Introduction & notes in relation to this year’s results



254000427355Analysis of 2018 ASP & IDSR (unvalidated / provisional data)forParklands Primary School00Analysis of 2018 ASP & IDSR (unvalidated / provisional data)forParklands Primary Schoolcenter5700395Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction & notes in relation to this year’s results PAGEREF _Toc532237962 \h 3Areas to Investigate PAGEREF _Toc532237963 \h 4Context PAGEREF _Toc532237964 \h 9Key Stage 2 PAGEREF _Toc532237965 \h 10Floor Standards & Coasting Schools criteria PAGEREF _Toc532237966 \h 10Progress over time PAGEREF _Toc532237967 \h 15Reading PAGEREF _Toc532237968 \h 17Writing PAGEREF _Toc532237969 \h 20Maths PAGEREF _Toc532237970 \h 23English grammar, punctuation and spelling (EGPS) PAGEREF _Toc532237971 \h 26Science PAGEREF _Toc532237972 \h 27Key Stage 1 PAGEREF _Toc532237973 \h 28Reading PAGEREF _Toc532237974 \h 28Writing PAGEREF _Toc532237975 \h 30Maths PAGEREF _Toc532237976 \h 31Phonics PAGEREF _Toc532237977 \h 33EYFSP PAGEREF _Toc532237978 \h 35Summary PAGEREF _Toc532237979 \h 36Version 2.0Introduction & notes in relation to this year’s resultsThis report provides a commentary on the 2018 ‘unvalidated’ data presented in the ASP School Performance Summary (SPS) and Ofsted’s new Inspection Data Summary Report (IDSR).This report presents the data in the same order as the IDSR. The first section looks at the ‘areas to investigate’ identified in the IDSR, the second section relates to the contextual information for the school and subsequent sections look at Key Stage 2, Key Stage 1, Phonics and EYFSP. At the end of the report, I have provided my own short summary of what I think are the main strengths and successes in your data – and any areas which may warrant further investigation or a focus for improvement. These may (or may not) closely match the ‘areas for investigation’ listed in the IDSR.As you read through this document, you will see that I have included screenshots of charts & tables taken from both the SPS and IDSR. Please note that this document is designed to be read in conjunction with these documents, it is not designed to replace them entirely. The screenshots in my report are only there to help you to identify which charts and tables you need to be looking at in relation to my commentary. I have not attempted to reference every table and chart in both documents (there is a lot of duplication of information within and across both documents); instead, I have tried to use the tables and charts which best illustrate the key aspects of your school data.I have used ‘Star’ graphics to draw attention to aspects that are particularly noteworthy:127001460500Denotes a success that can be celebrated-1270025019000Denotes an issue which may warrant further investigationThank you for asking me to produce this report for you and I hope it is useful in supporting your self-evaluation. Areas to InvestigateThe IDSR identifies ‘Areas to Investigate’, which have been reviewed and re-defined again this year. It is important to remember that ‘Areas to Investigate’ can be highlight performance which is above national, as well as that which is below national. In this section, each statement in the IDSR is referenced to the relevant data (where available). More detailed analyses of the data are provided in subsequent sections of this report. It is important to remember that ‘Areas to Investigate’ are computer-generated against limited criteria and might not successfully highlight all of the key issues arising from your data. If the school’s data does not trigger any of the possible statements for a particular area of performance, then the default statement “There were no meaningful trends or differences for this measure” is generated.-660400284480IDSR Page 5IDSR Page 5KS2 ProgressThe first three statements in the KS2 Progress section refer to progress over time. Page 5 of the IDSR presents the progress figures in each subject over the last three years, for the the full cohorts and for specific pupil groups. These statements are potentially confusing because although they give the impression that they can apply to any two years out of the the last three, they are only generated if the two most recent years are in the top quintile. This is why the statement for Reading does not include ‘all pupils’, but the statements for Writing and Maths do. The thresholds for the top quintiles are not shown anywhere in the IDSR or ASP but they are published in a separate spreadsheet. This shows that the threshold for Reading in 2018 was +2.11 (the school figure is +1.67).left2990850IDSR Page 8IDSR Page 8While the previous statements refer to trends over time, this statement refers only to the current year. On page 1 of the SPS, progress scores are described as ‘Well above average’ if they are both significantly above average and in the top 10% nationallyright152400SPS Page 1SPS Page 1. Specifc ranking figures are not provided in the IDSR or ASP this year, but they are still available in FFTAspire. The table on page 34 of “Primary School Accountability in 2018” (DfE, September 2018) shows that the top 5% threshold for Maths is +4.1.This statement relates to progress over time, for Disadvantaged children. The IDSR and ASP only provide information about the current year, showing whether the progress of Disadvantaged children is significnatly above that of ‘Other’ children naitonally. The charts on pages 6,7 and 8 of the IDSR (example for Maths above) show the progress of Disadvantaged children compared to that of the whole national cohort and of Other children nationally (displayed as the purpe line). For each subject, the progress of Disadvantaged children is significantly above the average of Other children nationally – but the difference is greatest in Maths.