No, Minister.
Is it me or is there something fishy about the minister's statistics in this letter to the Guardian?
Your front-page article reported false claims that city academies are "deserting the poor" and "cherry-picking more able children from middle-class families".
In fact, last September the 14 academies in question recruited 1,100 pupils who were eligible for free school meals, compared with a final intake of 980 children eligible for free school meals by their predecessor schools. That is an increase of 12%, and represents 39% of the academies' total intake - more than double the national average. The reality is the opposite of that which the critics claimed in your report: academies are educating more of the poor, not "turning their backs" on them.
The 14 academies now educate 13,670 pupils, compared with 11,840 in the predecessor schools - a 15% increase, reflecting the increased demand by local parents for places. So alongside their success in educating poorer students, academies also attract substantially more local pupils from all backgrounds.
The claim: city academies are taking more poor students. Fair enough. The problem lies in the statistics. The two included there both look very good on their own, but put them together and they appear to show a rise in pupil numbers of 15%, coupled with an increase in poorer pupils of 12%. Doesn't that, then, prove exactly the opposite of the minister's point?
Now I'm a bit dubious about my judgment here, because the inconsistency seems so transparent. So can anyone advise me as to whether it really is as dodgy as it looks, or if I'm just combining cynicism with mathematical ineptitude?
Your front-page article reported false claims that city academies are "deserting the poor" and "cherry-picking more able children from middle-class families".
In fact, last September the 14 academies in question recruited 1,100 pupils who were eligible for free school meals, compared with a final intake of 980 children eligible for free school meals by their predecessor schools. That is an increase of 12%, and represents 39% of the academies' total intake - more than double the national average. The reality is the opposite of that which the critics claimed in your report: academies are educating more of the poor, not "turning their backs" on them.
The 14 academies now educate 13,670 pupils, compared with 11,840 in the predecessor schools - a 15% increase, reflecting the increased demand by local parents for places. So alongside their success in educating poorer students, academies also attract substantially more local pupils from all backgrounds.
The claim: city academies are taking more poor students. Fair enough. The problem lies in the statistics. The two included there both look very good on their own, but put them together and they appear to show a rise in pupil numbers of 15%, coupled with an increase in poorer pupils of 12%. Doesn't that, then, prove exactly the opposite of the minister's point?
Now I'm a bit dubious about my judgment here, because the inconsistency seems so transparent. So can anyone advise me as to whether it really is as dodgy as it looks, or if I'm just combining cynicism with mathematical ineptitude?