Smoking Out Underachievement: Guidance and Advice To Help Secondary Schools Use Value Added Approaches With Data

Smoking Out
Underachievement
Guidance and Advice
to Help Secondary
Schools Use Value
Added Approaches
with Data
CONTENTS
Introduction
Section 1: Comparing your school with other schools
12
Section 2: Comparing subject departments with other departments
25
Section 3: Comparing groups of pupils
31
Section 4: Bringing it all together
36
Appendices:
Exercise 1: Using Progress Charts
Exercise 2: Unpacking Prior Attainment Data
Exercise 3: Accounting for school context
Exercise 4: Accounting for past trends
Exercise 5: Using estimates to set targets
Exercise 6: Target setting and the Key Stage 3 Strategy
Exercise 7: Using data with students
Exercise 8: Measuring value-added
Exercise 9: Identify department and cohort underperformance
Exercise 10: Dividing Pupils into Sets/Teaching Groups
Exercise 11: Using value-added scores
44
49
53
56
58
60
62
66
68
70
73
This Booklet was prepared by the Fischer Family Trust working with the School
Improvement and Excellence Division of the DfES.
Introduction
Smoking Out Underachievement has been written to provide schools with guidance,
advice and examples to increase their understanding and use of value added data.
This approach to the use of data will enable schools to become information as well as
data, rich. The guidance seeks to support professionals in knowing their pupils better and
in the development of an accountability framework which puts more emphasis on pupil
progress. Value added approaches contribute to our knowledge and understanding of
between school variation, within school subject variation, within group variation and
performance at an individual pupil level.
These approaches will provide a rich variety of benchmarks to aid and moderate self
review and evaluation and will undoubtedly support the identification of aspects of
practice where collaboration with other schools would prove beneficial.
Above all the use of this form of data and analysis will enable schools to know their pupils,
know how well they are meeting their needs, their successes and to smoke out
underachievement in more illuminative ways.
The Materials
These guidance materials have been divided into sections designed to offer practitioners
advice and guidance on a range of value added approaches. Additional exercises and
examples to aid understanding and support training are available in the appendices.
Outcomes and Target Groups

The materials are designed for use by practitioners at all levels within the secondary
schools system and are intended to raise knowledge, understanding and awareness
concerning performance so that:
monitoring activity becomes interpretation
analysis moves from whole school to subject level to pupil individual level
absolute scores move to value added information
summative assessment moves to the formative use of data
data is used for diagnostic purposes as well as for accountability
data as statistics to data as information and intelligence
externally required practice overtaken by self engaged professionals.
Value added analyses have the benefit of being able to confirm exactly what is good
practice and what is working to improve pupils performance. This guidance should help
staff in schools and LEAs to ask the right questions and bring a focus to self evaluation that
moves from asking what has been done, to knowing whether it had an impact.
At the end of the guidance teachers should have developed their thinking from being a
teacher of 10 classes of 30 pupils to being teachers of 300 individuals with individual
learning needs and strengths.
The guidance should support them in analysing how pupils learn and encourage a move
away from the haphazard approach of getting differentiated teaching and learning styles
into each lesson. It should promote more meaningful and effective reviews with pupils
and inform target setting and target getting.
It will broaden schools knowledge on past and current performance and give good
indication of future performance.
Senior managers will be able to review performance and engage in planning in a way that
reflects need and deploy the resources at their disposal in a more informed way
Governors will have their key questions answered in more illuminative ways aiding their
decisions on the appropriateness of whole school priorities
Introduction to value-added data

There is often much variation in pupil achievement within schools as there is between
schools.
According to OECD variation in performance within schools is four times as great as variation
between schools Miliband D (Education Minister) in speech to NAHT 2002.
All schools are successful with some pupils, but few schools are successful with all pupils.
Successful schools understand how to use their data to make practical changes in the
classroom. They peel away the overall school figures to identify pockets of
underachievement within their school, and identify the pupils at risk of underachievement
in the future. They use a more sophisticated approach to confirm and challenge
expectations, identify good practice and strengths and change practice to meet a better
understanding of pupils needs.
What data should a school use?

All schools use outcome figures, such as the percentage of pupils with 5+ A*-C GCSE
grades.
For example, in one school 40 percent of boys, and 60 percent of girls had 5+ A*-C grades.
A difference worthy of further examination, but when looking at prior attainment data, 40
percent of boys, and 70 percent of girls were likely to achieve 5+ A*-C grades. This puts the
interpretation in a different light, for the boys did as well as could be expected, while 10 percent
of girls underachieved.
A further level of analysis is needed when using value-added data for pupils, groups of
pupils and the whole school. The Ofsted PANDA contains grades measuring outcomes of
achievement against schools with similar prior attainment. Many Local Education
Authorities provided schools with value-added data, as do NFER-Nelson, the Curriculum
Evaluation and Management Centre (CEM) at the University of Durham, and the Fischer
Family Trust. For many years the DfES have published value-added charts in the Autumn
Package and Interactive Autumn Package (now Pupil Achievement Tracker) for schools to
measure the progress of individual pupils.
Things to remember when looking at data

Different methods of calculation are designed to measure different things. Some
measures only look at raw progress. For example, a child has made one level of
progress if they had attained Level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2, and Level 5 by the end of
Key Stage 3. We do not know what has impacted on this progress, but we can measure
the degree of progress made.
Other measures will look at comparative progress. All pupils will make progress
over time. For example we will want to know how much progress they have made over
and above that which could have, reasonably, been expected to achieve. Such
expectations are best derived from a pupils prior attainment, and can also be modified to
take account of the schools context, such as its socio-economic context, and the overall
profile of pupil prior attainment.
The method of presenting data should vary according to the audience. Valueadded graphs of individual pupils provide the detail needed by staff to diagnose
achievement issues, while summary information such as benchmark tables give a
useful overview to senior managers to identify where there might be pockets of
underachievement or excellent practice.
Figure 1: Methods of calculation and methods of presentation

Prior Attainment
DfES Performance
Tables Value-Added
Score
DfES Autumn Package

Value-Added Charts
Summary
information for
senior managers
Detailed
information for
teachers
Contextual ValueAdded Report
Estimate vs. Actual

Scattergraphs
Prior Attainment and

Context
How will staff use data?

Value-added data is for everyone in school concerned with the progress made by pupils.
Classroom practitioners will use data in different ways, as they will be asking different
questions of it.
Teachers will want to know what progress has been made by the pupils they have taught
and what they could achieve if barriers to learning could be overcome.
Some staff, Heads of year or Heads of Departments will require data aggregated,
summarised and compared, while others will require data for individual pupils.
The data and assessment book Releasing Potential, Raising Attainment: Managing Data in
Secondary Schools provides a useful calendar of assessment activity. It is available at
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/si/SfCC/goodpractice/dm/
Value Added Data for the whole school

e.g. Value-added score
How value-added data in your school
compares to other schools
e.g. Value-added score, Percentile Rank
Contextual Value-Added
Key strengths and weaknesses, be they
subjects or groups of pupils
e.g. Est/Act Scattergraph
Value-added data by teaching group
e.g. Est/Act Scattergraph
How a subject compares to others in the
school
e.g. Average value-added by department
Value-added data for individual pupils, to pick
up where they might be underachieving
compared to other subjects
Pages
Support Staff
e.g. Learning
Mentor
Teacher
Head of
Department
Headteacher or
Senior
Management
Team
Governing
Body
Data needs of different groups and the location of examples
13-16
17-24
26-28
29
30
32-35
Presentation Matters
Data needs to be presented so that it is fit for purpose. Staff and other groups need data
presented in ways that enable the right questions to be asked.
Data managers should consider the preparation of data reports and the types of
interrogation that different groups will require. Examples of different presentational
approaches are given in the appendices.
Interrogation of data by different groups