-717550378460KS2 AttainmentThe large tables on pages 8 and 11 of the SPS show that 79% of the children with middle prior attainment achieved the expected standard in Reading compared to 74% nationally, and that 85% of the children with middle prior attainment achieved the expected standard in Writing compared to 79% nationally.left28765500-723900290830The large table on page 14 of the SPS show that 88% of the children with middle prior attainment achieved the expected standard in Maths compared to 74% nationally, and that 82% of the Disadvantaged children achieved the expected standard in Maths compared to 81% of Other children nationally. -6794502493010SPS Page 21SPS Page 21This is the only specific reference to the headline accountability measure in the whole of the IDSR (every school has a statement referring to this measure). A chart is provided on page 1 of the SPS, which confirms the provisional figure achieved this year. -723900181610SPS Page 1SPS Page 1The figure of 107.6 is confirmed on page 18 of the SPS, but no average scaled score threshold figures for the bottom 10% are supplied anywhere in the IDSR, SPS or in the separate spreadsheet. Page 21 of the SPS shows that the 2016 figure is the highest of the three years, and this year’s is the lowest (but it is still above national).right381000IDSR Page 11IDSR Page 11KS1 AttainmentThe charts on page 11 of the IDSR confirm that attainment was low at KS1, but the national bottom 10% thresholds are only provided in the separate spreadsheet. This confirms that the bottom 10% threshold for Reading was 62.5% and the bottom 10% threshold for Maths was 63.3%. Statements relating to attainment at KS1 do not take into account the prior attainment of children at the foundation stage, this means it is important for schools to have their own evidence of the progress that children have made over this key stage. -704850101600There is no historic data for KS1 in either the the IDSR or the ASP. The thresholds for the bottom 20% are provided in the separate spreadsheet for the last three years.203200302260SPS Page 300SPS Page 30Phonics in 2018This statement is generated if more than 10 children in the Year 1 cohort do not meet the expected standard in the Year 1 Phonics test. The chart on page 30 of the SPS shows that all children attempted the test, and 8 of the 16 children who did not achieve the standard had very low marks. The detailed breakdown of results on page 31 provides evidence that most or all of the children with low marks had SEN.-711200290830BehaviourIt appears that Ofsted have decided to report on exclusions for every school, including for primary schools, many of which don’t have any exclusions. Exclusions data is not presented anywhere else in the IDSR or SPS, but are available as a separate report in ASP. In the above statements, exclusion rates are compared against the average for schools with ‘similar levels of deprivation’. The exclusion rate is calculated by dividing the number of pupils with exclusions by the total number of children in the school. The overall national figure is 0.96% for fixed term exclusions and 0.29% for ‘repeat exclusions’ (i.e. children with more than 1 exclusion). Exclusion figures are reported to a later schedule and figures for 2017/18 are not yet available. 0311150IDSR Page 3&4IDSR Page 3&4ContextThe contextual information presented in the IDSR has been completely reformatted this year. In previous years, tables and charts have been presented for all key indicators, with national comparative data. This year, Ofsted appear to have adopted an ‘exceptions reporting’ approach: statements are generated which draw attention to aspects of the school’s contextual data which vary considerably from national norms or which are ‘unusual’, and if the school’s data does not vary ‘significantly’ from the national norms, then there are statements such as “There was nothing significant to report” for the indicator or group. This approach is intended to enable inspectors to quickly identify key aspects of the school’s contextual data which may influence outcomes, but it does mean that the information is not as comprehensive as it used to be. There is no contextual information provided in the SPS either, but more traditional data tables can be generated from ASP as separate reports.Key Stage 2Floor Standards & Coasting Schools criteriaIn May of this year, the DfE indicated that they would end the current system of having both a floor standard and ‘coasting schools’ standard and that they would be consulting on a “single, transparent data standard” which would be used to identify “schools that are underperforming and would benefit from an offer of support”. However, the DfE have now confirmed that the old floor standard will still be in place for another year. So, in 2018, a school will be above the floor standard if:at least 65% of pupils met the expected standard in English reading, English writing and mathematics orthe school achieved sufficient progress scores in all of English reading and English writing and mathematics. The sufficient progress thresholds are -5 for Reading and Maths and -7 for Writing.To be above the floor, a school needed to meet