This post provides a data-driven analysis of Level 6 (L6) performance at Key Stage 2, so as to:
- Marshall the published information and provide a commentary that properly reflects this bigger picture;
- Establish which data is not yet published but ought to be in the public domain;
- Provide a baseline against which to measure L6 performance in the 2014 SATs; and
- Initiate discussion about the likely impact of new tests for the full attainment span on the assessment and performance of the highest attainers, both before and after those tests are introduced in 2016.
Following an initial section highlighting key performance data across the three L6 tests – reading; grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS); and maths – the post undertakes a more detailed examination of L6 achievement in English, maths and science, taking in both teacher assessment and test outcomes.
It concludes with a summary of key findings reflecting the four purposes above.
Those who prefer not to read the substantive text can jump straight to the summary from here
I apologise in advance for any transcription errors and statistical shortcomings in the analysis below.
Relationship with previous posts
This discussion picks up themes explored in several previous posts.
In May 2013 I reviewed an Investigation of Level 6 Key Stage 2 Tests commissioned and published by in February that year by the Department for Education.
My overall assessment of that report?
‘A curate’s egg really. Positive and useful in a small way, not least in reminding us that primary-secondary transition for gifted learners remains problematic, but also a missed opportunity to flag up some other critical issues – and of course heavily overshadowed by the primary assessment consultation on the immediate horizon.’
The performance of the highest primary attainers also featured strongly in an analysis of the outcomes of NAHT’s Commission on Assessment (February 2014) and this parallel piece on the response to the consultation on primary assessment and accountability (April 2014).
The former offered the Commission two particularly pertinent recommendations, namely that it should:
‘shift from its narrow and ‘mildly accelerative’ view of high attainment to accommodate a richer concept that combines enrichment (breadth), extension (depth) and acceleration (faster pace) according to learners’ individual needs.’
Additionally it should:
‘incorporate a fourth ‘far exceeded’ assessment judgement, since the ‘exceeded’ judgement covers too wide a span of attainment.’
The latter discussed plans to discontinue L6 tests by introducing from 2016 single tests for the full attainment span at the end of KS2, from the top of the P-scales to a level the initial consultation document described as ‘at least of the standard of’ the current L6.
‘The task of designing an effective test for all levels of prior attainment at the end of key stage 2 is…fraught with difficulty…I have grave difficulty in understanding how such assessments can be optimal for high attainers and fear that this is bad assessment practice.’
Aspects of L6 performance also featured in a relatively brief review of High Attainment in 2013 Primary School Performance Tables (December 2013). This post expands significantly on the relevant data included in that one.
The new material is drawn from three principal sources:
- The 2013 Primary School Performance Tables (December 2013)
The recent history of L6 tests
Level 6 tests have a rather complex history. The footnotes to SFR 51/2013 simplify this considerably, noting that:
- L6 tests were initially available from 1995 to 2002
- In 2010 there was a L6 test for mathematics only
- Since 2012 there have been tests of reading and mathematics
- The GPS test was introduced in 2013.
In fact, the 2010 maths test was the culmination of an earlier QCDA pilot of single level tests. In that year the results from the pilot were reported as statutory National Curriculum test results in pilot schools.
In 2011 optional L6 tests were piloted in reading, writing and maths. These were not externally marked and the results were not published.
The June 2011 Bew Report came out in favour:
‘We believe that the Government should continue to provide level 6 National Curriculum Tests for schools to use on an optional basis, whose results should be reported to parents and secondary schools.’
Externally marked L6 tests were offered in reading and maths in 2012, alongside L6 teacher assessment in writing. The GPS test was added to the portfolio in the following year.
In 2012, ministers were talking up the tests describing them as:
‘…a central element in the Coalition’s drive to ensure that high ability children reach their potential. Nick Gibb, the schools minister, said: “Every child should be given the opportunity to achieve to the best of their abilities.
“These tests will ensure that the brightest pupils are stretched and standards are raised for all.”’
In 2012 the Primary Performance Tables used L6 results only in the calculation of ‘level 5+’, APS, value-added and progress measures, but this was not the case in 2013.
The Statement of Intent on the Tables said:
‘…the percentage of the number of children at the end of Key Stage 2 achieving level 6 in a school will also be shown in performance tables. The Department will not publish any information at school level about the numbers of children entered for the level 6 tests, or the percentage achieving level 6 of those entered for level 6.’
The nature of the test is unchanged for 2014: they took place on 12, 13 and 15 May respectively. This post is timed to coincide with their administration.
The KS2 ARA booklet continues to explain that:
‘Children entered for level 6 tests are required to take the levels 3-5 tests. Headteachers should consider a child’s expected attainment before registering them for the level 6 tests as they should be demonstrating attainment above level 5. Schools may register children for the level 6 tests and subsequently withdraw them.
