trusts responsible for one academy or multi-academy trusts (MATs) responsible for a group of academies. An academy sponsor may oversee a number of MATs. The statistics in this release report at the highest level of accountability. Where an academy sponsor oversees a number of multi-academy trusts, results are presented under the sponsor rather than the individual constituent MATs.
The number of eligible MATs included in the key stage 2 measures has increased from 240 in 2017/18 to 297 in 2018/19. This is an increase from 1,408 to 1,788 schools, and from 56,367 to 74,037 pupils. This represents 12% of the state-funded mainstream key stage 2 pupil cohort and 34% of the mainstream academies key stage 2 cohort. Currently, 30% (a total of 189,253 pupils) of the state-funded mainstream key stage 2 pupil cohort are in an academy that is in a MAT, regardless of whether they are eligible for inclusion in the MAT measures.
The chart below shows the percentage of MATs by the size of the MAT, for the MATs and schools included in the performance data in this release.
The table below shows the distribution of the schools included in the MAT measures by school type, showing a higher proportion of converter academies (typically previously high performing schools) than sponsor led academies (typically previously poor performing schools). The gap between the proportion of sponsor led and converter academies has widened since 2017/18 when 53% were converter academies, 46% sponsor led academies and 1% free schools. The proportion of sponsored academies, converter academies and free schools as a proportion of all state-funded mainstream schools is also shown below.
A new MAT performance measure has been introduced this year which shows the percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths (combined). This is equivalent to the school-level measure published in the KS2 results. The combined reading, writing and maths measure uses the reading and maths test results along with the outcome of the writing teacher assessment (TA). To reach the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths, a pupil must achieve a scaled score of 100 or more in reading and maths tests and an outcome of 'reaching the expected standard' or 'working at greater depth' in writing TA. Together, these subjects give a broad measure of pupil attainment.
In 2019, 64% of pupils in eligible MATs reached the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths. This is slightly lower than the national average of 66%. At MAT level, in just under half (47%) of MATs the number of pupils who reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths was higher than the national average; for the remaining 53%, attainment was lower.
The table and chart below show attainment in reading, writing and maths broken down by school type, for both eligible MATs and all state-funded mainstream schools. National figures for all state-funded mainstream schools are shown for context but comparisons between MAT and national averages should be treated with caution. For example, there are other school types included in the national average that are not eligible to join MATs, including voluntary schools, which increase the national average.
Combined reading, writing and maths attainment in sponsor led academies (59%) and free schools (65%) in MATs is slightly higher than the national average for sponsor led academies (58%) and free schools (62%) respectively. Attainment in converter academies (67%) in MATs is slightly lower than the national average for converter academies (68%). When compared to the national average for all state-funded mainstream schools, attainment in converter academies in MATs is slightly higher, however attainment in sponsor led academies and free schools in MATs is lower. This indicates why attainment in MATs is lower than the national average.
Progress bandings for MATs are calculated separately for reading, writing and maths using the same methodology used to create school level bandings. The overall progress score for the MAT and the associated confidence intervals determine the bandings. More information on how progress bandings are calculated is available on the primary school accountability page. Bandings are not comparable between years as the thresholds used to calculate key stage 2 bandings differ each year and are calculated using a different cohort.
The chart below compares performance in MATs with the national average for state-funded mainstream schools. Pupils in MATs make more progress in writing than the national average but less in reading and maths.
The chart below shows progress in reading, writing and maths (separately) in sponsor led academies, converter academies and free schools. It compares progress of pupils in these school types in MATs to progress of pupils in all schools of this type nationally. Progress in each of reading, writing and maths for pupils in sponsor led academies in MATs is higher than the respective national averages for sponsor led academies by a statistically significant amount. Progress for pupils in free schools in MATs is not different than the national average by a statistically significant amount. The differences for free schools should be treated with caution as there are only 18 free schools (about 740 pupils) included in the MAT measures. Progress of pupils in converter academies is comparable to the national average in all of reading, writing and maths.
