These Are The Top Performing Primary Schools For Ks2 Results In
In - the data that the DfE collects from primary schools. In part 2 we're going to look at the main sources of data that governors should be aware of: the key reports, when they're made available, who has access, and what they contain. Here we will focus on four main sources: the Performance Tables, Analyse School Performance (ASP) system, Ofsted's Inspection Data Summary Report (IDSR), and Fischer Family Trust (FFT) dashboards, plus a couple of other important points in the calendar.
These Are The Top Performing Primary Schools For Ks2 Results In 2016
1) Results day Published first week in July Availability: Secure NCA Tools website. Login required. No access for governors. Schools receive pupils' KS2 test scores via the NCA Tools website and a summary of results. Not in public domain 2) Checking exercise Published 31st August/1st September Availability: Secure Data Checking website. Login required.
No access for governors. Data checking website opens for schools to check and query results. Also contains pupils' progress scores and summary sheet of all results to be shown in the performance tables.
Not in public domain. It is also important to note that data is only released in the performance tables once it has been validated. After it has been collected, school data goes through a checking exercise in the autumn term to ensure it is a true reflection of a school's results. Pupils may be discounted from results if they are recent arrivals from overseas for example, and these will be removed during the checking exercise. Also, a school may have had some test scripts successfully re-marked. All of these changes will be taken account of in the validated data, and this is why the DfE do not publish school data in the public domain until it is deemed 'clean'.
Even after this process, some schools may still find errors which can be corrected before data is finalised. The other (non-public) sources, detailed below, publish data prior to validation, during the autumn term (referred to as unvalidated data), and governors need to be aware that these reports may contain errors (which will be corrected in future releases). The performance tables also provide data for certain pupil groups: disadvantaged (pupils on free school meals in past 6 years (FSM6), looked after children (CLA/LAC), or pupils adopted from care), gender, prior attainment (low, middle, high prior attainment groups defined by pupils' level at KS1), English additional language (EAL), and mobility (pupils that joined during years 5 or 6). There is no data for SEN pupils in the performance tables - they are included in overall figures but results are not shown for that group specifically. It is important that governors have an awareness of data for particular pupil groups, especially disadvantaged pupils, and this will be the subject of the final blogpost in this series. ASP replaced RAISEonline and is not publicly accessible. Governors can be granted access but - please take note - only to the anonymised version of the system, which contains no pupil-level data.
It is a fairly simple system and, apart from extended data on pupil groups and individual subjects, it does not provide much more than the performance tables in terms of KS2 data. It does however contain results for EYFSP, phonics and KS1, and presents them in the familiar, performance tables-style format with national and LA comparators. From a governor point of view, ASP does not have a great deal to offer and governors are advised to focus more on the Ofsted Inspection Data Summary Report (IDSR). The IDSR, which replaced the Ofsted Dashboard, is an inspector's key source of school data and is therefore essential reading for governors. It is a PDF document downloaded from ASP and is not in the public domain.
The front page of the report lists areas to investigate - which rather confusingly may be positive or negative statements - and shows if the school is below floor standards or deemed to be 'coasting'. The following pages contain contextual information about the school including absence, exclusions, deprivation, numbers of pupils in certain key groups, and prior attainment of cohorts in reading, writing and maths. The report shows a breakdown of progress and attainment (% attaining expected standards and higher standards) in reading, writing and maths at KS2.
Scatter plots are used to reveal outliers. Results in grammar, punctuation and spelling tests, and science assessments at KS2 are also provided. Green and red boxes are drawn around data that is significantly above or below national average, although there is inconsistency here and governors should be aware that in some parts of the report this highlighting indicates that the school is in the top or bottom 10%, whereas elsewhere it does not (hint: read the small print). Statistical significance indicators are only used for KS2 progress data.
A 3 year trend is provided for progress in each subject (based on school's national ranking each year) but no trends are provided for KS1 or KS2 attainment (due to there only being 2 years of comparable data). Phonics results (% attaining expected standard in Y1, and by the end of Y2) are shown as three year trends against national figures. IDSR also provides 2 pages of EYFSP outcomes and governors should pay particular attention to the percentage reaching a good level of development (GLD), which is also presented as a three year trend against national figures.
One little quirk: on other pages of the IDSR, light blue bars indicate attainment of expected standards, and dark blue bars show attainment of higher standards. For EYFSP, light blue bars indicate the result for the whole cohort whilst dark blue bars are used for FSM pupils. FFT data is published earlier than other reports and is presented in a clear, accessible format, which makes it an attractive option for many schools.
FFT dashboards provide analysis of KS1 and KS2 data; they do not provide analysis of phonics or EYFSP. FFT compare results to national figures (attainment) but they also compare them to an estimated outcome based on pupils' start points (progress).
This means that a low prior attaining cohort may have results that are below national average, but above the estimated outcome (low attainment. High progress). Equally, a high prior attaining cohort may have results that are above national average but below the estimated outcome(high attainment, low progress). FFT provide trends for both progress and attainment (they have converted pre-2016 results into 'new money'), and indicate where results are significantly improving or declining, and where data is significantly above or below national average. Reports also show where the school ranks nationally for both attainment and progress.
The overview page is particularly useful for governors, with its clear 'speed dial' format and table showing higher and lower performing groups in each subject. The pupil groups page is also extremely valuable in that it ranks groups in order of progress from lowest to highest - using a combined reading and maths progress measure - and provides red and green indicators to show if any group's progress is significantly below or above average. This clarity is something that is missing from ASP. If your school has an FFT subscription, it's definitely worth taking a look at FFT dashboards.
Thank you for subscribing See our Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email Figures that many parents use to gauge which school their children should go to have been released by the Government. The results of Key Stage 2 – the first exam markers of how children are performing in the key elements of reading, writing and maths - have shown large differences between the best and worst performing primary schools in Essex. The highest rated school in Essex was Perryfields Junior School in, where 99 per cent of youngsters met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. It was followed by Holy Family Catholic Primary School, in Witham, where 96 per cent of youngsters met the expected standard and in third place came Hamilton Primary School, in Colchester where 95 per cent of youngsters met the expected standard. According to the Gov.UK website, pupils are 'meeting the expected standard' if they achieve a 'scaled score' of 100 or more in their reading and maths tests, and their teacher assesses them as 'working at the expected standard' or better in writing.
Mum taking her children to school in the snow Here, we will be analysing how all the Essex are faring - compared to each other and elsewhere in the country. At Quarry Hill Academy, in Thurrock, 93 per cent of pupils reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths in 2017.
As well as this 18 per cent of pupils at the school achieved a high score in reading and maths and working at greater depth in writing. Pupils at Little Parndon Primary School made the most progress locally in reading, with an average progress measure score of +10.3, and maths, with an average score of +7.7. The progress measures are calculated by taking the gap between a pupils expected scaled score for Key Stage 2, based on their Key Stage 1 results, and their actual scaled score for Key Stage 2, and then calculating an average for all of the pupils at the school. Pupils at Bulmer St Andrew’s Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School made the most progress locally in writing, with an average progress measure score of +7.1.
The average for Essex is that 65 per cent of students are meeting the key stage 2 expectations. Parents are given their child’s raw scores after the tests and told whether or not they are at the expected level. The reading and maths test scores are given on a scale of 80 to 120 - with a score of 100 or more meaning a pupil is meeting the expected standard. Writing is assessed by the children’s own teachers, who have to decide whether individual pupils are meeting or exceeding the expected standard.