The child must achieve a level 5 in the levels 3-5 test and pass the corresponding level 6 test in the same year in order to be awarded an overall level 6 result. If the child does not pass the level 6 test they will be awarded the level achieved in the levels 3-5 test.’
Anticipated future developments
At the time of writing the Government has not published a Statement of Intent explaining whether there will be any change in the reporting of L6 results in the December 2014 Primary School Performance Tables.
An accompanying Data Warehouse (aka Portal) is also under development and early iterations are expected to appear before the next set of Tables. The Portal will make available a wider range of performance data, some of it addressing high attainment.
The discussion in this post of material not yet in the public domain is designed in part as a marker to influence consideration of material for inclusion in the Portal.
As noted above, the Government has published its response to the consultation on primary assessment and accountability arrangements, confirming that new single assessments for the full attainment span will be introduced in 2016.
At the time of writing, there is no published information about the number of entries for the 2014 tests. (In 2013 these details were released in the reply to a Parliamentary Question.)
Entries had to be confirmed by March 2014, so it may be that the decision to replace the L6 tests, not confirmed until that same month, has not impacted negatively on demand. The effect on 2015 entries remains to be seen, but there is a real risk that these will be significantly depressed.
L6 tests are scheduled to be taken for the final time in May 2015. The reading and maths tests will have been in place for four consecutive years; the GPS test for three.
Under the new arrangements there will continue to be tests in reading, GSP and maths – plus a sampling test in science – as well as teacher assessment in reading, writing, maths and science.
KS2 test outcomes (but not teacher assessment) will be reported by means of a scaled score for each test, alongside three average scaled scores, for the school, the local area and nationally.
The original consultation document proposed that each scaled score would be built around a ‘secondary readiness standard’ loosely aligned with the current L4B, but converted into a score of 100.
The test development frameworks mention that:
‘at the extremes of the scaled score distribution, as is standard practice, the scores will be truncated such that above and below a certain point, all children will be awarded the same scaled score in order to minimise the effect for children at the ends of the distribution where the test is not measuring optimally.’
A full set of sample materials including tests and mark schemes for every test will be published by September 2015, the beginning of the academic year in which the new tests are first deployed.
The consultation document said these single tests would:
‘include challenging material (at least of the standard of the current level 6 test) which all pupils will have the opportunity to answer, without the need for a separate test’.
The development frameworks published on 31 March made it clear that the new tests should:
‘provide a suitable challenge for all children and give every child the opportunity to achieve as high a standard…as possible.’
‘In order to improve general accessibility for all children, where possible, questions will be placed in order of difficulty.’
These various and potentially conflicting statements informed the opinion I have already repeated.
The question then arises whether the Government’s U turn on separate tests for the highest attainers is in the latter’s best interests. There cannot be a continuation of L6 tests per se, because the system of levels that underpins it will no longer exist, but separate tests could in principle continue.
Even if the new universal tests provide equally valid and reliable judgements of their attainment – which is currently open to question – one might reasonably argue that the U turn itself may undermine continuity of provision and continued improvement in schools’ practice.
The fact that this practice needs substantive improvement is evidenced by Ofsted’s recent decision to strengthen the attention given to the attainment and progress of what they call ‘the most able’ in all school inspection reports.
L6 tests: Key Performance Data
Entry and success rates
As noted above, the information in the public domain about entry rates to L6 tests is incomplete.
The 2013 Investigation provides the number of pupils entered for each test in 2012. We do not have comparable data for 2013, but a PQ reply does supply the number of pupils registered for the tests in both 2012 and 2013. This can be supplemented by material in the 2013 SFR and the corresponding 2012 publication.
The available data is synthesised in this table showing for each year – and where available – the number registered for each test, the number entered, the total number of pupils achieving L6 and, of those, the number attending state-funded schools.
One can see that there are relatively small differences between the numbers of pupils registered and the number entered, so the former is a decent enough proxy for the latter. I shall use the former in the calculations immediately below.
It is also evident that the proportions of learners attending independent schools who achieve L6 are small though significant. But, given the incomplete data set for state-funded schools, I shall use the pass rate for all schools in the following calculations.
In sum then, in 2012, the pass rates per registered entry were:
- Reading – 2.0%
- Maths – 34.0%
And in 2013 they were:
- Reading – 3.1%
- GPS – 13.9%
- Maths – 43.4%
The pass rates in 2013 have improved significantly in both reading and maths, the former from a very low base. However, the proportion of learners successful in the L6 reading test remains extremely small.
The 2013 Investigation asserted, on the basis of the 2012 results, that:
‘The cost of supporting and administering a test for such a small proportion of the school population appears to outweigh the benefits’
However it did not publish any information about that cost.
