This is an anonymised version of a summary report I’ve just written for a primary school. They kindly allowed me to post it on my blog (with school name removed, obviously). It’s not been properly edited yet but hopefully it’ll give you some ideas if you are in the middle of writing similar reports at the moment.
Summary of performance 2016
Primary Academy is a larger than average primary school in an area of high deprivation in central Springfield. Most pupils are from ethnic minority backgrounds – the majority are Pakistani or Bangladeshi – and English is an additional language for the majority of pupils in the school. Almost half of pupils are eligible for free school meals, which is considerably higher than national average, and the school ranks amongst the 20% most deprived nationally.
Historically, prior attainment at key stage 1 has been significantly below average but this has improved and prior attainment of current years 4 and 5 is broadly in line with national average.
Overall floor standards met?
The school fell below the attainment floor measure of 65% achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths combined but it is close to the national average of 53%. It should be noted that the majority of schools nationally fell below the 65% threshold. The school is above all 3 progress floor measures (it was significantly above average for progress in writing and maths) and is therefore above floor. Furthermore, the school is not considered to be ‘coasting’ on the basis of its 2016 progress results.
FFT Analysis of main key stage 2 results
FFT data shows that the average score in reading and maths tests combined in 2016 was 100.5, which is significantly below average, but is 1.6 points higher, and significantly above expected, when pupil start points are taken into account. Furthermore, the result of 49% achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, despite being below national average of 53%, is significantly higher than expected by 12% points, considering the start points of pupils. This indicates that, under normal circumstances, just 37% of pupils would achieve the expected standard in the three subjects, which translates into 10 more pupils achieving the overall expected standard than would be expected to do so in a school where ‘average’ progress is made. FFT ranks the school in the top 25% for progress, maintaining its 2015 position and an improvement on 2014 when it was ranked at the 33rd
percentile for progress.
Overall progress in maths is +2.4, which is significantly above average and ranks the schools at the 17th
percentile. This contrasts with reading, the progress score for which is 0.0, indicating that progress in that subject was average. This is perhaps to be expected in a cohort comprising such a high proportion of EAL pupils, and should be considered alongside pupils’ progress in grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS). Here the progress score is +4.1, which is significantly above average, demonstrating that pupils made excellent progress in this subject in comparison to pupils with similar start points nationally. The school is ranked at the 6th
percentile (top 6% of schools) for progress in GPS.
FFT analysis shows that all but two pupil groups made more than average progress, with many making significantly more than average progress. The ‘any other’ ethnic minority group of pupils (8 pupils) made average progress, and SEN support group making less than average progress. However, it should be noted that SEN pupils are often shown to make less than average progress in a VA model where they are compared against pupils nationally with similarly low start points – a group that includes EAL pupils.
Overall progress in writing and maths was significantly above average and was positive for all pupils and disadvantaged pupils in each prior attainment band. Notably, progress in maths was significantly above average for disadvantaged pupils overall, and significantly above average in writing and maths for disadvantaged pupils in the low prior attainment group. As in FFT data, progress in reading was 0, indicating pupils making average progress.
Further analysis of pupil group progress data reveals that no groups’ progress was not significantly below average in any subject and many groups were significantly above in writing and maths. A notable area for further investigation is the progress of high prior attainers, which was broadly in line with average in maths and below (but not significantly below) average in writing.
Please note: overall low/middle/high is defined by KS1 APS. Subject low/middle/high refers to pupil’s level in that particular subject at KS1. Attainment at Key Stage 2
49% of pupils achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at KS2 which is just below the national average. No pupils achieved the higher standard in the three subjects combined. Percentages meeting the expected standard in writing and maths are above national average overall and for each prior attainment band; and disadvantaged pupils’ attainment of expected standards was generally in line with the national averages for non-disadvantaged pupils in these two subjects, and above in the case of low prior attaining disadvantaged pupils. No gaps are therefore identified in writing and maths in terms of percentages of disadvantaged pupils meeting expected standards.