Annex A presents a series of charts which display the variation in each of the progress measures (reading, writing and maths) by MAT. It also contains a MAT level breakdown of the reading, writing and maths attainment measure. The charts show that maths progress has the most variation between outcomes for MATs. It has both the highest and lowest progress scores at +4.5 and -4.1 respectively. Reading has the least variation but results still vary considerably with a range of +4.1 to -3.4. The variation in writing is from +4.4 to -4.1. Attainment in the combined reading, writing and maths measure ranges from 39% to 90%.
The table below shows that the percentage of pupils that are disadvantaged or have English as an additional language (EAL) are higher in MATs (eligible MATs and schools only) than the national average, the percentage of pupils with special educational needs is the same in MATs compared to the national average, and that prior attainment at key stage 1 is slightly lower in MATs than the national average.
The analysis by characteristics described in the sections below shows that a similar percentage of disadvantaged pupils in MATs achieve the expected standard in the attainment measure compared to disadvantaged pupils nationally, the same can be seen for pupils with high prior attainment. A higher percentage of pupils with low prior attainment in MATs achieve the expected standard compared to pupils with low prior attainment nationally. However, EAL pupils, SEN pupils, non-SEN pupils, medium prior attainment pupils, non-disadvantaged pupils and pupils with English as a first language perform worse in this measure than their respective national averages.
The gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils, SEN and non-SEN pupils, pupils with low prior attainment and pupils with high prior attainment is smaller in MATs than the respective national averages. The gap between EAL pupils and pupils with English as a first language is similar in MATs to the national average.
For the combined reading, writing and maths measure, attainment was similar for disadvantaged pupils in MATs (53%) and disadvantaged pupils nationally (53%). For non-disadvantaged pupils, a slightly lower percentage of pupils in MATs (70%) achieve the expected standard when compared to the national average for non-disadvantaged pupils (71%).
The gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils is smaller for pupils in MATs than for pupils in state-funded maintained schools (17 percentage points and 19 percentage points respectively): the percentage of disadvantaged pupils in MATs achieving the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths is 53% compared to 70% for non-disadvantaged pupils, whereas nationally 71% of non-disadvantaged pupils reached the expected standard, compared to 53% of disadvantaged pupils.
In MATs, a lower percentage of EAL pupils (62%) meet the expected standard when compared with the national average for EAL pupils (65%), a gap of 2 percentage points. The same pattern can be seen for pupils with English as first language (EFL; 64% versus 66%).
The difference between EAL and EFL pupils in MATs and EAL and EFL pupils nationally is 2 percentage points: 62% of EAL pupils in MATs achieve the expected standard in the combined reading, writing and maths measure compared to 64% for EFL pupils, which compares nationally with 65% and 66% respectively.
A slightly lower percentage of SEN pupils in MATs (23%) reach the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths than the national average for SEN pupils (24%). The same can be seen for non-SEN pupils (72% versus 74%; a difference of 2 percentage points). The gap between SEN and non-SEN pupils is smaller in MATs than the national average.
In the combined reading, writing and maths attainment measure, a higher proportion of non-SEN pupils in MATs achieve the expected standard (72%) compared to SEN pupils (23%). Nationally, 24% of SEN pupils and 74% of non-SEN pupils achieve the expected standard.
Prior attainment at key stage 1 is split into three groups: low, medium and high prior attainment. A higher percentage of pupils in the low prior attainment group in MATs achieved the expected standard than the national average for this group. A similar proportion of pupils in the high prior attainment group in MATs achieved the expected standard when compared with the national average. The gap between low and high prior attainment pupils is smaller in MATs than the national average.
8% of low prior attainment pupils in MATs achieved the expected standard in the combined reading, writing and maths attainment measure compared to 95% for high prior attainment pupils. Nationally, 95% of high prior attainment pupils achieve the expected standard. The difference between low, medium and high prior attainment pupils in MATs and low, medium and high prior attainment pupils nationally is similar.
These are Official Statistics and have been produced in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. This can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
View methodology for Multi-academy trust performance measures at key stage 2.
If you have a specific enquiry about Multi-academy trust performance measures at key stage 2 statistics and data:
Email
mat.data@education.gov.uk
Telephone: Alex Miller
07387133678
If you have a media enquiry:
Telephone
020 7783 8300
If you have a general enquiry about the Department for Education (DfE) or education:
Telephone
037 0000 2288
Explore our range of data and build your own tables from it.
Create tables