It went on to suggest that there is a case for reviewing whether the L6 test is the most appropriate means to ‘identify a range of higher performing pupils, for example the top 10%’. The Government chose not to act on this suggestion.
Gender, ethnic background and disadvantage
The 2013 results demonstrate some very significant gender disparities, as revealed in Chart 1 below.
Girls account for 62% of successful pupils in GPS and a whopping 74% in reading, while boys account for 61% of successful pupils in maths. These imbalances raise important questions about whether gender differences in high attainment are really this pronounced, or whether there is significant underachievement amongst the under-represented gender in each case.
Chart 1: Number of pupils successful in 2013 L6 tests by gender
There are equally significant disparities in performance by ethnic background. Chart 2 below illustrates how the performance of three selected ethnic minority groups – white, Asian and Chinese – varies by test and gender.
It shows that pupils from Chinese backgrounds have a marked ascendancy in all three tests, while Asian pupils are ahead of white pupils in GPS and maths but not reading. Girls are ahead of boys within all three ethnic groups, girls leading in reading and GPS and boys leading in maths. Chinese girls comfortably out-perform white and Asian boys
Chinese pupils are way ahead in maths, with 29% overall achieving L6 and an astonishing 35% of Chinese boys achieving this outcome.
The reasons for this vast disparity are not explained and raise equally awkward questions about the distribution of high attainment and the incidence of underachievement.
Chart 2: Percentages of pupils successful in 2013 L6 tests by gender and selected ethnic background
There are also significant excellence gaps on each of the tests, though these are hard to visualise when working solely with percentages (pupil numbers have not been published).
The percentage variations are shown in the table below. This sets out the FSM gap and the disadvantaged gap, the latter being based on the ever-6 FSM measure that underpins the Pupil Premium.
These figures suggest that, while learners eligible for the Pupil Premium are demonstrating success on the maths test (and, for girls at least, on the GPS test too), they are over three times less likely to be successful than those from advantaged backgrounds. The impact of the Pupil Premium is therefore limited.
The gap between the two groups reaches as high as 7% for boys in maths. Although this is low by comparison with the corresponding gap at level 4, it is nonetheless significant. There is more about excellence gaps in maths below.
Schools achieving L6 success
Finally in this opening section, a comparison of schools achieving L6 success in the 2013 Primary School Performance Tables reveals different patterns for each test.
The table below shows how many schools secured different percentages of pupils at L6. The number of schools achieving 11-20% at L6 in the GPS test is over 20 times the number that achieved that outcome in reading. But over eight times more schools secured this outcome in maths than managed it in GPS.
No schools made it beyond 20% at L6 in reading and none pushed beyond 40% at L6 in GPS, but the outliers in maths managed well over 60% and even 70% returns.
There is also some evidence of schools being successful in more than one test.
Amongst the small sample of 28 schools that secured 41% or more L6s in maths, two also featured amongst the top 24 performers in reading and five amongst the top 24 performers in GSP.
The school with arguably the best record across all three tests is Christ Church Primary School in Hampstead, which secured 13% in reading, 21% in GPS and 46% in maths, from a KS2 cohort of 24. The FSM/Pupil Premium rates at the school are low but, nevertheless, this is an outstanding result.
The following sections look more closely at L6 test and teacher assessment results in each subject. Each section consists of a series of bullet points highlighting significant findings.
The evidence on performance on the L6 reading test is compromised to some extent by the tiny proportions of pupils that achieve it. However:
- 9,605 schools registered pupils for the 2013 L6 reading test, up 48% from 6,469 in 2012, and the number of pupils registered increased from 47,148 in 2012 to 73,118 in 2013, an increase of 55%.
- Of the 539,473 learners who undertook the 2013 KS2 reading tests, only 2,262 (about 0.42%) achieved L6. This figure includes some in independent schools; the comparable figure for state-funded schools only is 2,137, so 5.5% of L6s were secured in the independent sector.
- Of this first total – ie including pupils from independent schools – 1,670 were girls (0.63% of all girls who undertook the KS2 reading tests) and 592 were boys (0.21% of all boys who undertook the KS2 reading tests).
- These are significant improvements on the comparable 2012 figures which showed about 900 learners achieving L6, including 700 girls and 200 boys. (The figures were rounded in the SFR but the 2013 evaluation confirmed the actual number as 942). The overall percentage achieving L6 therefore increased by about 140% in 2013, compared with 2012. If we assume registration for L6 tests as a proxy for entry, this suggests that just over 3% of entrants passed in 2013.
- In state-funded schools only, the percentage of learners from a Chinese background entered for KS2 reading tests who achieved L6 reaches 2%, compared with 1% for those of mixed background and 0% for learners from white, Asian and black backgrounds.
- Amongst the defined sub-groups, learners of Irish, any other white, white and Asian and any other Asian backgrounds also make it to 1%. All the remainder are at 0%.