either the attainment element or all of the progress element.Coasting school thresholds also remain unchanged. They are a three-year measure and a primary school will fall within the coasting criteria if, for all of 2016, 2017 and 2018:fewer than 85% of pupils achieved the expected standard at the end of primary school; and average progress made by pupils was less than -2.5 in English reading, -2.5 in mathematics or -3.5 in English writing.The DfE have confirmed that this year “Where a school is below the floor or coasting standards, but is not judged inadequate, the RSC will not use the Secretary of State’s powers to issue an academy order or a warning notice. Instead, the floor and coasting standards will be calculated in 2018 solely for the Department for Education to identify schools that might benefit from support.”Ofsted have issued the following guidance on this issue:“Inspectors must no longer report whether a school meets the floor standards or coasting definition. All references to these definitions have been removed from the IDSRs for 2016/17 to support this change; similarly, the imminent IDSRs for 2017/18 will not refer to floor standards or coasting. Inspectors will, of course, continue to take account of the progress of recent cohorts when evaluating the progress of pupils currently in the school, in line with the school inspection handbook.”Parklands primary is above the floor standard threshold and the coasting school criteria in 2018. 5764700SPS Page 2000SPS Page 20 1841501797050067% of children achieved at least the expected standard in Reading, Writing and Maths (combined) in 2018. This is 3%pts higher than the national figure of 64% and 7%pts above the equivalent figure for Leeds.center1001307SPS Page 20SPS Page 20This year’s SPS report provides ‘three-year time series’ figures for the headline measures. The chart on page 20 is incorrect: it states that the 2016 school figure is 58%, but this was the provisional figure, and the final figure rose substantially, to 76%.3 children (6% of the year group) achieved the higher standard in all three subjects this year, compared to the national figure of 10%.This is the same number of children as last year, and an improvement compared to 2016, when no children achieved the higher combined standard.23368001451223SPS Page 1SPS Page 1center49700There were 46 children in the year group, but only 43 children were included in the progress calculation. Children can only be included in the progress calculation if they have KS1 prior attainment data and a valid KS2 result. 1 of these 43 children did not sit the Reading test, but did sit the Maths test and was assessed in Writing.The progress figures for 2018 indicate that children have achieved outcomes that are consistently better than those achieved by children nationally with similar prior attainment. 21780501471295ASP Custom ViewASP Custom ViewThe 2018 progress score for Reading (+1.67) is above zero, but is described as ‘average’. This is because the lower confidence interval is just below zero and therefore the variance from zero is not statistically significant. However, it is relevant to note that the year group includes 1 child with an EHCP plan, who was taught within the Resource Provision unit of the school. If this child is removed from the progress calculation, using the data management tool in ASP, the school’s progress figure rises to +1.78, as shown in the graphic below. This is 0.11 points higher than the ‘official’ school figure and if the lower confidence interval of the amended score was also 0.11pts higher, it would mean that the amended score for Reading would be significantly above average. 2127257810500The 2018 progress score for Writing (+2.63) is significantly above average and is therefore described as ‘above average’. The 2018 progress score for Maths (+5.07) is also significantly above average, and it is also in the top 10% of scores nationally; it is therefore described as ‘well above average’.0285750SPS Page 3SPS Page 325126723593840037 children (80% of the year group) qualified as Disadvantaged.The progress scores for all three subjects are significantly above average for the Disadvantaged group.NB. Pupils with extremely negative progress scores – change in methodology from 2018. Following feedback about the disproportionate effect that a small number of extremely negative progress scores can have on a school’s average score, the DfE have implemented a change in 2018 which sees extremely negative scores ‘capped’. The threshold at which a score is capped is different for each of the prior attainment groups; if a child’s progress score falls below the threshold it is replaced by the threshold figure. The number of children whose progress figure has been adjusted is shown for each subject in the graphic on page 1 of the SPS. It is also shown for Disadvantaged children on page 3 of the SPS. In some of the tables, the unadjusted and adjusted average progress scores are displayed.For Parklands primary school in 2018:No children’s progress scores were adjusted in Reading.No children’s progress scores were adjusted in Writing.No children’s progress scores were adjusted in Maths.The methodology used by the DfE to calculate the thresholds at which scores are capped means that thresholds for the lower prior attainment groups are exceptionally low, while the thresholds for the middle and higher prior attainment groups are much closer to zero. For example, the threshold in Reading for a child with prior