Asking the right questions
Governing Body
Are our standards high enough for pupils from all backgrounds?
How do our standards compare with national standards and those of similar schools?
Are our targets suitably challenging?
Are our spending plans suitably focused?
Headteacher/Senior Management Team
Are standards high enough for pupils from all backgrounds?
Are pupils making suitable progress?
Which are the strong/weak departments?
Who might be the strong/weak teachers?
Which teachers work best with pupils with different needs?
What does the profile of the incoming cohort tell us about our priorities for improvement
How can we improve on past performance with similar pupils?
Can we see any impact of new initiatives?
What are our key strengths, and what do we need to do to maintain these?
Subject Leader/Head of Department
How do overall standards compare with national standards and similar schools?
What is happening to standards over time?
What are the strengths of individual staff, with all pupils and with pupils of different
ability levels and learning styles?
How are we doing compared to other similar departments, nationally, and within the
school?
Can we see any impact of new initiatives?
What are our key strengths, and what do we need to do to maintain these?
Class Teachers and Form Tutors
Do I know pupils prior attainment scores?
Is progress good enough?
Are pupils from all backgrounds making suitable/appropriate progress?
Are my teaching approaches appropriate for all pupils?
What are the barriers to learning?
Source: Releasing Potential, Raising Attainment: Managing Data in Secondary Schools (DfES 2002)
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/si/SfCC/goodpractice/dm/
Value added data and underachievement

If all schools within the lowest quartile were to perform at the current median,
it is estimated that:
their pupils would make, on average an extra years progress through their time in
school
about 13,000 additional pupils would gain 5 or more A*-C grades each year
These schools average 5+ A*-C grades would rise by 10 percent
Their average Key Stage 3 points score would rise by 3 points.
One important approach is for all schools to use value-added data to identify whether
there are any patterns of underachievement in the performance of their pupils.
Is there underachievement in specific subjects, groups, sets or at individual pupil

level?
Do certain pupils underachieve each year?
Which pupils are at risk of underachieving in the future?
10
Value Added Data can be used in this way and early intervention planned, progress
monitored and pupils supported in achieving more appropriately. Value added data
can also be used to identify pupils and groups of pupils who have achieved more
than expected, to help identify where strategies in the school or department have
been successful.
Asking the right questions
Comparing your school with other schools:
What our progress is like compared to other schools?
Which schools can we learn from?
What could other schools learn from us?
Compare subject departments with other departments:
How do departments compare within the school?
How do departments compare with other schools who we are working in partnership with?
Compare groups of pupils:
Do some groups of pupils with the school make different progress to others?
How do these groups compare with similar pupils nationally?
There are also a series of exercises available in the appendices, that you can use with your
department in work based training.
11
SECTION 1
Comparing your school with other schools
This section will help you to answer the following questions.
What is our progress like when compared with other similar schools?
What are our strengths and what could other schools learn from us?
Which schools can we learn from?
12
SECTION 1
COMPARING YOUR SCHOOL WITH OTHER SCHOOLS
Value-added score
All Primary and Secondary schools have a value-added score calculated and published by
the DfES, summarising the progress made by pupils in a school between Key Stages.
For example, one schools value-added score for KS2 to KS3:
Total number of pupils with KS3 results in core subjects:
213
Total number of pupils found with matching KS2 results:
197
Calculated Value Added Measure
99.1
In this school, of the 213 pupils assessed at the end of Key Stage 3 only 197 had results at the end
of Key Stage 2 (the other pupils would have been absent or disapplied), and the progress of these
197 pupils is slightly below the national average.
If we take the average progress of all schools as 100, every 1 point above or below 100 is
equivalent to 1/6th of a level. In this school, the value-added score is almost 1 point below 100,
which means that pupils in this school are making on average 1/6th of a level progress less than
the average of other schools.
This is useful for Governors and Headteachers as it summarises the overall pupil progress
relative to other schools, but it doesnt provide the diagnostic detail required by Heads of
Department and teachers. For example, value-added scores do not reveal whether there
are any differences between subjects.
13
Technical Commentary
How is the value-added score calculated?
This is calculated by comparing the progress made by each child against the progress
made nationally by all pupils with the same prior attainment. Pupils in line with the
national median have a value added score of 0. Pupils above the median have a plus
score e.g. +2, depending on how many points they are above the median. Pupils below
the median have a negative score e.g. -2. Then total up the pupil scores. If the pupils
above and below the median cancel each other out, the total will be 0, but it is likely to
be positive or negative depending on the balance of pupils. Finally, this score is divided
by the number of pupils plotted. Then 100 is added to the figure.
For example, if there were 100 pupils, and the total score were +200, then the valueadded score is (+200 / 100) = +2. Then add 100, totals 102
i.e. pupils progress at 1/3 of a level more than the average
Interpreting the score depends on the Key Stage. For KS1 to KS2, and KS2 to KS3 value
added, each point is equivalent to 1/6th of a level, or one terms progress. For example,
for KS1 to KS2 value added, a measure of 101 means that on average each of the
schools pupils made one terms more progress between KS1 and KS2 than the median
or middle value for pupils with similar KS1 attainment. Conversely, a score of 99
means that the schools pupils made a term less progress.
For KS3 to GCSE/GNVQ, each point is equivalent to one grade, so a score of 101 means
that on average each of the schools students achieved one extra GCSE/GNVQ point
than the median for students with similar KS3 attainment. Conversely, a score of 99
means that the schools students achieved one fewer GCSE/GNVQ point.
Key Stage 2: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/primary_03.shtml
Key Stage 3: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/ks3_03.shtml
Key Stage 4: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/schools_03.shtml
For example, a school may have a KS2 to KS3 value-added score of 100, but if looking at the
underlying value-added data, a school may find that pupils made above average progress in
English, average progress in maths, and below average progress in science. So a school should
not rely on overall value-added scores alone.
14
For example, this school has a KS2-KS3 value-added score of 99.4, but pupils tend to make
better progress in English than in maths and science
English
42 pupils above the
upper quartile
24 pupils below the

lower quartile
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
90
80
2003 Key Stage 3 ENGLISH Marks
52 pupils between the

upper and lower
quartiles
Level 5
2003 Key Stage 3 English Value Added Line

100
70
60
50
40
30
25 pupils not plotted

20
<=10
15
16
Lower Quartile
Maths
77 pupils between the

upper and lower
quartiles
35 pupils below the
lower quartile
18
19
Upper Quartile
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average 2000 Key Stage 2 Points Score
Median
Pupils
27
28
29
30
31
32
33+
Group of Pupils
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
2003 Key Stage 3 Maths Value Added Line

100
Level EP
90
Level 8
2003 Key Stage 3 MATHS level (based on test mark)
21 pupils above the

upper quartile
17
80
Level 7
70
Level 6
60
50
Level 5
40
Level 4
30
Level 3
20
<=10
15
16
Lower Quartile
Science
69 pupils between
the upper and lower
quartiles
44 pupils below the
lower quartile
18
19
20
Upper Quartile
21
22
23
24
25
26
Median
27
28
Pupils
29
30
31
32
33+
Group of Pupils
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
2003 Key Stage 3 Science Value Added Line