- The same is true of EAL learners and native English speakers, FSM-eligible and disadvantaged learners, making worthwhile comparisons almost impossible.
- The 2013 transition matrices show that 12% of learners who had achieved L4 at the end of KS1 went on to achieve L6, while 1% of those who had achieved L3 did so. Hence the vast majority of those at L4 in KS1 did not make two levels of progress.
- Progression data in the SFR shows that, of the 2,137 learners achieving L6 in state funded schools, 2,047 were at L3 or above at KS1, 77 were at L2A, 10 were at L2B and 3 were at L2C. Of the total population at KS1 L3 or above, 1.8% progressed to L6.
- Regional and local authority breakdowns are given only as percentages, of limited value for comparative purposes because they are so small. Only London and the South East record 1% at L6 overall, with all the remaining regions at 0%. Only one local authority – Richmond upon Thames – reaches 2%.
- However 1% of girls reach L6 in all regions apart from Yorkshire and Humberside and a few more authorities record 2% of girls at L6: Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston, Richmond and Solihull.
- The 2013 Primary School Performance Tables show that some 12,700 schools recorded no learners achieving L6.
- At the other end of the spectrum, 36 schools recorded 10% or more of their KS2 cohort achieving L6. Four of these recorded 15% or higher:
Iford and Kingston C of E Primary School, East Sussex (19%; cohort of 21).
Emmanuel C of E Primary School, Camden (17%; cohort of 12).
Goosnargh Whitechapel Primary School, Lancashire (17%; cohort of 6).
High Beech C of E VC Primary School, Essex (15%; cohort of 13).
There is relatively little data about teacher assessment outcomes.
- The total number of pupils in all schools achieving L6 in reading TA in 2013 is 15,864 from a cohort of 539,729 (2.94%). This is over seven times as many as achieved L6 in the comparable test (whereas in maths the figures are very similar). It would be useful to know how many pupils achieved L6 in TA, were entered for the test and did not succeed.
- The number of successful girls is 10,166 (3.85% of females assessed) and the number of boys achieving L6 is 5,698 (2.06% of males assessed). Hence the gap between girls and boys is far narrower on TA than it is on the corresponding test.
- Within the 2013 Performance Tables, eight schools recorded 50% or more of their pupils at L6, the top performer being Peppard Church of England Primary School, Oxfordshire, which reached 83% (five from a cohort of six).
Writing (including GPS)
The L6 Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling (GPS) test was newly introduced in 2013. This is what we know from the published data:
- The number of schools that registered for the test was 7,870, almost 2,000 fewer than registered for the reading test. The number of pupil registrations was 61,883, over 12,000 fewer than for reading.
- The total number of successful learners is 8,606, from a total of 539,438 learners assessed at KS2, including those in independent schools taking the tests, giving an actual percentage of 1.6%. As far as I can establish, a comparable figure for state-funded schools is not available.
- As with reading, there are significant differences between boys and girls. There were 5,373 successful girls (2.04% of girls entered for KS2 GPS tests) and 3,233 successful boys (1.17% of boys entered for KS2 GPS). This imbalance in favour of girls is significant, but not nearly as pronounced as in the reading test.
- The proportion of pupil registrations for the L6 GPS test resulting in L6 success is around one in seven (13.9%) well over four times as high as for reading.
- The ethnic breakdown in state-funded schools shows that Chinese learners are again in the ascendancy. Overall, 7% of pupils from a Chinese background achieved L6, compared with 1% white, 2% mixed, 2% Asian and 1% black.
- Chart 3 below shows how L6 achievement in GPS varies between ethnic sub-groups. Indian pupils reach 4% while white and Asian pupils score 3%, as do pupils from any other Asian background.
Chart 3: 2013 GPS L6 performance by ethnic sub-groups
- When gender differences are taken into account, Chinese girls are at 8% (compared with boys at 7%), ahead of Indian girls at 5% (boys 3%), white and Asian girls at 4% (boys 3%) and any other Asian girls also at 4% (boys 3%). The ascendancy of Chinese girls over boys from any other ethnic background is particularly noteworthy and replicates the situation in maths (see below).
- Interestingly, EAL learners and learners with English as a native language both record 2% at L6. Although these figures are rounded, it suggests that exceptional performance in this aspect of English does not correlate with being a native speaker.
- FSM-eligible learners register 0%, compared with 2% for those not eligible. However, disadvantaged learners are at 1% and non-disadvantaged 2% (Disadvantaged boys are at 0% and non-disadvantaged girls at 3%). Without knowing the numbers involved we can draw few reliable conclusions from this data.
- Chart 4 below gives illustrates the regional breakdown for boys, girls and both genders. At regional level, London reaches 3% success overall, with both the South East and Eastern regions at 2% and all other regions at 1%. Girls record 2% in every region apart from the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. Only in London do boys reach 2%.