attainment of 9pts at KS1 is -23.3, while the threshold in Reading for a child with prior attainment of 21pts at KS1 is -11.5.41910042037000There are no low progress thresholds for children with prior attainment of less than 6pts at KS1.Progress over timeThe table on Page 5 of the IDSR summarises KS1-2 progress over the last three years in each subject and for prior attainment groups – this will be a key table for inspectors.Last year, this table included specific progress rankings, ranging from “1” (top 1% in the country) to “100” (lowest 1% in the country). These rankings have been removed. Apparently, this is because Ofsted felt that too much attention was being given to differences in rankings, that may not statistically noteworthy. It is certainly true that the progress scores of schools on the 40th and 60th percentiles will be very similar. However, there is likely to be considerable differences between the progress scores of schools on, for example, the 20th and 1st percentiles. Specific progress rankings can still be accessed via FFTAspire.School progress scores are still grouped into ‘quintiles’. A school with a progress score that is in the top 20% nationally will be in the 1st ‘quintile’, while a school with a progress score in the bottom 20% nationally will be in the 5th ‘quintile’. If a progress score is significantly above national the box will be shaded in green and if a progress score is significantly below national it is shaded in red. Most, but not all scores in the 1st quintile will be significantly above average and most, but not all scores in the 5th quintile will be significantly below average. It is possible for a score that is not in the 1st quintile to be significantly above average and it is possible for a score not in the 5th quintile to be significantly below average.438150426085IDSR Page 5IDSR Page 5Cohorts with fewer than 10 children are shaded in grey, to indicate that their data should be interpreted with caution.3048006350000Progress in Reading was in the top quintile and significantly above national in 2016 and 2017, but has dropped into the 2nd quintile this year. As we have already seen, it was very close to being significantly above national in 2018.Progress in Writing has been in the top quintile in each of the last three years and it has been significantly above national in the last two years.Progress in Maths has been in the top quintile and significantly above national in each of the last three years. Last year’s IDSRs showed that progress in Maths was in the top 1% of schools in 2016 and 2017 and we know that this year’s figure is in at least the top 5%.There have been fewer than 10 children with low prior attainment in each of the last three cohorts, and their progress information has been greyed out to indicate that extreme caution should be exercised when interpreting their outcomes. The progress figures for this group of children are all in the 1st to 3rd quintiles and were significantly above national in Writing and Maths last year (despite the small size of the group).Most children in each of the last three cohorts have been in the middle prior attainment band. It is unsurprising, therefore, to see that the progress figures for this group are similar to those of the year group as a whole.There have only been 3 children with high prior attainment in each of the last three cohorts. The progress figures for these very small groups of children have been consistently high in Reading and Maths and are much higher in Writing this year than they were in previous years.In each of the last three years, Disadvantaged children have made up about 85% of the cohort. The progress figures for this group have been in the 1st quintile and significantly above average in every subject in all three years.25400234950IDSR Page 6SPS Page 4IDSR Page 6SPS Page 4Reading Page 6 of the IDSR and page 4 of the SPS provide a more detailed picture of the progress achieved in Reading in 2018.The year group is split into three prior attainment bands: Low (below 12pts at KS1), Middle (between 12pts and 18pts at KS1) and High (more than 18pts at KS1).There were only 6 children in the low prior attainment band, their average progress score is almost exactly zero.Most of the children in the year group were in the middle prior attainment band. Their average progress score is above zero, but the lower confidence interval is below zero, so it is within the ‘average’ range of scores.Just 3 children were in the high prior attainment band; their average progress score is very high but because of the small group size, the confidence interval is very large, and this score is also not significantly above average.1599565801370002476508890000Most of the children in the year group were Disadvantaged, their average progress score is higher than the overall figure for the year group and is significantly above national – as well as significantly above ‘Other’ children nationally (shown as the purple line). 