100
Level 8
90
Level 7
2003 Key Stage 3 SCIENCE level (based on test mark)
18 pupils above the

upper quartile
17
80
Level 6
70
60
Level 5
50
Level 4
40
30
Level 3
20
<=10
15
Lower Quartile
16
17
18
19
Upper Quartile
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Median
27
Pupils
28
29
30
31
32
33+
Group of Pupils
15
By adapting the DfES Performance Tables approach schools can calculate a value-added
score for each group of pupils. This will allow them to judge which subjects and for which
groups of pupils their practice is most effective, and to adjust what the school does in the
future. The accompanying booklet of exercises shows how to calculate a value-added
score for each pupil, which is then aggregated and averaged for each group.
The table below is an example of how this data could be presented for a school which is
looking at the progress made by boys and girls, and also by different prior attainment
groups.
Pupils
Number of pupils
Value-added score
Boys
Low prior attainment
Middle prior attainment
High prior attainment
60
30
20
10
99.0
98.5
99.33
99.16
Girls
Low prior attainment
Middle prior attainment
High prior attainment
60
20
20
20
101.0
101.0
100.5
101.5
For example, in this school, boys made less progress than girls, and pupils with middle and high
prior attainment are making better progress than pupils with low prior attainment.
Questions to ask
Why are boys with low prior attainment making the lowest progress?
What can be learnt from the progress made by the girls with low prior attainment?
Why are high prior attainment boys making less progress than middle prior
attainment boys?
Why dont the girls results reflect this trend?
16
Benchmarks
As an alternative to calculating multiple value-added scores, schools have ready access to
comparative benchmarks in the DfES Autumn Package and Ofsted PANDA using:
All schools
Free school meals
Prior attainment
Schools will typically use the tables comparing their results with those of schools with
similar free school meals.
For example, a school with results higher than 95 percent of schools will be in the top 5th
percentile of that group of schools.
These tables are also used by Ofsted in the PANDA, but the values are converted to grades
ranging from A* (top 5th percentile of schools) to an E* (results are in the bottom 5th
percentile of similar schools), as shown in the table below.
A*
95%
Upper
Quartile
60%
Median
40%
Lower
Quartile
5%
E*
5%
Next 20%
Next 15%
Next 20%
Next 15%
Next 20%
5%
A*
E*
When looking at these tables, it is helpful to show the school mark compared with other
schools. For example, in the Ofsted PANDA reports and the Pupil Achievement Tracker, the
results for the school are shown in a table showing the range of results in the group of
comparative schools.
Percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 and above in KS3 tests in 2003 for non-selective
schools with more than 35% and up to 50% FSM
A*
95
UQ
60
50
40
42
42
English
74
58
50
46
Maths
67
57
54
51
48
Science
63
53
48
44
41
ICT
77
60
53
48
45
41
LQ
5%
36
25
47
43
31
39
37
28
31
E**
In the above example, the 42 percent in English and 45 percent in ICT are between the 40th and
median percentiles, and therefore a C.
17
This booklet does not deal with the free school meals tables, as it looks at the progress
made by pupils compared to other schools.
Prior attainment tables summarise and interpret the progress made by pupils compared to
schools with a similar intake, but they should be used with care. The band of similar
schools is based only on the results of pupils with prior attainment grades, while the
school mark also includes pupils without any prior attainment data. Schools should also
refer to the Autumn Package to see how many other schools are in their band, and where
their prior attainment is close to another table, to use the next set of tables either above or
below their band.
For example, if the Key Stage 2 average point score was 25.1, then a school could look at the
benchmark table for scores of at least 24 but less than 25 points, and also the table for scores of
at least 25 but less than 26 points.
Percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 and above in KS3 tests in 2003 for schools with
2000 average KS2 point score of at least 24 but less than 25
A*
95
UQ
60
50
42
42
38
33
23
46
45
41
32
39
34
28
34
27
10
English
62
51
44
Maths
61
52
48
Science
59
48
43
47
41
ICT
75
54
46
45
39
39
40
LQ
5%
E*
This schools English Level 5+ results are graded a C, as at 42 percent, they are between the 60th
and median percentiles.
However, the schools English Level 6+ results are graded an A, as at 19 percent, they are
between the 95th percentile and the upper quartile.
18
Percentage of pupils achieving Level 6 and above in KS3 tests in 2003 for schools with
A*
95
UQ
60
50
English
26
19
16
13
11
Maths
35
28
25
23
Science
27
20
16
ICT
29
14
40
LQ
5%
21
21
18
12
15
13
13
10
E*
In this school most pupils made average progress, but the English department was
outperforming Maths and Science at achieving Level 6 and above, even though English Level 6+
(19 percent) was lower than Maths (21 percent).
Also, within the Pupil Achievement Tracker a school can calculate results for groups of
pupils e.g. by gender or ethnicity, and look at their outcomes using the same set of
national data in a benchmark table.
For example, the table below compares the outcomes of boys compared with all pupils in all
schools:
Percentage of boys achieving Level 5 and above in KS3 tests in 2003 for schools with
A*
95
English
UQ
51
48
60
50
40
LQ
5%
44
42
40
38
33
23
48
46
45
41
32
Maths
61
52
Science
62
48
43
41
39
39
34
28
ICT
75
54
46
39
39
34
27
10
E*
It is important to show comparative data over time, such as looking at the English
benchmarks for the past three years.
19
Questions to ask
Are the benchmarks in line with what you expected, or are there some surprises?
If the benchmarks are low, when did the analysis of your data alert you to this?
What strategies have you put in place to ensure pupils made good progress?
What worked with which pupils?
Are there any significant differences between pupils performance in different subjects?
Are there any differences between indicators? For example, is Level 5+ C/D, while Level 6+
is A*/A?
What has contributed to the differences?
Contextual value-added
As mentioned at the beginning of this booklet, there are two approaches to value-added
calculations. One measures the raw or absolute progress made by pupils. If a child moved
from Level 4 to Level 5, that is an improvement of one level.
The other measures comparative progress and may take account of school factors.
If the same child was likely to achieve a level 6, but achieved a level 5, then although they have
still progressed by one level, it is less than anticipated.
The contextual value-added approach developed by the Fischer Family Trust estimates the
achievement which pupils could make after taking a number of factors into account:
Prior attainment, taking into account teacher assessment, marks awarded, and
differences between subjects;
Gender;
Month of birth;
Mean National Curriculum attainment level and distribution of the schools intake;
School context, such as percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals.
20
Looking at the difference between estimated outcomes and actual achievement provides a
measure of pupil progress, similar to the value-added score. However, contextual valueadded also takes into account school context, and a more nuanced approach to prior
attainment.
For example, if 70 percent of a cohort of pupils were anticipated to achieve Level 5+ in English,
but actually 80 percent were successful. This is 10 percentage points above the estimate.
The school should be asking:
How does this compare to other schools?
Is a 10 percent difference unusual, or do lots of schools achieve this or better?
Using a percentile rank of the differences, tells us how well a school compares to others.
Schools in the top 25 percent of schools have a percentile rank between 1 and 25, while
schools in the bottom 25 percent of schools have a percentile rank of between 76 and 100.
Looking at contextual value-added data over time allows a school to understand the
progress made by pupils across a range of indicators. The example below looks at progress
from KS2 to KS3, KS3 to KS4, and KS2 to KS4, using a range of indicators. In the case of KS2 to
KS3, the:
percentage of pupils attaining level 5 or higher in all 3 core subjects
mean level achieved across all 3 core subjects
For KS3 to KS4 and KS2 to KS4 the:
percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more A*-C GCSE/GNVQ passes
capped GCSE/GNVQ points score (best 8 subjects)
21
To draw attention to certain percentile ranks, those in the top 25 percent are highlighted
in blue, while those in the bottom 25 percent are highlighted in red.
Percentile Rank (based on Matched Pupils)
Value-added KS2
Value-added
Value-added
-> KS3
KS3 -> KS4
KS2 -> KS4
5 or
5 or
Core
Overall
Capped
Capped
more
more
Subjects Points
Points
Points
A*-C
A*-C
Level 5+
Score
Score
Score
Passes
Passes
% of pupils
Actual KS4
% 5+
A*-C
% No
Passes
34
40
96
98
17
10
73
92
30
KS3
KS4
1999
2001
34
60
15
34
12
2000
2002
89
88
91
97
2001
2003
75
58
60
90
2002
2004
87
88
2003
2005
81
95
For example: this schools pupils made good progress in terms of the value added achievement
throughout Key Stage 3 and 4. In 2001 they achieved 40 percent 5+ A*-C as a result of the good
progress made from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3, which was also sustained during Key Stage 4.
The percentile rankings are either average, or upper quartile (15 percent and 12 percent).
The following year (2002), the number of pupils gaining 5+ A*-C grades fell to 17%. Poor
progress had been made by pupils from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3, which was compounded
during Key Stage 4. The percentile ranking never rises above the lowest 12 percent for all schools.
In trying to address these problems, the school concentrated on its C/D borderline pupils, and in
2003 30% of pupils achieved 5+ A*-C grades. The value-added for 5+ A*-C cohort of pupils was
average (60 percent and 73 percent), but the value-added for other pupils remained low, given
the lower quartile rankings for GCSE capped point score (90 percent and 92 percent).
Given that the value-added for Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 remained within the lower quartile in
2002 and 2003, the schools response to what the data is telling them may not be sufficient if
they continue to concentrate the best teachers and resources on targeting pupils on the C/D
boundary, rather than improving teaching and learning across the ability levels.
22
Schools would want to use historical and comparative data such as contextual valueadded or benchmarks to ask questions such as:
Questions to ask
Does your school ensure pupils make good progress across all key stages, or is valueadded low from KS2 to KS3, but better from KS3 to KS4?
Is your school better at threshold indicators such as 5+ A*-C than broader measures
such as a capped point score? (Possibly indicating that some pupils are being
successfully targeted to achieve published targets, but other pupils are not being
ignored and underperforming).
Conversely, is your school better at the broader measures, such as the capped points
score? (Possibly indicating effectiveness with the broad majority of pupils, but some
pupils may just be missing the threshold indicators, or they are missing the threshold in
one subject).
Are there any indicators with sustained upper quartile progress over a number of years,
and do you know what has contributed to this success?
Are overall 5+A*-C results good compared to similar schools in benchmark groups, but
the value-added measures are lower quartile, possibly indicating underachievement
with some pupils?
Headline figures for the whole school provide a general impression of achievement, but
there is a need to look at the attainment of different groups of pupils in order to plan
future strategies.
For example, this table has the Key Stage 3 results for a school including the number of boys and
girls with low (L), middle (M) and upper (U) prior attainment highlighted in orange where the
value-added is significantly low, or green where it is significantly high.
Key Stage 3 English
Year
Pupils
2001
2002
2003
155
200
205
Actual
Level 5+
55%
80%
70%
Difference
to estimate
-10%
5%
-5%
Percentile
Rank
90
40
62
L
28
22
28
Boys
M
15
21
26
U
15
36
34
L
25
23
32
Girls
M
31
25
28
U
27
42
50
23
This school had low value-added in 2001. Fifty-five percent of the pupils achieved 5+A*-C
grades, which was 10% below the estimate, which put them in the 90th percentile, only
the upper ability boys made good progress. The school took action, and in 2002 results
went up to 80%. However, there was still a problem given the poor progress in valueadded terms of lower ability boys. The school continued to change practice, targeting
pupils with different learning needs more appropriately, and in 2003, no group of pupils
had significantly low value-added, while the middle and upper ability girls had good valueadded. However, overall value-added was slightly down on the previous year.
Contextual value-added data compares the progress made by each pupil with the average
progress made by similar pupils in similar schools. The figures calculate the average
progress made by all pupils in the school, if we are to identify pockets of
underachievement, we need value-added data at an individual pupil level.
24
SECTION 2
Comparing subject departments with other departments
This guidance section will help you answer the following questions.
How do departments compare within the school?
How do departments compare with other schools nationally and within a selected
group (e.g. A LIG collaborative)
25
SECTION 2
COMPARING SUBJECT DEPARTMENTS WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS
Disaggregating by groups
Whole-school data can be used to see differences between subjects in terms of outcomes
or progress, but it cannot tell us which groups of pupils make very good or very poor
progress. For example, a school may have high value-added, but this figure hides
underachievement by boys with middle prior attainment.
We need to look at the results for different groups of pupils compared against their
potential or what they would have been estimated to achieve.
A
Actual for pupils
matched to KS2 data
Difference allowing for