The key issues are twofold: attainment of expected standards in reading and greater depth in writing. Here, large gaps from national average are identified particularly for the middle prior attaining group, and the gap between the middle disadvantaged group and non-disadvantaged pupils nationally in reading is notably wide (-4). Gaps of -2 pupils or lower are classified as ‘well below’ average. There is also a gap identified in terms of high prior attainers achieving the high standard in reading, writing and maths combined. This is due to the lack of pupils achieving greater depth in writing.
Attainment at Key Stage 1
Attainment of expected standards at KS1 was above and well above average in all subjects overall and for each prior attainment group. Disadvantaged pupils’ attainment of expected standards was above average in writing and well above in reading and maths. All but one of the non-emerging disadvantaged pupil group (i.e. those disadvantaged pupils that had met the early goals) achieved the expected standard at KS1.
FFT data shows that 63% of pupils in this cohort achieved expected standards in reading, writing and maths combined, which is 12% points higher than estimated when pupils’ EYFS outcomes are taken into account. As at KS2, this equates to around 10 more pupils achieving expected standards in the three subjects than perhaps would be expected in a school where average progress is made. FFT data shows that attainment of expected standards at KS1 was above expected for nearly all groups, and significantly above in many cases, most notably Bangladeshi, FSM pupils and lower prior attainers. Only SEN pupils’ attainment fell short of estimated outcomes – the gap equating to one pupil not meeting expected standards.
As at KS2, it is achievement of greater depth (high standard) that is the key issue, particularly for ‘middle’ prior attainment pupils – in this case, those that had met the early learning goals in that specific subject at EYFS (EY expected). FFT shows that the percentage of high prior attainers achieving greater depth in reading, writing and maths combined (25%) was in line with ‘expectations’. However, the percentage of middle prior attainers doing the same was below: no pupils managed the higher standard in all three subjects, which is deemed to be 5% (or 2 pupils) below estimated.
RAISE shows gaps ranging from 1 pupil below average (EY ‘expected’ disadvantaged pupils achieving greater depth in writing at KS1) to 6 pupils below (EY ‘expected’ pupils (all pupils) achieving greater depth in reading at KS1). A further investigation into middle prior attaining pupils achieving high standards is recommended. It is, for example, likely that many pupils placed in the EY ‘expected’ prior attainment group, based on EYFS outcome in that particular subject area, did not achieve GLD.
Percentages of EY ‘exceeding’ pupils (the high prior attainment group) achieving greater depth at KS1 are also low but numbers of pupils are small and gaps do not generally equate to 1 pupil, except in the case of writing, where the school figure for all pupils is flagged as -2 (i.e. 2 pupils below average). It should be noted that there are no pupils in the EY ‘exceeding’ group for maths and only 4 pupils are in this group for reading, in contrast with writing where 10 pupils are identified as exceeding based on EY outcomes. This is unusual as writing is usually the lower of the 3 EYFS areas.
Phonics continues to improve overall and for all key groups. Notably, the percentage of disadvantaged pupils achieving the expected standard in phonics is above that not of non-disadvantaged nationally, and has been for the past 3 years. 95% of disadvantaged pupils achieved the expected standard in Y1 in 2016.
Overall progress at KS2 is high particularly in writing and maths where scores are above and significantly above average for certain groups. Progress in reading is in line with national average but this is perhaps to be expected for a cohort comprising mostly EAL pupils. Progress in writing for high prior attainers is below average but there are serious concerns over the accuracy and reliability of teacher assessment in writing nationally. Three more pupils assessed at greater depth instead of expected standard in writing would have turned the negative progress score into a positive.
Overall attainment at KS2 is broadly in line with national averages. RAISE highlights relatively low attainment for middle prior attainment group in reading and the middle and high prior attainment groups in writing. Attainment of lower prior attainers tends to be in line with or above average. This is reflected in the progress measures (see above).
Attainment at KS1 is similar to KS2 with relatively low percentages of middle prior attaining pupils achieving higher standards. However, it is likely that strong improvements in phonics alongside the further embedding of the new curriculum will see this situation change in future years.
The key issue arising from data is the relatively low progress made by middle prior attaining pupils and this should be a key focus in future.