24257002589530IDSR Page 6IDSR Page 6The scatterplot shows that there was a wide range of outcomes for the handful of children whose prior attainment was 9pts at KS1. Some of these children passed the test and generated high progress scores, but 2 of them had scaled scores of 80pts and generated low progress scores. These scores have effectively cancelled each other out and this is why the average progress score for the low prior attainment group is close to zero.20415521717000The majority of the children in the middle prior attainment group achieved positive progress scores (a few of them were higher than +10). However, there are a couple of children with very low progress scores: both had KS1 prior attainment of 13.5pts and scored 85pts on the test, each of them generating a progress score of -14. If both of these children had scored 2 more scaled score points, the overall average progress score for Reading would have been significantly above average.center434975SPS Page 8SPS Page 8All of the children with high prior attainment achieved positive progress scores.72% of the children in the year group achieved the expected standard, compared to 75% nationally. This figure is 4%pts higher than last year, but not as high as the exceptional result achieved in 2016 (79%).20% of the year group achieved the higher standard, which is 8%pts lower than the national figure, and 13%pts lower than the result achieved in 2016.The national figures show that girls usually outperform boys, but this is not the case for this cohort, in which the boys’ attainment is noticeably higher than that of the girls. The boys’ average progress score is also very high and much better than the girls’, which is just above zero. The Disadvantaged group’s pass-rate is within 4%pts of matching the national figure for ‘Other’ children, and their average progress score of +2.36 is significantly above average. There were only 6 ‘Other’ children, their attainment and average progress is low; the scatterplot shows that 2 of the ‘Other’ children had particularly low progress scores.1 child had an EHCP and 10 children were identified as requiring SEN support (a total 22% of the year group had SEN). The attainment of the SEN children is, unsurprisingly, much lower than the rest of the year group, and their average progress scores are below zero, but still within the ‘average’ range of scores. Progress judgements for SEN children need to be treated with caution: these children’s outcomes are being compared against children nationally with similar prior attainment, many of whom do not have SEN.39 children were identified as ‘non-mobile’. This means that there were 7 children who were admitted in Years 5 or 6. The average progress score of the non-mobile group was lower than that of the full cohort: using these figures we can calculate that the average progress score of the ‘mobile’ children was +5.4. This is relatively unusual, as ‘mobile’ children often have lower than average progress.4 children were identified as EAL, they both passed the test and their average progress score (which is only based on 2 of them) is very high. 298450545465IDSR Page 9IDSR Page 9On page 9 of the IDSR there is a new presentation of attainment data for Reading at KS2. This ‘cumulative scaled score distribution’ chart attempts to illustrate the spread of scaled scores across the cohort.The chart shows that all but 2 of the children in the year group were entered for the test and achieved a scaled score of at least 80. Nationally, a small percentage of children also do not achieve the minimum scaled score, or are not entered for the test.The numbers of children achieving each scaled score point decline relatively rapidly between 80 and 90pts, but the gap between school and national then starts to narrow between 90 and 100pts. .While the numbers of children with low attainment are relatively large, the numbers of children achieving scores of 105 and higher are very close to the national profile.0228600IDSR Page 7SPS Page 4IDSR Page 7SPS Page 4Writing right283337000 In contrast to Reading, the low prior attainment group’s average progress score in Writing is very high and is significantly above average.The progress score for the middle prior attainment band is not as high (+1.77) and is within the ‘average’ range of scores.The 3 children in the high prior attainment band achieved an extremely high average progress score (+7.40) which is significantly above average, despite the very small group size.1238250858520IDSR Page 7IDSR Page 7As with Reading, the average progress score of the Disadvantaged children is higher than the overall figure for the year group and is significantly above national – as well as significantly above ‘Other’ children nationally (shown as the purple line).The scatterplot on page 12 of the SPS shows that the 2 children (with 9pts at KS1) who generated low progress scores in Reading, have achieved positive progress score in Writing, as a result of being assessed as ‘working towards’ the expected standard. There was another child in the low prior attainment group who achieved a very high progress score of +15.27622563500It would be interesting to investigate the group of children who had prior attainment of between 14 and 15pts at KS1, because despite their similar starting points, some achieved greater depth, while others did not achieve the expected standard.2778829679600All of the children with high prior attainment achieved greater depth (the scatterplot is potentially misleading because all of these children had the same prior attainment and appear at the same data-point). All of these children generated the same progress score (+7.4).25841772887 Just over three quarters (76%) of the year group achieved the expected standard, just a couple of percentage points below the national figure. Attainment in this subject has been very consistent over the last three years (79% in 2016 and 76% in 2017).13% achieved greater depth. This is still 7%pts below the national figure, but attainment of