the performance of
pupils in similar schools
Test
TA
All Pupils
220
Test
43%
39%
-7%
-10%
-1%
-4%
Boys
120
34%
31%
-8%
-8%
-2%
-3%
Boys Lower
70
7%
-5%
-7%
-2%
-4%
Boys Middle
35
54%
4%
59%
-13%
-4%
-5%
4%
Boys Upper
15
93%
75%
-15%
6%
-11%
100
54%
47%
2%
-6%
-12%
-1%
-6%
Girls Lower
60
29%
22%
-4%
-10%
1%
-4%
Girls Middle
20
78%
65%
-4%
-14%
1%
-9%
Girls Upper
20
100%
100%
2%
3%
4%
5%
English Level 5+
Girls
TA
Difference between
actual and estimates
using prior attainment
Test
TA
Overall, pupils make less progress

than would be estimated taking into
account prior attainment
There is a significant difference between

the test and teacher assessment for boys
with upper prior attainment
In this example, data from the Fischer Family Trust shows value-added data for pupils grouped
by prior attainment, there are 220 pupils, of whom 120 are boys, and 100 are girls.
The pupils are grouped into Lower, Middle and Upper prior attainment based on the distribution
of pupils in 1998. In this school, there are 70 boys who have low prior attainment, compared to
15 boys with high prior attainment.
26
For each group, we compare the actual results, against what would have been estimated, after
taking into account national results that year. For example, 14 out of the 15 boys with upper
prior attainment achieved a level 5 (93 percent), and this was 2 percent above the estimate,
once national results have been taken into account.
Any significant differences taking into account the number of pupils are highlighted in
dark blue.
Estimate and Actual results Scattergraphs

Alternatively, a more visual approach is to compare the estimated fine grades using the
marks awarded and actual fine grades for groups of pupils.
The x-axis plots the average of the fine grade estimates for the group of pupils, taking into
account prior attainment and school context. The y-axis plots the grade attained as a fine
grade level, derived from the marks, this type of graph could also be used with a schools
own estimates or targets and actual grades.
If the actual results for any group of pupils were exactly in line with the estimate, then the
group would be plotted on the diagonal line running from bottom left to top right.
Where the actual is below the estimate, then the group is plotted below this line.
Where the actual is above the estimate, then pupils are plotted above the line.
Here, boys and girls are achieving in line with their estimates with a small gap in
performance between them. It may be useful to look at how different class groups have
performed.
27
6.0
High PA
5.5
Gp G
Gp E
Gp A
Actual Fine Grade
5.0
Gp B
Girls
Med PA
Teaching Group
Prior Attainment
Gender
Gp D
Boys
4.5
Gp C
4.0
3.5
Gp F
Low PA
3.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Estimated Fine Grade
Group F containing pupils with the

lowest prior attainment, their outcome
achievement is just below the estimate.
Groups D and A have two of the highest

estimates. Group D is some way below
the estimate, whereas in Group E pupils
achieve above the estimates.
How fine grades are calculated
The Fischer Family Trust use Fine Grade Levels, which converts the mark awarded to a
decimalised level, and where the test level is missing e.g., the pupil was absent, uses a
fine grade for the Teacher Assessment based on the median of the fine grades awarded
for that level. This is a more detailed approach than sub-levels which splits the mark
range for any given level into three equal parts.
Within School Performance