Chart 4: 2013 L6 GPS outcomes by gender and region
- At local authority level the highest scoring are Richmond (7%); the Isles of Scilly (6%); Kingston and Sutton (5%); and Harrow, Hillingdon and Wokingham (4%).
- The School Performance Tables reveal that some 10,200 schools posted no L6 results while, at the other extreme, 34 schools recorded 20% or more of their KS2 cohort at L6 and 463 schools managed 10% or above. The best records were achieved by:
St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Southwark (38%; cohort of 24).
The Vineyard School, Richmond (38%; cohort of 56).
Cartmel C of E Primary School, (29%; cohort of 7) and
Greystoke School, (29%; cohort of 7).
When it comes to teacher assessment:
- 8,410 learners from both state and independent schools out of a total of 539,732 assessed (1.56%) were judged to be at L6 in writing. The total figure for state-funded schools is 7,877 pupils. This is very close to the number successful in the L6 GPS test, even though the focus is somewhat different.
- Of these, 5,549 are girls (2.1% of the total cohort) and 2,861 boys (1.04% of the total cohort). Hence the imbalance in favour of girls is more pronounced in writing TA than in the GPS test, whereas the reverse is true for reading.
- About 5% of learners from Chinese backgrounds achieve L6, as do 3% of white Asian and 3% of Irish pupils.
- The 2013 transition matrices record progression in writing TA, rather than in the GSP test. They show that 61% of those assessed at L4 at KS1 go on to achieve L6, so only 6 out of 10 are making the expected minimum two levels of progress. On the other hand, some 9% of those with KS1 L3 go on to achieve L6, as do 2% of those at L2A.
- The SFR provides further progression data – again based on the TA outcomes – for state-funded schools only. It shows us that one pupil working towards L1 at KS1 went on to achieve L6 at KS2, as did 11 at L1, 54 at L2C, 393 at L2B, 1,724 at L2A and 5,694 at L3 or above. Hence some pupils are making five or more levels of progress.
- The regional breakdown – this time including independent schools – gives the East Midlands, West Midlands, London and the South West at 2%, with all the rest at 1%. At local authority level, the best performers are: City of London at 10%; Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea and Richmond at 5% and Windsor and Maidenhead at 4%.
- The Performance Tables record some 20 schools achieving success rates at 30% or higher, the top performing being Newton Farm Nursery, Infant and Junior School in Harrow which achieved 63% from a cohort of 30.
There is additionally a little information about pupils achieving L6 across the subject:
- The SFR confirms that 8,087 pupils (1.5%) were assessed at L6 in English, including 5,244 girls (1.99% of all girls entered) and 2,843 boys (1.03% of all boys entered). These figures are for all schools, including independent schools.
- There is a regional breakdown showing the East and West Midlands, London and the South West at 2%, with all the remainder at 1%. Amongst local authorities, the strongest performers are City of London (10%); and Bristol, Greenwich, Hackney, Richmond, Windsor and Maidenhead (4%). The exceptional performance of Bristol, Greenwich and Hackney is noteworthy.
- In the Performance Tables, 27 schools record 30% or more pupils at L6 across English, the top performer again being Newton Farm, at 60%.
L6 performance in maths is more common than in other tests and subjects and the higher percentages generated typically result in more meaningful comparisons.
- The number of school registrations for L6 maths in 2013 was 11,369, up almost 40% from 8,130 in 2012. The number of pupil registrations was 80,925, up some 45% from 55,809 in 2012.
- The number of successful pupils – in both independent and state schools – was 35,137 (6.51% of all entrants). The gender imbalance in reading and GPS is reversed, with 21,388 boys at this level (7.75% of males entered for the overall KS2 test) compared with 13,749 girls (5.22% of females entered for the test). The SFR gives a total for state-funded schools of 33,202 pupils, so some 5.5% of Level 6s were achieved in independent schools.
- Compared with 2012, the numbers of successful pupils has increased from 18,953. This represents an increase of 85%, not as huge as the increase for reading but a very substantial increase nevertheless.
- The number of successful girls has risen by some 108% from 6,600 (rounded) and the number of successful boys by about 72%, from 12,400 (rounded), so the improvement in girls’ success is markedly larger than the corresponding improvement for boys.
- Assuming L6 test registration as a proxy for entry, the success rate in 2013 is around 43.4%, massively better than for reading (3%) and GPS (13.9%). The corresponding success rate in 2012 was around 34%. (Slightly different results would be obtained if one used actual entry rates and passes for state schools only, but we do not have these figures for both years.)
