The document discusses findings from the 2014-15 examination series in England, highlighting data-informed school improvements and changes in accountability standards for Key Stage 2 (KS2) and Key Stage 4 (KS4). It provides statistical observations about pupil achievement trends, including improvements in progress measures and grade boundaries, while noting the impact of policies like the 'raise the participation age' on educational outcomes. Additionally, it mentions forthcoming changes to GCSE grading systems and performance measures aimed at enhancing comparability and supporting student progress.

1. From Raising the Floor to Raising the Ceiling
Whole Education 6th Annual Conference
Twitter | @WholeEducation
#Seizingtheagenda
Establishing a shared vision for school
improvement
Seizing the Agenda

2. Being Data Informed and
Measuring what we Value
Phil Bourne
Director of School and Academy Compliance
https://www.schooldata.org.uk

3. What are we going to explore…
• What have we learnt from the 2014-15
examination series?
• What did we learn about groups of schools and
the network?
• What do we know about the new standards and
accountability (KS2 and KS4)?
• How are we going to be monitored – challenges
&/ opportunities?
• How might we look at information differently to
support our students in a new world (PASS)?

4. KS4 2015, Statistical First Release, DFE, October 2015
Percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C including English and maths
England, all schools, 1996-2015

5. KS2- What our schools reported?
6% improvement
to 85% L4+RWM
50% of schools
reported 100% in
at least one
progress measure
The reported
attainment gap is
6% less than in
2013-14
12 schools included – further analysis will be made following the amended data release

6. KS4- What our schools reported?
No significant
change in threshold:
60% 5+A*-C inc E&M
Out of the total
cohort entered for E-
BAC (37%), 72%
attained C or above
in all components.
There has been a 8
percentage point
improvement in
Mathematics
progress
17 schools included – further analysis will be made following the amended data release
The provisional data release shows that the network performed inline with that observed nationally

7. What happened in the 2014-15 series?
• 2014-15 compared to 2013-14 was reported as a stable year
(OfQUAL, JCQ) Headline attainment up 0.2pp; E-BACC entry
declined by 0.1% (38.6%) and attainment remained the same
(23.9%) for state-funded;
• Many schools reported unexpected outcomes as a result of EdExcel
Mathematics and those grade boundaries;
• The ‘raise the participation age’ policy required previous leavers to
remain in some form of education or training for longer. OfQUAL via
DFE: Entries for mathematics have increased, largely as a result of
more post-16 students;
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/summer-2015-gcse-results-a-brief-explanation
• iGCSE entries increased by over 80,000 (source: ASCL) and lots of
unexpected results (Impact of comparable versus actual outcomes -
lets think about this one given what we know from above!).
• Schools who had opted in to P8 had their results shared in the
Provisional data release.

8. EdExcel Mathematics (grade boundaries)
46 marks required in November 2012 (23% of all marks).
June 2016, 65 marks required (32.5%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mar-12 Jun-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Nov-13 Jun-14 Nov-14 Jun-15
EdExcel Mathema cs: Higher Tier
(Marks required to a ain C grade threshold)
Grade boundaries
influenced by:
• the requirement for all
students to continue with
GCSE Mathematics post-16 if
they have not already
achieved a grade C
• significant increase in the
number of entries (look back
to November 2012)
What lesson will informed school leaders learn from this?

9. What do we need to think about in terms of
Grade Boundaries and Comparable outcomes?
“The key principle of Ofqual’s comparable
outcomes approach is that if the group of
students taking exams this year are of a
similar ability to students taking the exams
last year, the total number of students
getting each overall grade should be roughly
the same”
The boundaries are therefore impacted by
the known population (this cannot include
those who are not known – new P16 and
their resits, adult learners etc.) The rates of
historic improvements observed in the past
are likely to be historical.
Significant changes in the population may
have also caused challenges in
comparability. Even though the end result
was one of apparent stability.
Source: EdExcel: http://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-topics/results-certification/understanding-marks-and-grades.html