Headteachers, Governors and Heads of Department will require an overview of the
progress made by pupils in each subject.
Comparison can be made using the actual point score achieved by pupils from 8 (A*) to 1
(G) against either the estimated grade or target grade, again using the same point score.
For example, a pupil who achieved a B but was estimated to achieve a C would have a score of
+1 (6 for a B grade minus 5 for a C grade).
28
In this example, pupils taking Spanish on average achieve 0.8 of a grade less than estimated,
while pupils taking Drama on average achieve 0.5 of a grade better than estimated.
Average difference between estimate and actual per entry
Fewest pupils
Most pupils
But very few pupils took Spanish or Drama in this school. The subjects are arranged on the graph by
the number of entries, from Spanish and Art with the fewest to English and Mathematics with the
most.
When considering priorities, the school would have to balance issues of equity and impact.
While the pupils taking Spanish are furthest from their estimates or targets, the smaller
differences for other subjects cumulatively have more impact on whole school outcomes.
The graph below takes the difference between the sum of all the estimates and actuals for
pupils taking the subject.
In the example, D&T Resistant Materials, Information Technology and German would be amongst the
subjects to focus upon, while in subjects such as English and Mathematics, the small per pupil
difference between the estimate and actual, is still significant overall bearing in mind the number of
pupils.
Difference between estimate and actual for all entries
29
This analysis is useful for gaining an overview, but subject departments and teachers
would also want to see the comparative progress made by pupils. This can be done using
these value-added graphs from the DfES Pupil Achievement Tracker. (See section 3
Scattergraphs) Here, each red dot is a child, while each blue blob is proportionate to the
number of pupils who made identical progress.
D&T Resistant Materials
For example, D&T
Resistant Materials has
a number of pupils
with mid-attainment
at the end of Key
Stage 3, who
underachieve by a
couple of grades....
2000 Key Stage 3 2002 GCSE D&T (Materials) Value Added Line
8
2002 GCSE D&T (MATERIALS) Points Score
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
B18
19
21
Lower Quartile
Group of Pupils
23
25
27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Upper Quartile
41
43
Median
45
47
49+
Pupils
History
....while in History, a
subject with overall
2000 Key Stage 3 2002 GCSE History Value Added Line

8
2002 GCSE HISTORY Points Score
better value-added, a
few pupils significantly
underachieve
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
B18
Lower Quartile
30
19
21
23
25
27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Upper Quartile
Median
Pupils
41
43
45
47
49+
Group of Pupils
SECTION 3
Comparing groups of pupils
This guidance section will help you answer the following questions.
Do some groups of pupils within the school make different progress to others?
How do these groups compare with similar pupils nationally, locally and within
similar schools?
31
SECTION 3
COMPARING GROUPS OF PUPILS
Value added scattergraphs
Scattergraphs are a visual and accessible way of showing the progress made by pupils,
and can be created by many Management Information Systems, or by using the
DfES Pupil Achievement Tracker. Here each red dot is a child, while each blue
blob is proportionate to the number of pupils who made identical progress.
As you would expect with any value-added data,
not all the pupils are between the upper and
lower quartiles, and some pupils across the range
of prior attainment are making above-average
progress.
while pupils with high prior

attainment do very well. Only
one pupil (highlighted)
underachieved;

100
90
80
70
Level 7
60
Level 6
50
40
Level 5
30
20
Level 4
<=10
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33+

Lower Quartile
Upper Quartile
Median
The school would want to ask questions about

the progress made by pupils on 25 and 27
points. For example, there are a number of
pupils with an average of level 4 at the end of
Key Stage 2, who remain on Level 4 at the end
of Key Stage 3 in English.
32
Pupils
Group of Pupils
Looking at the spread of pupils

from left to right, a good
proportion are below 27 points,
and therefore arriving at the
school probably below Level 4
in all three subjects.
Here is a value-added graph from the DfES Pupil Achievement Tracker, which plots the
progress made by pupils against national averages.
Three national lines are drawn for the upper quartile, median
and lower quartile of pupils nationally.
100
90
80
The y-axis
shows the
total number
of marks
awarded for
the Key Stage
3 English
papers.
70
Level 7
60
Level 6
50
40
Level 5
30
20
<=10
For any given

point on the
graph, 50
percent of
pupils
nationally
were between
the top dotted
line and the
bottom dotted
line.
Level 4
15
Lower Quartile
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Upper Quartile
Median
28
29
30
31
32
33+
Pupils
The x-axis shows prior attainment i.e. the Key Stage 2 average
point score calculated from the English, Mathematics and
Science Levels.
For example, 50 percent of pupils nationally with an average point score of 27 (Level 4
English, Level 4 Mathematics and Level 4 Science, or the combination 5, 3, 4) go on to
achieve between 32 and 48 marks on the Key Stage 3 English paper, and therefore a
Level 5. However, another 25 percent of pupils go on to achieve more than 48 marks,
and therefore a Level 6 or above, while another 25 percent of pupils go on to achieve
fewer than 32 marks, and therefore a Level 4 or below.
33
This information can also be presented as a transition matrix which provides the numbers
and percentages of pupils grouped by prior attainment and outcomes:
Key Stage 2 Average

Point Score
Key Stage 2-3 School Transition Matrix for 2000-2003 (National figures shown in
brackets)
Below Level 3
(19 pupils)
Level 3
(54 pupils)
Level 4
(92 pupils)
Level 5
(19 pupils)
Total
(184 pupils)
B4
5+
6+
0%
(12%)
0%
(6%)
0%
(3%)
0%
(1%)
0%
(4%)
0%
(2%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(0%)
68%
(49%)
41%
(13%)
3%
(1%)
0%
(0%)
21%
(9%)
16%
(33%)
41%
(36%)
33%
(11%)
0%
(1%)
30%
(21%)
11%
(5%)
19%
(39%)
36%
(47%)
11%
(19%)
26%
(39%)
5%
(0%)
0%
(6%)
21%
(29%)
37%
(40%)
15%
(19%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(0%)
8%
(9%)
53%
(36%)
9%
(7%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(0%)
0%
(2%)
0%
(0%)
16%
(5%)
19%
(45%)
64%
(85%)
100%
(97%
49%
(65%)
5%
(0%)
0%
(6%)
28%
(38%)
89%
(79%)
24%
(27%)
This shows the progress made by your pupils and the national equivalents (in brackets)
For example, there were 92 pupils with

an average of a Level 4 in English, Maths
and Science at the end of Key Stage 2
and 33 percent of these went on to

achieve a Level 4, 36 percent a Level 5,
and 21 percent a Level 6.
Questions to ask
What has contributed to the low value added of certain groups?
Why are pupils underachieving across the ability range?
Mapping a new intake of pupils