greater depth has improved in consecutive years (from 0% in 2016).left21554100The pattern of results for girls and boys is very different in Writing to the pattern observed for Reading. In this subject, it is the girls with the relatively high attainment, while the boys’ is relatively low. The progress rates are different too: the girls’ average progress score is very high, while the boys’ is much closer to average. It would be useful to investigate why these different patterns exist between the two subjects. The proportion of Disadvantaged children achieving the expected standard is in line with that of Other children nationally, and their progress score is significantly above average. The 8 children in the Other group appear to have a very disparate attainment profile: 4 of them achieved greater depth, while the other 4 did not achieve the expected standard. Their average progress score, however, is very high.As with Reading, the attainment of the SEN group is, unsurprisingly, relatively low, but their average progress score is well above zero.The average progress score of the non-mobile group is almost the same as that of the full cohort and therefore the average progress score of the mobile children will be very similar.The 4 EAL children achieved results which were in line with national performance and generated a high average progress score.0216708SPS Page 4IDSR Page 7SPS Page 4IDSR Page 7MathsThe progress score of the low prior attainment group in Maths is well above zero, but within the ‘average’ range of scores. 2186606976700The progress scores of the middle and high prior attainment groups are identical (and very high), but only the middle group’s is significantly above average, because of the larger confidence interval for the small group.The progress of Disadvantaged children is, again, higher than that of the overall year group and is significantly above national, in the top 10%, and significantly above the progress of ‘Other’ children nationally. 1067681185369IDSR Page 8IDSR Page 8As with Reading, there are 2 children in the low prior attainment group (prior attainment of 9pts at KS1) who generated low progress scores. One of the two children who had the lowest progress scores in Reading also has the lowest progress score in Maths (-14.4), but the other child has done much better in this subject, generating a positive progress score.2054094389800However, the main reasons why the average progress score is so much higher in Maths are that there are hardly any children with progress score between 0 and -5 (there were several in Reading) and there are a lot more children with scores of +10 or higher.2319130SPS Page 14SPS Page 14Maths is the only subject in which attainment of the expected standard is above national (80% compared to 76%). This year’s result is considerably higher than last year’s (71%) but is only a little higher than the 2016 result (79%).right152540043% of the year group achieved the higher standard, this is not far off being twice as high as the national figure. Last year, an exceptionally high number of children achieved the higher standard in Maths (63%). While this year’s cohort has not repeated these extremely high levels of attainment, they have matched the 2016 figure, and all three years are well above ‘average’.Maths is the only subject in which both the girls and the boys did very well, with high attainment and very high progress scores for both groups.Disadvantaged children out-performed Other children nationally in terms of raw attainment and their progress score of +5.38 is significantly above averageThe progress score of the SEN support group is above zero and the child with the EHCP also achieved a positive progress score in Maths. More than half of the non-SEN group achieved the higher standard.The average progress score of the non-mobile group is almost the same as that of the full cohort, so from that we can infer that the average progress score of the mobile children was also very similar.All 4 of the EAL children passed the test and 2 of them achieved the higher standard. Their average progress score is exceptionally high.The scaled score distribution chart for Maths on Page 10 of the IDSR shows that there was a slightly higher than average proportion of children with low attainment of below 90 points, but there were also much larger proportions of children achieving higher scaled scores.English grammar, punctuation and spelling (EGPS)93176673632SPS Page 22SPS Page 22There are no progress analyses provided for EGPS in either the IDSR or ASP. In fact, there are no figures for EGPS in the IDSR at all. Schools may wish to refer to FFTAspire if they are interested in progress judgements for this subject.Attainment of the expected standard in EGPS is lower than in any of the other subjects, at 70%, and is 8%pts below national. Last year’s result was very similar (71%), but achievement of the expected standard was much higher in 2016, at 82%.Just over a third (35%) of the year group achieved a high scaled score, just 1%pt above the national figure. A very large proportion (45%) of last year’s cohort achieved a high scaled score in EGPS (as they also did in Maths). left414200The unusual variation in the gender groups’ attainment continues in EGPS. The pattern of results in this subject are more like Writing and less like Reading, in that boys’ attainment is noticeably lower than the girls. In fact the boys’ pass-rate and their average scaled score are both well below the national