10. All schools (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014 - 2015
-35% TO -25.01% 47 [1.1%] 10 [0.3%]
-25% TO -15.01% 316 [7.4%] 99 [3.1%]
-15% TO -5.01% 1054 [24.7%] 681 [21.1%]
-5% TO +5% 2035 [47.6%] 1665 [51.6%]
5.01% TO 15% 464 [10.9%] 648 [20.1%]
15.01% TO 25% 74 [1.7%] 100 [3.1%]
25.01% TO 35% 22 [0.5%] 9 [0.3%]
Number of schools mapped above 4012 3212
Number of schools included 4273 3227
All academies (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014-2015
-35% TO -25.01% 17 [1%] 4 [0.2%]
-25% TO -15.01% 126 [7.7%] 55 [3.3%]
-15% TO -5.01% 495 [30.1%] 370 [22.5%]
-5% TO +5% 722 [43.9%] 777 [47.3%]
5.01% TO 15% 180 [11%] 371 [22.6%]
15.01% TO 25% 20 [1.2%] 51 [3.1%]
25.01% TO 35% 10 [0.6%] 5 [0.3%]
Number of schools mapped above 1570 1633
Number of schools included 1643 1643
Sponsored academies (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014-2015
-35% TO -25.01% 10 [2.3%]
-25% TO -15.01% 45 [10.2%] 26 [5.9%]
-15% TO -5.01% 142 [32.1%] 128 [28.9%]
-5% TO +5% 135 [30.5%] 170 [38.4%]
5.01% TO 15% 33 [7.4%] 95 [21.4%]
15.01% TO 25% 4 [0.9%] 20 [4.5%]
25.01% TO 35% 16 [3.6%] 2 [0.5%]
Number of schools mapped above 375 441
Number of schools included 443 443
Less significant and more even change in
outcomes for all schools when compared
together (Greater stability)
Distribution of outcome residual for
comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15 is almost
perfect for all academies and is significantly
better than compared to what happened if
you compare 2012-13 and 2013-14 (Greater
stability)
Distribution of outcome residual for
comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15 is not so
perfect for all sponsored academies [the
range for -15% and -5.01% is not equal to its
opposite]. Without further information the
greater stability argument requires further
investigation to identify if this applies for all
school types and characteristics.
Stability in the 2014-15 series?
Comparing differences in outcomes over time by individual schools
(because we were told not to!)

11. All schools (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014 - 2015
-35% TO -25.01% 47 [1.1%] 10 [0.3%]
-25% TO -15.01% 316 [7.4%] 99 [3.1%]
-15% TO -5.01% 1054 [24.7%] 681 [21.1%]
-5% TO +5% 2035 [47.6%] 1665 [51.6%]
5.01% TO 15% 464 [10.9%] 648 [20.1%]
15.01% TO 25% 74 [1.7%] 100 [3.1%]
25.01% TO 35% 22 [0.5%] 9 [0.3%]
Number of schools mapped above 4012 3212
Number of schools included 4273 3227
All academies (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014-2015
-35% TO -25.01% 17 [1%] 4 [0.2%]
-25% TO -15.01% 126 [7.7%] 55 [3.3%]
-15% TO -5.01% 495 [30.1%] 370 [22.5%]
-5% TO +5% 722 [43.9%] 777 [47.3%]
5.01% TO 15% 180 [11%] 371 [22.6%]
15.01% TO 25% 20 [1.2%] 51 [3.1%]
25.01% TO 35% 10 [0.6%] 5 [0.3%]
Number of schools mapped above 1570 1633
Number of schools included 1643 1643
Sponsored academies (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014-2015
-35% TO -25.01% 10 [2.3%]
-25% TO -15.01% 45 [10.2%] 26 [5.9%]
-15% TO -5.01% 142 [32.1%] 128 [28.9%]
-5% TO +5% 135 [30.5%] 170 [38.4%]
5.01% TO 15% 33 [7.4%] 95 [21.4%]
15.01% TO 25% 4 [0.9%] 20 [4.5%]
25.01% TO 35% 16 [3.6%] 2 [0.5%]
Number of schools mapped above 375 441
Number of schools included 443 443
Less significant and more even change in
outcomes for all schools when compared
together (Greater stability)
Distribution of outcome residual for
comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15 is almost
perfect for all academies and is significantly
better than compared to what happened if
you compare 2012-13 and 2013-14 (Greater
stability)
Distribution of outcome residual for
comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15 is not so
perfect for all sponsored academies [the
range for -15% and -5.01% is not equal to its
opposite]. Without further information the
greater stability argument requires further
investigation to identify if this applies for all
school types and characteristics.
Stability in the 2014-15 series?
Comparing differences in outcomes over time by individual schools
(because we were told not to!)