So far attainment and performance have been looked at retrospectively. Different
techniques are required when presented with a new intake of pupils, such as how to set
targets and track their progress towards them through the school.
Judgements about the potential of a new intake of pupils should not only use their prior
attainment data to inform your target setting, but it is important to look at the progress
made, in the past, by comparable pupils in your school. This historic view of what the
schools past practice was able to achieve with particular pupils will not only identify
groups of pupils at risk of underachieving but also highlight the scope and type of
provision required by this year group. Knowing this will allow the senior managers to
reassess priorities and provision, making the necessary changes to more closely reflect
needs.
34
For example, a Secondary school would use Year 7 data to:
set initial targets for the end of Year 9
identify pupils for the Key Stage 3 Strategy catch-up elements e.g. to ensure 50% of
pupils with a Level 3, achieve Level 5 by the end of Key Stage 3
teachers would also want to look at the marks awarded and the teacher assessment,
as if there were a number of pupils towards the top end of Level 3, the school may
be looking to target even more pupils to Level 5.
to set interim indicators for the end of year 8
identify pupils who had made good progress from KS1 to KS2
identify pupils who may not have made good progress from KS1 to KS2
compare the intake into Year 7 with that of previous years to get a sense of whether
it is different, and whether the intake into the school is changing over time.
One useful exercise is to look at the profile of the Year 7 intake over time. Here a school
has created a table of the Key Stage 2 results in English at the end of Year 6 for its current
Year 7, and also the other year groups currently in the school.
Number of pupils at each KS2 Level
Pupils
Y11
Y10
Y9
Y8
168
188
184
192
Y7
190
Below
Absent Disapplied level of
test
4
2
1
No
level
4
5
3
2
1
4
2
1
% 4+
44
42
28
30
86
83
84
93
27
51
65
66
67%
71%
81%
83%
30
85
70
82%
In this school there have been a consistent number of pupils on Level 4, but the number
of Level 5 pupils has increased from 27 in Year 11 to 70 in Year 7, prompting the school to
reassess their methods of grouping and teaching in KS3.
35
SECTION 4
Bringing it all together
This section deals with some of the broader aspects of schools data systems
It will allow teachers and schools to consider what data will be most useful to them
for different purposes.
36
SECTION 4
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
So far we have looked at how to interrogate value-added data to smoke out
underachievement. It is important to recognise that beneath the headline figures there
are differences between subjects, indicators of attainment and information on groups and
individual pupils as well as information concerning the past performance of the school in
supporting pupils to achieve their best.
We have also looked at the different techniques for presenting value-added data.
Some are simple measures which summarise:
Value-added measure in Performance Tables
Prior Attainment Benchmarks in the Autumn Package/OFSTED PANDA
Other measures give the detail required by a school to diagnose a problem:
Value-added scattergraphs in the Pupil Achievement Tracker
Finally, there are measures which combine detail and an overview, giving a school an
idea of where the issues have been over time, what the potential problems may be in the
future, and guiding them towards the need for more detailed data:
Fischer Family Trust Contextual Value-added.
Above all a data informed school will need to adjust its planning cycle to more
closely reflect their annual data collection process. Advice on annual calendars of data
activity can be found in Releasing potential, raising attainment: managing data in
secondary schools (DFES/0722/2002).
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/si/SfCC/goodpractice/dm
Essentially a more informed school will need a more responsive planning cycle.
Shorter term action plans which allow for change in practice-based on data
collected. For schools to quickly respond to their more sophisticated knowledge of
pupils needs and to address new and emerging trends in performance data needs
to inform future planning and not only be used retrospectively.
37
Each of the stages identified in the inner action planning cycle below can and should be
supported by the collection, collation and interpretation of appropriate data sets.
Planning cycle
IDENTIFY KEY PERSONNEL
AND INTERRELATION WITH
OTHER SCHOOL PRIORITIES
PLAN
EVALUATE
MONITOR
IDENTIFY
DATA BASE
DELIVER
MONITOR
Subject
leader/
teacher
EVALUATE
PLAN
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
RAISE
AWARENESS/
IDENTIFY
TRAINING NEEDS
Source: Paul Buck: Learning Together; Achieving Success
On-going tracking
This guidance has described the use of value-added data from National Curriculum tests,
because it applies to all pupils and all schools. However, when monitoring progress,
measures will need to be taken at different times using a mixture of methods; teacher
assessment, coursework, and many schools use externally provided tests. e.g. CATs, MidYIS,
YELLIS.
Schools will need to select an appropriate calendar of assessment activity to meet their
needs.
38
This cycle of data and information should allow for:
data to be collected
reports to be produced
planning and professional discussion to take place
practice to be changed and remedies sought
outcomes and impact to be assessed
resources to be targeted more appropriately.
This implies that schools will have to be more responsive in their ability to reflect new
information in changes in practice, systems and structures.
School based Self Evaluation can be supported and evidenced through an appropriate
cycle of data capture and interpretation. The concept of the average school is not helpful
when seeking ways of presenting data that will provide staff with better focused
information at times when change in practice can affect outcomes and achievement
Schools will need to consider how best to use their existing systems for the collection and
provision of intelligence that will allow for this more detailed look at aspects of
performance.
All schools will collect teacher assessment about academic performance; some will also
look at behaviour, motivation, attendance, effort, homework etc. Some will collect
estimates of likely achievement in addition to targets. Schools need to be coherent and
systematic in the collection and use of data, allowing them to make changes in practice
based on evidence and to justify the redeployment of resources that may follow.
Staff will need support and training both in the use and interpretation of data as impact
measures and in providing evidence to support self evaluation.
The ability of a school to observe its own practice is crucial. Good quality data, supplied at
the right time, can provide staff with a key support in confirming what good practice is
and perhaps more importantly knowing what is not.
39
Schools with Good Practice in Data Management
Gather Key Stage 2 data as early as possible and analyse carefully (including analysis
by gender, ethnicity and mobility), supplemented by other test data (such as in
English, mathematics or verbal reasoning), when available, for cross-referencing
Identify pupils with special educational needs (SEN) or those learning English as an
additional language (EAL) and plan action to enable smooth transfer from their
primary school
Establish sets of data which are used as a baseline to monitor and review individual
pupils progress, especially to identify signs of underachievement or unusual
potential, and to help set targets for the pupils and subject departments
Devise and invest in an effective information management system which allows

individual departments and teachers to access information independently and in a
way tailored to their needs, and also allows new data to be easily entered and
processed when required
Support subject teachers and tutors in their use of data and other assessment
information to review the performance and expectations of pupils, maintaining a
productive dialogue with the pupils about their progress
Ensure test results and teacher assessments are analysed to illuminate aspects of
pupils performance and the extent to which progress is consistent with earlier data
Develop human resource management systems that are supported by the analysis of
the performance of class groups is used to identify strengths and weaknesses in
aspects of teaching, which are then addressed through performance management
and professional development, and departmental structures.
Source: Good Assessment in Secondary Schools.

Ofsted March 2003
The application of new knowledge acquired through better analysed data will need to be
supported within schools at all levels.
Middle Leaders in particular will:
Need to have a secure understanding of what different teaching and learning

strategies look like in practice.
40
And be able
To understand progress and achievement anomalies from data sources.
Perhaps the greatest challenge comes from the need
To recognise differentiation in achievement via observation within the classroom as

well as from the analysis of outcome data
Making Sense of it all by Using Venn Diagrams

Target Setting
CATS and
other tests
KS Assessment
Why?
Why?
Why?
Certs
OK
OK
Probably OK,
BUT...
Teacher Assessment
An effective school should make use

of a number of different predictors
of pupils performance to establish
its targets e.g.: Key Stage 2 APS, Key
Stage 3 APS, predictions from
standardised tests, e.g. [CATs/MidYIS]
and teacher assessments. These
predictions are not always a perfect
match.
Some children can be predicted to attain by one predictor but not others. One way of
making sense of this conflicting information is to plot the various predictions on a Venn
diagram, with each set of predictions being the focus of one of the diagrams hoops. In
this example, the names of each pupil predicted to gain 5+ A*- Cs from KS3 Assessments,
Standardised Tests and Teachers Assessments could be plotted in each of the three hoops.
Pupils whose names appear in only one hoop are predicted to attain 5+A*-C by one
measure. Those whose name appears in two hoops are predicted to attain 5+A*-C by two
measures and so on. Those pupils whose names are in all three hoops are most likely to
attain 5+A*-C. The easiest target for the school to attain is that which includes only those
pupils encompassed by all hoops. The most challenging target would include any pupil
encompassed by at least one hoop. This analysis can also help identify underachievement
Source: Releasing Potential, Raising Attainment: Managing Data in Secondary Schools (DfES 2002)
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sie/si/SfCC/goodpractice/dm
41
41
Remember data is not a precise tool requiring, as it does, analysis, interrogation and
interpretation.
While there is a need to measure against the national data set to see comparisons with
other schools, there is also a need to collect and use a range of data that reflects your
schools priorities and context
This booklet has described different techniques for presenting value-added data, however
no system should depend entirely on the data from assessments, informed professional
teacher judgement is fundamental to the process. The best schools combine the two, to
identify pupils with more potential than the data would suggest, then changing and
targeting their practice accordingly. Data is never used as an excuse!
42
APPENDICES
Exercise 10: Dividing pupils into sets/teaching groups
43