figures for boys. The girls’ pass-rate is also below national, but almost half of the girls achieved a high scaled score, and this has boosted their average scaled score.Disadvantaged children’s attainment is a little lower than that of Other children nationally, but it is the small group of Other children within the year group that have particularly low attainment (this is also the case in the other subjects).The attainment of the SEN children is low in EGPS (as it has been in the other subjects). It would be useful to check how many of the children in the Other group were also in the SEN group.Unfortunately ASP does not provide progress figures for EGPS, which would be useful in unpicking the results in this subject.Science80% of children achieved the expected standard in Science, just above the national figure.The gap between girls’ and boys’ attainment in this subject is similar to the national gap.As with the other subjects, the attainment of the Disadvantaged children is similar to national Other children, but the attainment of the Other children in the year group is very low.5 out of the 10 SEN support children achieved the expected standard.231913469155SPS Page 23SPS Page 233 of the 4 EAL children achieved the expected standard.Key Stage 1center26791500Readingleft25933110023306742112446IDSR Page 11IDSR Page 1161% of the year group achieved at least the expected standard in Reading, 15%pts (rounded) below the national figure of 75%.ASP does not provide data for previous years in the Summary Report, but last year’s report shows that attainment of the expected standard in Reading was slightly higher in 2017 (63%), but a lot lower in 2016 (42%).The proportion of children achieving greater depth is only 6%pts below national, at 20%.This is a slight improvement of 2%pts compared to 2017 and 9%pts higher than 2016.16 (55%) of the 29 Disadvantaged children achieved the expected standard and 3 (10%) of them achieved greater depth.ASP also does not provide analyses which compare children’s outcomes at KS1 with their prior attainment at the foundation stage, this makes it difficult to get a sense of what kind of progress children have made over KS1. Previous years’ reports show that in 2016 61% of the children who were in this cohort achieved GLD; this indicates that levels of attainment for this cohort were broadly similar at both the foundation stage and at KS1.12685315857SPS Page 26SPS Page 26The attainment gap between boys and girls is slightly larger than the national gap at the expected standard, but is particularly large at greater depth. Only 2 (8%) of the boys achieved greater depth, compared to 7 (33%) of the girls.7 children were identified as having SEN in this year group and 2 of them achieved the expected standard. This is well below the overall national attainment figure, but is typical of SEN attainment nationally. The proportion of non-SEN children who achieved the expected standard is, however, also well below the equivalent national figure (65% compared to 83%).9 children were identified as having EAL in this year group. The proportion who achieved the expected standard is broadly similar to that of the non-EAL children (both groups are well below the national figure). Only 1 of them achieved greater depth and the percentage gap between them and non-EAL looks large, but we need to bear in mind that if 1 more EAL child had achieved greater depth, the percentage figure would have risen to 22%, and would have matched the non-EAL figure.23672802256155IDSR Page 11IDSR Page 11center29544400Writingright256155300KS1 attainment in Writing is a little lower than in Reading (this is also the case nationally). The proportion achieving the expected standard is 11%pts below the national figure, at 59%.Although attainment is still well below national this year, it has improved by over 20%pts since 2016 and the gap between the school and national figures has more than halved.6 children (13% of the year group) achieved greater depth in Writing. This is only 3%pts below the national figure.Again, this year’s result demonstrates a sustained improvement over a three year period. Last year, only 7% achieved greater depth and in 2016 no children achieved greater depth.16 (55%) of the Disadvantaged children achieved the expected standard, but none of them achieved grater depth.2272790SPS Page 27SPS Page 27As with Reading, the gap between girls’ and boys’ attainment is particularly noticeable at greater depth. None of the boys achieved the higher standard, compared to over a quarter of the girls.None of the SEN children achieved the expected standard in Writing. In contrast, slightly more of the non-SEN children achieved the expected standard in Writing than did in Reading.There is very little difference between EAL and non-EAL children’s attainment in this subject.454025321945IDSR Page 11IDSR Page 11Mathsleft37615100Headline attainment has been very consistent across all three subjects this year; 59% of the year group achieved the expected standard in Maths, the same as in Writing and 2%pts lower than Reading. However, national attainment in Maths is higher than in the other subjects, so the gap between school and national is largest in this subject (17%pts).This year’s result is a little lower than last year’s (63%), but is a lot higher than in 2016, when only 40% of children achieved the expected standard.2425113111680017% achieved greater depth, which matches overall Leeds performance and is 5%pts below national.As with the other