12. All schools (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014 - 2015
-35% TO -25.01% 47 [1.1%] 10 [0.3%]
-25% TO -15.01% 316 [7.4%] 99 [3.1%]
-15% TO -5.01% 1054 [24.7%] 681 [21.1%]
-5% TO +5% 2035 [47.6%] 1665 [51.6%]
5.01% TO 15% 464 [10.9%] 648 [20.1%]
15.01% TO 25% 74 [1.7%] 100 [3.1%]
25.01% TO 35% 22 [0.5%] 9 [0.3%]
Number of schools mapped above 4012 3212
Number of schools included 4273 3227
All academies (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014-2015
-35% TO -25.01% 17 [1%] 4 [0.2%]
-25% TO -15.01% 126 [7.7%] 55 [3.3%]
-15% TO -5.01% 495 [30.1%] 370 [22.5%]
-5% TO +5% 722 [43.9%] 777 [47.3%]
5.01% TO 15% 180 [11%] 371 [22.6%]
15.01% TO 25% 20 [1.2%] 51 [3.1%]
25.01% TO 35% 10 [0.6%] 5 [0.3%]
Number of schools mapped above 1570 1633
Number of schools included 1643 1643
Sponsored academies (Difference)
2012-2013 to
2013 - 2014
2013-2014 to
2014-2015
-35% TO -25.01% 10 [2.3%]
-25% TO -15.01% 45 [10.2%] 26 [5.9%]
-15% TO -5.01% 142 [32.1%] 128 [28.9%]
-5% TO +5% 135 [30.5%] 170 [38.4%]
5.01% TO 15% 33 [7.4%] 95 [21.4%]
15.01% TO 25% 4 [0.9%] 20 [4.5%]
25.01% TO 35% 16 [3.6%] 2 [0.5%]
Number of schools mapped above 375 441
Number of schools included 443 443
Less significant and more even change in
outcomes for all schools when compared
together (Greater stability)
Distribution of outcome residual for
comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15 is almost
perfect for all academies and is significantly
better than compared to what happened if
you compare 2012-13 and 2013-14 (Greater
stability)
Distribution of outcome residual for
comparing 2013-14 with 2014-15 is not so
perfect for all sponsored academies [the
range for -15% and -5.01% is not equal to its
opposite]. Without further information the
greater stability argument requires further
investigation to identify if this applies for all
school types and characteristics.
Stability in the 2014-15 series?
Comparing differences in outcomes over time by individual schools
(because we were told not to!)

13. Brave new world

14. KS2 Progress Measures
• Progress measures in 2016 will work in a similar way to
current primary value-added measures or Progress 8 in
secondary schools. A school’s score will be calculated
by comparing their pupils’ KS2 results against those of
all pupils nationally who had similar starting points.
• Pupils will be assigned to prior attainment groups
based on their KS1 results.
• The department will confirm what score a school would
need to get to have made ‘sufficient progress’ after the
tests have been sat next summer.

15. And P8… what does this mean?
• In 2017, new GCSE qualifications in
English and mathematics, graded 1-9,
will be included in performance
tables, with others to follow in 2018
and 2019.
• Points will be allocated to the new
GCSEs on a 1-9 point scale
corresponding to the new 1 to 9
grades, e.g. a grade 9 will get 9
points in the performance measures.
• To minimise change, unreformed
GCSEs and all other qualifications will
be mapped onto the 1-9 scale from
2017, rather than mapping new
GCSEs onto the 1-8 scale and moving
to 1-9 when unreformed GCSEs are
no longer available.
Which students and schools may benefit the most from this?