Purpose: How to use Progress Charts from the DfES Autumn Package to inform target setting,
and identify pupils at risk of underachievement.
Each year the Autumn Package contains a series of Progress Charts showing the outcomes
achieved by pupils of similar prior attainment. Schools can use these charts as a starting
point to estimate what their pupils are likely to achieve, and from these set targets based
on what the school aims to achieve.
For this exercise we are going to use the results of Anna Grapefruit, Sam Oregano and Ivan
Banana. At the end of Key Stage 2 each achieved Level 4 in the English, maths and science
tests, while Ivan, Anna and Sam achieved a level 3 in English but a level 5 in maths.
Average
Point
Average
English
MathsAssessments
Science English KS2
Maths
Science
KS2 Teacher
Test Levels
Score
Point
Anna Grapefruit
4
4
4
4
4
4
27
English
Maths
Science
English
Maths
Science
Score
Sam Oregano
4
4
4
4
4
4
27
Anna Grapefruit
4
4
4
4
4
4
27
Ivan Banana
3
5
4
3
5
4
27
Sam Oregano
4
4
4
4
4
4
27
Ivan Banana
3
5
4
3
5
4
27
KS2 Teacher Assessments
KS2 Test Levels
However, they each have an average point score of 27 points, calculated using the follow
values:
KS2 2000 Points Scores

Test Outcome
KS2 2000 Points Scores
A - Absent
Test Outcome
D - Disapplied
A - Absent
B - Working below the level of the
D - Disapplied
test
- Working
the level of the
N -BBelow
Levelbelow
2 threshold
test
Compensatory Level 2
N - Below
Level 2 threshold
Level
3
Compensatory Level 2
Level 4
Level 3
Level 5
Level 4
Level 6
Level 5
Level 6
English
Disregard
English
Disregard
Disregard
Disregard
15
15
21
27
21
33
27
39
33
39
Maths
Disregard
Maths
Disregard
Disregard
Disregard
15
15
Science
Disregard
Science
Disregard
Disregard
Disregard
15
15
21
21
27
27
21
21
33
33
27
27
39
39
33
33
Source: DfES Autumn Package 2003
39
39
Source: DfES Autumn Package 2003
Progress Charts are available for different point score ranges, and we need to look at the
charts for pupils who have achieved between 26 and 28 points at the end of Key Stage 2.
There are charts for English, maths, science, reading and writing.
44
English
Maths
26 <= Key Stage 2 Average Point Score <= 28

70%
70%
60%
60%
56%
50%
50%
40%
40%
21%
20%
18%
20%
11%
10%
10%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
3
4
5
6
Key Stage 3 ENGLISH Test Level
Science
6%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
2
3
4
5
6
7
Key Stage 3 MATHEMATICS Test Level
Reading
70%
70%
60%
60%
51%
50%
56%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
27%
20%
19%
20%
16%
10%
10%
0%
40%
30%
30%
0%
41%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
2
3
4
5
Key Stage 3 SCIENCE Test Level
0%
19%
5%
0%
N
4
5
6
Key Stage 3 READING Test Level
4%
Writing
70%
60%
50%
46%
40%
30%
23%
24%
20%
10%
0%
0%
2%
N
4
5
6
Key Stage 3 WRITING Test Level
3%
45
Pupils with an
APS between 26
and 28
56% of pupils go
on to achieve
Level 5
70%
60%
56%
Pupils with an
APS between 26
and 28
21% of pupils go
to achieve Level 6
50%
56% of pupils go
on to achieve
18% Level
of pupils
5 go
on to achieve
Level 4
40%
70%
30%
60%
56%
21%
18%
20%
50%
10%
40%
0%
30%
18% of pupils go
on to achieve
Level 4
0%
1%
2%
1%
3
4
5
6
Key Stage 3 ENGLISH Test Level21%
21% of pupils go
to achieve Level 6
18%
20%
10%
1%
1%
2%
0%
The English chart tells0%us 56%
of pupils with an average point score of 27 at the end of Key
N
3
4
5
6
7
B
Stage 2 (e.g. a Level 4 in each of the three subjects), go on to achieve English Level 5 by
the end of Key Stage 3, and another 21% a Level 6.
Importantly for target setting, 79% of such pupils go on to achieve at least a Level 5, but
we also know there is a risk of underachievement, as 19% of pupils achieve a Level 3 or
% of pupils
% of pupils
% of pupils
% of pupils
Level 4.
achieving Level 6 achieving Level 5 achieving Level 6
and above
and above
56%
21%
79%
23%
English
The figures for all KS3 core subjects are summarised in the following table:
41%
40%
87%
46%
Maths
% of79%
pupils
% of27%
pupils
% of51%
pupils
% of28%
pupils
Science
achieving
Level
5
achieving
achieving
56%Level 5 achieving
19%Level 6
79%
23%Level 6
Reading
and above
and above
46%
24%
73%
27%
Writing
56%
21%
79%
23%
English
41%
40%
87%
46%
Maths
51%
27%
79%
28%
Science
56%
19%
79%
23%
Reading
46%
24%
73%
27%
Writing
achieving Level 5
Around 1 in 5 pupils do not progress to at least a Level 5 in English, Science and Reading,
while around 1 in 4 such pupils do not progress to a Level 5 in Writing, and 1 in 10 pupils
in Mathematics.
For our three pupils from these charts we would expect at least a Level 5. We also know
that around 1 in 5 such pupils achieve a Level 6, even more in Maths. We also know there
is a risk that such pupils may still achieve a Level 4 by the end of Key Stage 3.
46
Task: Using the Progress Charts

Using the KS2 results of five pupils, use the following Progress Charts to calculate estimates
for KS3 English. What targets would you set for these pupils? What targets would you set
for pupils with:
higher teacher assessments than test levels?
a higher level in English than maths or science?
a lower level in English than maths or science?
Average Point Score = 15
Average Point Score between 16.0 and 22.9
Key Stage 2 Average Point Score = 15

70%
60%
70%
60%
57%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
37%
30%
24%
20%
20%
8%
10%
10%
0%
13%
3
4
5
6
0%
Average Point Score between 23 and 25.9

70%
15%
100%
2%
0%
19%
15%
1%
0
B
3
4
5
6
60%
50%
0%

70%
60%
56%
50%
41%
40%
40%
37%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
3%
5%
7%
0%
3
4
5
6
21%
10%
7%
0%
18%
0%
0%
1%
1%
3
4
5
6
2%
47

70%
Average Point Score 31.0 and above

Key Stage 2 Average Point Score >= 31
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
46%
40%
47%
40%
38%
30%
30%
20%
20%
30%
22%
10%
0%
48
8%
0%
0%
8%
0%
3
4
5
6
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3
4
5
6

In the first exercise, we simply used attainment in the tests to form estimates using
Progress Charts, but you will find it harder to set targets for some pupils. For example, if a
pupil is a Level 3 in English, Level 5 in maths and Level 4 in science, they have an average
point score of 27, but should they have a higher estimate for maths, and a lower estimate
for English? And how do we ensure there are targets in place to help the pupil with their
language skills?
In this exercise we will look at factors which ought to inform teachers when they set
targets. Such factors will either need to be considered when using Progress Charts, or they
are already taken into account when using estimates provided by the Fischer Family Trust,
which uses:
Teacher
Assessment
Marks
(fine grades)
Subject
differences
Gender
Month of
Birth
Using such information will sometimes lead to higher expectations, or it will identify
additional barriers to learning.
Teacher Assessment
Teacher assessment should be noted. Where it is the same as the test level, then it is
confirming a pupils achievements. Where it is higher or lower than the test level, then this
difference may help identify barriers to learning. For example, if the teacher assessment is
lower than the test, this may indicate the pupil may struggle if we used the test level
alone, while if the teacher assessment is higher than the test, this may indicate the pupil
has underachieved on the test paper.
49
Marks (Fine Grades)