- The breakdown in state-funded schools for the main ethnic groups by gender is illustrated by Chart 5 below. This shows how performance by boys and girls varies according to whether they are white ( W), mixed (M), Asian (A), black (B) or Chinese (C). It also compares the outcomes in 2012 and 2013. The superior performance of Chinese learners is evident, with Chinese boys reaching a staggering 35% success rate in 2013. As things stand, Chinese boys are almost nine times more likely to achieve L6 than black girls.
- Chart 5 also shows that none of the gender or ethnic patterns has changed between 2012 and 2013, but some groups are making faster progress, albeit from a low base. This is especially true of white girls, black boys and, to a slightly lesser extent, Asian girls.
- Chinese girls and boys have improved at roughly the same rate and black boys have progressed faster than black girls but, in the remaining three groups, girls are improving at a faster rate than boys.
Chart 5: L6 Maths test by main ethnic groups and gender
- Amongst sub-groups, not included on this table, the highest performing are: any other Asian background 15%, Indian 14%, white and Asian 11% and Irish 10%. Figures for Gypsy/Roma and any other white background are suppressed, while travellers of Irish heritage are at 0%, black Caribbean at 2% and any other black background at 3%. In these latter cases, the differential with Chinese performance is huge.
- EAL learners record a 7% success rate, compared with 6% for native English language speakers, an improvement on the level pegging recorded for GPS. This gap widens to 2% for boys – 9% versus 7% in favour of EAL, whereas for girls it is 1% – 6% versus 5% in favour of EAL. The advantage enjoyed by EAL learners was also evident in 2012.
- The table below shows the position for FSM and disadvantaged learners by gender, and how this has changed since 2012.
|FSM boys||Non FSM boys||Gap||Dis boys||Non dis boys||Gap|
|FSM girls||Non FSM girls||Gap||Dis girls||Non dis girls||Gap|
|FSM all||Non FSM all||Gap||Dis all||Non dis all||Gap|
- This shows that the gap between FSM and non-FSM and between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged has grown – for boys, girls and the groups as a whole – between 2012 and 2013. All the gaps have increased by 2% or 3%, with higher gaps between disadvantaged and advantaged girls and for disadvantaged boys and girls together, compared with their more advantaged peers.
- The gaps are all between 2% and 7%, so not large compared with those lower down the attainment spectrum, but the fact that they are widening is a significant cause for concern, suggesting that Pupil Premium funding is not having an impact at L6 in maths.
- The Transition Matrices show that 89% of learners assessed at L4 in KS1 went on to achieve L6, while 26% of those with L3 at KS1 did so, as did 4% of those with L2A and 1% of those with L2B. Hence a noticeable minority is making four levels of progress.
- The progression data in the SFR, relating to state-funded schools, show that one pupil made it from W at KS1 to L6, while 8 had L1, 82 had 2C, 751 had 2B, 4,983 had 2A and 27,377 had L3. Once again, a small minority of learners is making four or five levels of progress.
- At regional level, the breakdown is: NE 6%, NW 6%, Y+H 5%, EM 6%, WM 6%, E 6%, London 9%, SE 7% and SW 6%. So London has a clear lead in respect of the proportion of its learners achieving L6.
- The local authorities leading the rankings are: City of London 24%, Richmond 19%, Isles of Scilly 17%, Harrow and Kingston 15%, Trafford and Sutton 14%. No real surprises there!
- The Performance Tables show 33 schools achieved 40% or higher on this measure. Eight schools were at 50% or above. The best performing schools were:
St Oswald’s C of E Aided Primary School, Cheshire West and Chester (75%; cohort 8)
St Joseph’s Roman Catholic Primary School, Hurst Green, Lancashire (71%; cohort 7)
Haselor School, Warwickshire (67%; cohort 6).
- Some of the schools achieving 50% were significantly larger, notably Bowdon C of E Primary School, Trafford, which had a KS2 cohort of 60.
The data available on maths TA is more limited:
- Including pupils at independent schools, a total of 33,668 were assessed at L6 in maths (6.24% of all KS2 candidates). This included 20,336 boys (7.37% of all male KS2 candidates) and 13,332 girls (5.06% of all female candidates). The number achieving L6 maths TA is slightly lower than the corresponding number achieving L6 in the test.
- The regional breakdown was as follows: NE 5%; NW 5%; Y+H 5%; EM 5%, WM 6%; E 6%, London 8%; SE 7%, SW 6%, so London’s ascendancy is not as significant as in the test.
- The strongest local authority performers are: City of London 24%; Harrow and Richmond 15%; Sutton 14%; Trafford 13%; Solihull and Bromley 12%.
- In the Performance Tables, 63 schools recorded 40% or higher on this measure, 15 of them at 50% or higher. The top performer was St Oswald’s C of E Aided Primary School (see above) with 88%.
Science data is confined to teacher assessment outcomes.