subjects, the numbers of children achieving greater depth are increasing relatively rapidly. In 2016, only 4% achieved greater depth, this rose to 9% last year and has almost doubled again this year.237490503819SPS Page 28SPS Page 2815 (52%) of the Disadvantaged children achieved the expected standard, and 4 (14%) of them achieved greater depth.The gap between girls’ and boys’ attainment is less pronounced in Maths, but is still wider than ‘average’. In fact, at a national level, more boys than girls achieved greater depth, but in this cohort the proportion of girls achieving greater depth is double the proportion of boys.Only 1 of the 7 SEN children achieved the expected standard. The proportion of non-SEN children achieving the expected standard is also relatively low, but their greater depth figure is only 4%pts below national.As with the other subjects, there is little difference between the attainment of the EAL and non-EAL groups at the expected standard, but only 1 of the EAL children achieved greater depth. Again, we need to remember that if 1 more of the children in this group had achieved the higher standard then their percentage figure would have matched national performance.1210391290705SPS Page 30SPS Page 30Phonicsleft34182750073% of the Year 1 cohort achieved the expected standard in the Phonics Screening check, 10%pts below the national figure of 83%. Again, there is no historic data for Phonics in the ASP Summary report; but last year’s IDSR shows that the 2017 figure was very low, at only 62%. The average score for this cohort is 3.1pts below national (30.8pts compared to 33.9).845688773731SPS Page 30SPS Page 30All of the children in the year group attempted the test (and therefore recorded a score) but 6 children had very low scores of 7 or lower, and 2 others had scores of 15 or lower. No national data is provided to benchmark these scores.left2264909002959910SPS Page 31SPS Page 31The gap between girls’ and boys’ attainment, which was larger than average for the Year 2 cohort, is even bigger for the Year 1 cohort. 90% of the girls achieved the expected standard, compared to only just over half of the boys.There were 11 children identified as having SEN (including 2 with EHCPs) and only 2 achieved the expected standard. This large minority of children with very low attainment has had a considerable impact on the overall results and could also be a key factor in the figures for other groups (e.g. boys).Only 6 children were identified as having EAL, but only 2 of them achieved the expected standard. Nationally, EAL children tend to perform as well as non-EAL, so it could be that some of the children in this group had particularly low English language proficiency.right42562300ASP provides data relating to the results of children who re-took the Phonics test in Year 2 (19 children, 14 of whom passed the test), however it does not provide any information on the total proportion of children who were working at the expected standard at the end of Year 2. Other sources show that 91% of the Year 2 cohort were ‘working at’ the expected standard by the end of KS1, which is in line with the national figure of 92%.EYFSPSummaryHeadline KS2 attainment is almost identical to last year, and is still just above the national figure. This year’s progress figure in Maths is, once again, amongst the highest in the country, due in main to the very large numbers of children who achieved higher scaled scores in this subject. Progress in Writing is also significantly above national, for the second consecutive year. The progress figure in this subject has been boosted by the fact that several children with low prior attainment achieved the expected standard. Progress in Reading was very high in 2016 and 2017, but is fractionally below the threshold for being significantly above national this year. If the child with the EHCP (who was taught in the Resourced Provision unit) is not included in the progress calculation, the school figure for Reading would also have been significantly above national. Disadvantaged children’s progress is very high and significantly above average in all subjects. However, in all subjects (including Maths) there are a few children who generated very low progress scores: some, but not all of these children are identified as having SEN.KS1 attainment is low this year (and has been low in previous years). In 2018, the attainment of boys, SEN children and EAL children appear to have had the biggest impact on the overall results. Analyses of outcomes in relation to children’s prior attainment at the foundation stage have been removed from the IDSR and SPS; this means it is even more important for schools to be able to produce their own evidence of the progress that their children make over the course of KS1. The foundation stage GLD figures for previous cohorts at Parklands indicate that many children enter KS1 with low levels of development.The proportions of children who achieve the expected standard in Phonics by the end of Year 1 have been well below national in each of the last three years, but the figures for this year’s Y1 cohort show that most of the children who do not achieve the standard and who achieve very low marks in the test have SEN. The cumulative proportion of children achieving the standard at Year 2 demonstrates that the school is successful in ensuring that most children are working at the expected standard by the end of KS1. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download