16. Have they been a little rushed?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/2016-key-stage-2-assessment-and-reporting-arrangements-ara

17. Writing- Towards a new standard

18. Writing- Towards a new standard

19. Writing- Towards a new standard

20. Writing- Towards a new standard
• The similarities between
the current expected
standard and the
specimen specification for
a upper 4 are quite
illuminating.
• The specimen
specification is yet to be
approved.

21. It is the profession who need to shape the answers

22. Do you know how well others
schools are doing with a similar
intake and are you using this
knowledge to challenge
expectations?

23. Benchmarking:
What might the network value?

24. What will stakeholders want/ need?
Good criteria
• Pupils’ progress is above average or improving across most subject
areas. Overall progress of disadvantaged pupils, disabled pupils and
those with special educational needs is above average or improving.
• From different starting points, the proportions of pupils making and
exceeding expected progress in English and in mathematics are
close to or above national figures. The progress of the very large
majority of disadvantaged pupils is similar to or improving in
relation to other pupils nationally.
• Across almost all year groups and in a wide range of subjects,
including in English and mathematics, current pupils make
consistently strong progress, developing secure knowledge,
understanding and skills, considering their different starting points.

25. What will stakeholders want/ need?
Outstanding criteria
• For pupils generally, and specifically for
disadvantaged pupils, disabled pupils and those
who have special educational needs, progress is
above average across nearly all subject areas.
• From each different starting point, the
proportions of pupils making and exceeding
expected progress in English and in mathematics
are high compared with national figures. The
progress of disadvantaged pupils matches or is
improving towards that of other pupils nationally.

26. Historic benchmarks are not so easy now…
Primary
• National standard
(broadly equivocal to 4b
combined)
Secondary
• Comparable outcomes
(linked to national
reference tests) but
subject differences
(Mathematics shown)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
ds/attachment_data/file/377771/2014-09-12-board-
paper-for-new-gcses-in.pdf

27. Historic benchmarks are not so easy now…
Floor standards (Primary)
• Schools will be above the floor if pupils make sufficient progress
across all of reading, writing and mathematics or if more than 65%
of them achieve the national standard in reading, writing and
mathematics.
• Sufficient progress will be calculated using as a value-added
measure from KS1 to KS2. The precise level of ‘sufficient progress’
will not be set until the first new KS2 tests are sat in summer 2016.
Floor Standards (Secondary)
• A school will be below the floor standard if its Progress 8 score is
below -0.5, unless the confidence interval suggests that the school’s
underlying performance may not be below average.
• Components of the progress 8 calculation rely upon an overview of
the performance of the cohort. This cannot be obtained until after
the data has been collected and validated (normally 3-5 months
after the summer examinations)

28. Therefore the change is greater than just the lingo
• Progress, attainment and expectations
– How is your school measuring progress given the changes
that will become a result of the new assessments?
– How is your school going to benchmark itself against
others (in-year and following the results)?
– How is your school responding to the change in standards?
– How is your school going to adapt its assessment policy to
ensure that expectations are clearly articulated and are
acted upon?
– How are you dealing with change (consider stakeholders,
staff, students, parents, governors…)?

30. Whole Education: PASS
• Pupil Attitudes to Self and School trial
• Involved several schools who have completed
the assessment and are working on what this
tells them to provide intervention that
supports development of wider issues
• Identifying barriers to learning and supporting
an increased perception of what pupil’s really
think it like being a part your school

31. Covering 9 attitudinal factors
• Feelings about School
• Perceived Learning Capability Self Regard as a
learner
• Preparedness for Learning
• Attitudes to Teachers
• General Work Ethic
• Confidence in Learning
• Attitudes to Attendance
• Response to Curriculum Demands

32. Outcomes
• Early days, however the
evidence provides
information that can
support schools in
addressing areas that
impact upon learning
• It is not collecting data,
it is always the actions
which are taken that
make the difference!

33. Further information available in the fringe session delivered by Jonathan Thompson
(St Pancras Room)

34. Phil Bourne
Director of School and Academy Compliance
https://www.schooldata.org.uk
“Indeed it’s fair to say that no teacher or department
should be ignorant of the way some pupils with similar
potential aren’t learning in some areas but are in others.”
Tim Brighouse, Jigsaw of a successful school, 2006