- A total of just 1,633 pupils achieved L6 in 2013, equivalent to 0.3% of the KS2 science cohort. Of these, 1,029 were boys (0.37%) and 604 were girls (0.23%), suggesting a gender imbalance broadly similar to that in maths.
- No regions and only a handful of local authorities recorded a success rate of 1%.
- In the Performance Tables, 31 schools managed 20% or higher and seven schools were above 30%. The best performing were:
Newton Farm (see above) (50%; cohort 30)
Hunsdon Junior Mixed and Infant School, Hertfordshire (40%; cohort 10)
Etchingham Church of England Primary School, East Sussex (38%; cohort 16)
St Benedict’s Roman Catholic Primary School Ampleforth, North Yorkshire (36%; cohort 14).
Key findings from this data analysis
I will not repeat again all of the significant points highlighted above, but these seem particularly worthy of attention and further analysis:
- The huge variation in success rates for the three L6 tests. The proportion of learners achieving L6 in the reading test is improving at a faster rate than in maths, but from a very low base. It remains unacceptably low, is significantly out of kilter with the TA results for L6 reading and – unless there has been a major improvement in 2014 – is likely to stay depressed for the limited remaining lifetime of the test.
- In the tests, 74% of those successful in reading are girls, 62% of those successful in GPS are girls and 61% of those successful in maths are boys. In reading there are also interesting disparities between gender distribution at L6 in the test and in teacher assessment. Can these differences be attributed solely to gender distinctions or is there significant gender-related underachievement at the top of the attainment distribution? If so, how can this be addressed?
- There are also big variations in performance by ethnic background. Chinese learners in particular are hugely successful, especially in maths. In 2013, Chinese girls outscored significantly boys from all other backgrounds, while an astonishing 35% of Chinese boys achieved L6. This raises important questions about the distribution of high attainment, the incidence of underachievement and how the interaction between gender and ethnic background impacts on these.
- There are almost certainly significant excellence gaps in performance on all three tests (ie between advantaged and disadvantaged learners), though in reading and GPS these are masked by the absence of numerical data. In maths we can see that the gaps are not as large as those lower down the attainment spectrum, but they widened significantly in 2013 compared with 2012. This suggests that the impact of the Pupil Premium on the performance of the highest attainers from disadvantaged backgrounds is extremely limited. What can and should be done to address this issue?
- EAL learners perform equally as well as their counterparts in the GPS test and even better in maths. This raises interesting questions about the relationship between language acquisition and mathematical performance and, even more intriguingly, the relationship between language acquisition and skill in manipulating language in its written form. Further analysis of why EAL learners are so successful may provide helpful clues that would improve L6 teaching for all learners.
- Schools are recording very different success rates in each of the tests. Some schools that secure very high L6 success rates in one test fail to do so in the others, but a handful of schools are strong performers across all three tests. We should know more than we do about the characteristics and practices of these highly successful schools.
Significant gaps in the data
A data portal to underpin the School Performance Tables is under construction. There have been indications that it will contain material about high attainers’ performance but, while levels continue to be used in the Tables, this should include comprehensive coverage of L6 performance, as well as addressing the achievement of high attainers as they are defined for Performance Table purposes (a much broader subset of learners).
Subject to the need to suppress small numbers for data protection purposes, the portal might reasonably include, in addition to the data currently available:
- For each test and TA, numbers of registrations, entries and successful pupils from FSM and disadvantaged backgrounds respectively, including analysis by gender and ethnic background, both separately and combined. All the data below should also be available for these subsets of the population.
- Registrations and entries for each L6 test, for every year in which the tests have been administered, showing separately rates for state-funded and all schools and rates for different types of state-funded school.
- Cross-referencing of L6 test and TA performance, to show how many learners are successful in one, the other and both – as well as how many learners achieve L6 on more than one test and/or TA and different combinations of assessments.
- Numbers of pupils successful in each test and TA by region and LA, as well as regional breakdowns of the data above and below.
- Trends in this data across all the years in which the tests and TA have been administered.
- The annual cost of developing and administering each of the L6 tests so we can make a judgement about value for money.
It would also be helpful to produce case studies of schools that are especially successful in maximising L6 performance, especially for under-represented groups.
The impact of the new tests pre- and post-2016
We do not yet know whether the announcement that L6 tests will disappear after 2015 has depressed registration, entry and success rates in 2014. This is more likely in 2015, since the 2014 registration deadline and the response to the primary assessment and accountability consultation were broadly co-terminous.
All the signs are that the accountability regime will continue to focus some attention on the performance of high attainers:
- Ofsted is placing renewed emphasis on the attainment and progress of the ‘most able’ in school inspection, though they have a broad conceptualisation of that term and may not necessarily highlight L6 achievement.
- From 2016, schools will be required to publish ‘the percentage of pupils who achieve a high score in all areas at the end of key stage 2.’ But we do not know whether this means publishing separately the percentage of pupils achieving high scores in each area, or only the percentage of pupils achieving high scores across all areas. Nor do we know what will count as a high score for these purposes.
- There were commitments in the original primary assessment and accountability consultation document to inclusion of measures in the Primary Performance Tables setting out:
‘How many of a school’s pupils are amongst the highest attaining nationally, by showing the percentage of pupils achieving a high scaled score in each subject.’
but these were not repeated in the consultation response.
In short, there are several unanswered questions and some cause to doubt the extent to which Level 6-equivalent performance will continue to be a priority. The removal of L6 tests could therefore reduce significantly the attention primary schools give to their highest attainers.
Moreover, questions remain over the suitability of the new tests for these highest attainers. These may possibly be overcome but there is considerable cause for concern.
It is quite conceivable that the test developers will not be able to accommodate effective assessment of L6 performance within single tests as planned.
If that is the case, the Government faces a choice between perpetuating separate tests, or the effective relegation of the assessment of the highest attainers to teacher assessment alone.
Such a decision would almost certainly need to be taken on this side of a General Election. But of course it need not be binding on the successor administration. Labour has made no commitments about support for high attainers, which suggests they will not be a priority for them should they form the next Government.
The recently published Assessment Principles are intended to underpin effective assessment systems within schools. They state that such systems:
‘Differentiate attainment between pupils of different abilities, giving early recognition of pupils who are falling behind and those who are excelling.’
This lends welcome support to the recommendations I offered to NAHT’s Commission on Assessment
But the national system for assessment and accountability has an equally strong responsibility to differentiate throughout the attainment spectrum and to recognise the achievement of those who excel.
As things stand, there must be some doubt whether it will do so.
On 19 May 2014 two newspapers helpfully provided the entry figures for the 2014 L6 tests. These are included in the chart below.
It is clear that entries to all three tests held up well in 2014 and, as predicted, numbers have not yet been depressed as a consequence of the decision to drop L6 tests after 2015.
The corresponding figures for the numbers of schools entering learners for each test have not been released, so we do not know to what extent the increase is driven by new schools signing up, as opposed to schools with previous entries increasing the numbers they enter.
This additional information makes it easier to project approximate trends into 2015, so we shall be able to tell next year whether the change of assessment policy will cause entry rates to tail off.
- Entries for the L6 reading test were 49% up in 2013 and 36% up in 2014. Assuming the rate of increase in 2015 falls to 23% (ie again 13% down on the previous year), there would be some 117,000 entries in 2015.
- Entries for the L6 maths test were 41% up in 2013 and 36% up in 2014. Assuming the rate of increase in 2015 falls to 31% (ie again 5% down on the previous year), there would be around 139,000 entries in 2015.
- GPS is more problematic because we have only two years on which to base the trend. If we assume that the rate of increase in entries will fall somewhere between the rate for maths and the rate for reading in 2014 (their second year of operation) there would be somewhere between 126,000 and 133,000 entries in 2015 – so approximately 130,000 entries.
It is almost certainly a projection too far to estimate the 2014 pass rates on the basis of the 2014 entry rates, so I will resist the temptation. Nevertheless, we ought to expect continued improvement at broadly commensurate rates.
The press stories include a Government ‘line to take’ on the L6 tests.
In the Telegraph, this is:
‘Want to see every school stretching all their pupils and these figures show that primary schools have embraced the opportunity to stretch their brightest 11-year-olds.’
‘This is part of a package of measures – along with toughening up existing primary school tests, raising the bar and introducing higher floor standards – that will raise standards and help ensure all children arrive at secondary school ready to thrive.’
In the Mail it is:
‘We brought back these tests because we wanted to give teachers the chance to set high aspirations for pupils in literacy and numeracy.’
‘We want to see every school stretching all their pupils. These figures show that primary schools have embraced the opportunity to stretch their brightest 11-year-olds by teaching them more demanding new material, in line with the new curriculum, and by entering them for the Level 6 test.’
There is additionally confirmation in the Telegraph article that ‘challenging material currently seen in the level 6 exams would be incorporated into all SATs tests’ when the new universal assessments are introduced, but nothing about the test development difficulties that this presents.
But each piece attributed this welcome statement to Mr Gove:
‘It is plain wrong to set a ceiling on the talents of the very brightest pupils and let them drift in class.’
‘Letting teachers offer level 6 tests means that the most talented children will be fully stretched and start secondary school razor sharp.’
Can we read into that a commitment to ensure that the new system – including curriculum, assessment, qualifications, accountability and (critically) Pupil Premium support for the disadvantaged – is designed in a joined up fashion to meet the needs of ‘the very brightest pupils’?
I wonder if Mr Hunt feels able to follow suit.