Some level thresholds are very broad. For example, in 2003 Key Stage 2 English Level 3
ranged from 23 to 43 marks, Level 4 ranged from 44 to 68 marks, and Level 5 ranged from
69 to 100 marks. By using whole levels, one mark can make a dramatic difference. For
example, Pupil A who attains 43 marks is Level 3, Pupil B who attains 44 marks is a Level 4,
while Pupil C who attains 65 marks is also a Level 4. Pupils would seem to be of similar
attainment as they both achieved a Level 4, but in fact the difference between pupils B
and C is greater than the one mark difference between pupils A and B. Using marks allows
us think where within a level a pupil has attained.
Subject Differences
Pupils with the same overall attainment may have very different combinations of levels.
For example, pupils with an average point score of 27 at the end of Key Stage 2 could have
a Level 4 in English, maths and science, or a Level 3 in English, a Level 5 in maths, and a
Level 4 in science, or any other combination of Levels 3, 4 and 5. The Level 3 is probably
going to impact on estimates, particularly in that subject, as is the Level 5.
For example, pupils with average point score of 27, but with a Level 3 in English have
lower estimates for English at the end of Key Stage 3.
Data for England 2001/02 and 2002/03 Combined
Key Stage 2 Test Level
English
Maths
Science
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
5
3
4
3
5
4
Number
of Pupils
263796
5027
4154
3739
1939
Lower English estimate for pupils with Key

Stage 2 Level 3 but an APS of 27.
% pupils KS3 Level 5+

English
Maths
Science
82%
89%
81%
39%
67%
86%
75%
96%
79%
97%
58%
86%
48%
75%
74%
Source: Fischer Family Trust
Gender
Nationally there are differences in achievement between boys and girls, and including
these in the estimates helps indicate where gender differences may arise, and so give early
warning and help to decide where intervention to raise attainment to narrow the
achievement gap should take place.
50
Month of Birth
Throughout schooling, even at Key Stage 4, on average Autumn born pupils tend to have
higher achievement than Summer born pupils. For individual pupils the difference in
estimates is minor, but for a class of pupils, it is significant if there are more than average
numbers of Autumn born or Summer born pupils.
Returning to our three pupils, while they have the same average point score, Ivan only has
a Level 3 for English, and Anna has lower English and maths marks than Sam.
Anna Grapefruit
Sam Oregano
Ivan Banana
KS2 Teacher
Assessments
En
Ma
Sc
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
KS2 Test Levels

En
4
4
3
Ma
4
4
5
Sc
4
4
4
KS2 Test Marks

En
49
62
42
Ma
51
77
84
Sc
57
64
48
This does have an effect on the percentage estimates, whether these would lead to
different conclusions depends on the particular factors included in prior attainment. In this
instance, the Level 5+ estimates are broadly similar to the Autumn Package, for even after
taking teacher assessment, marks, subject differences, gender and month of birth into
account, we would still expect progress from Level 4 to Level 5.
Autumn Package estimate
Level 5+
Anna Grapefruit
Sam Oregano
Ivan Banana
En
79%
79%
79%
Ma
87%
87%
87%
Sc
79%
79%
79%
Fischer Family Trust estimate

Level 5+ (using Type A)
En
75%
85%
40%
Ma
75%
99%
99%
Sc
79%
95%
75%
Ivan has a lower KS3 English estimate due

to Key Stage English Level 3
But using marks indicates Sam and Ivan ought to achieve a Level 5 in Maths (99%), but
Ivan is at risk of not achieving a Level 5 in English without intervention. 40 percent of
pupils like Ivan go on to achieve a Level 5, but 60 percent at present do not.
Further differences emerge when looking at the Level 6+ estimates. Both Sam and Ivan
have very strong estimates for a Level 6 in maths, and maybe should be considered for
Level 7 targets, while Annas
maths
estimate
is lower than
theFamily
Autumn
Package
once
Autumn
Package
estimate
Fischer
Trust
estimate
Level 6+
weve taken her marks into account.
Anna Grapefruit
Sam Oregano
Ivan Banana
En
23%
23%
23%
Ma
46%
46%
46%
Sc
28%
28%
28%
En
15%
29%
3%
Ma
19%
86%
84%
Sc
16%
47%
14%
51
Autumn Package estimate

Level 6+
En
Ma
Sc
23%
46%
28%
23%
46%
28%
23%
46%
28%
Anna Grapefruit
Sam Oregano
Ivan Banana
Fischer Family Trust estimate

En
Ma
Sc
15%
19%
16%
29%
86%
47%
3%
84%
14%
This helps to confirm what teachers would already judge to be the case when they look at
marks. With Fischer Family Trust data, teachers know these factors have been taken into
account. Alternatively, if using Autumn Package Progress Charts, you can either adjust
estimates, or use a different chart. For example, for Ivans English estimate, knowing he has
a Level 3 English teacher assessment and test level, we could use the progress chart 23 to
25.9 instead of 26.0 to 28.9, which gives a 48% estimate of a Level 5 in English.
Average Point Score between 23 and 25.9 Average Point Score between 26.0 and 28.9
23 <= Key Stage 2 Average Points Score <= 25
70%
60%
60%
50%
56%
50%
41%
40%
40%
37%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
3%
0%
70%
5%
7%
10%
7%
0%
21%
18%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
Task: Using the Progress Charts

For the same five pupils used in Exercise 1, looking at their marks, teacher assessments and
subject differences what targets would you set for Key Stage 3 English, maths and science?
52

Using historical data for how pupils have achieved in the past either nationally or in our
school tells us what could happen if history were to repeat itself. Of course, just looking at
past trends doesnt account for either national or school aims for improvement, and you
also need to take into account the element of additional challenge that comes with target
setting. The Key Stage 3 Strategy exists to improve progress from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage
3, and so target setting should use historical rates of progress as a baseline for the future,
and not as an end point.
Both the Pupil Achievement Tracker and Fischer Family Trust data allow schools use the
results of similar schools in their estimates. The Pupil Achievement Tracker contains a series
of transition matrices using the most recent national data for the progress made by
schools grouped by the average point score of their intake. To give a couple of examples,
if Anna Grapefruit went to school A with a low average intake, and Sam Oregano went to
School B with a high average intake, even if they had the same prior attainment, Sam
would have slightly higher estimates. For example, his Key Stage 3 English estimate would
be 91%, compared to 86% for Anna. You would still end up with a Level 5 target for each
pupil, but these minor differences can be significant across the whole school.
School A: Median of the top 25% of schools with an average point score of 2526
Below Level 3
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Below Level 3
Total
Level 3
A
11%
6%
4%
A
2%
11%
5%
6%
D
5%
0%
0%
D
0%
5%
1%
0%
B4
53%
16%
1%
B4
0%
53%
8%
16%
Level 4
Level 5
Total
4%
2%
5%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
8%
Key Stage 3 English

4
5
6
7
25%
4%
0%
0%
39% Key34%
3%
0%
Stage 3 English
9%
48%
32%
6%
4
5
6
7
1%
11%
49%
37%
25%
4%
0%
0%
17%
37%
25%
8%
39%
34%
3%
0%
9%
48%
32%Anna has
6%an
1%
11%
49%86% estimate
37%
17%
37%
25%
8%
8
0%
0%
0%
8
0%
0%
0%
0%
5+
5%
38%
86%
5+
98%
5%
70%
38%
6+
0%
4%
38%
6+
86%
0%
33%
4%
0%
0%
0%
86%
98%
70%
38%
86%
33%
Anna has an
School B: MedianA of theDtop 25%

B4 of
Below Level 3
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Below Level 3
Total
Level 3
9%
4%
2%
A
1%
9%
2%
4%
7%
0%
0%
D
0%
7%
0%
0%
42%
12%
1%
B4
0%
42%
1%
12%
Level 4
Level 5
Total
2%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
Key Stage 3 English

86% estimate
schools
with
point
4
5 an average
6
7
31%
11%
0%
0%
38% Key41%
4%
0%
Stage 3 English
7%
43%
40%
8%
4
5
6
7
0%
11%
47%
41%
31%
11%
0%
0%
5%
28%
41%
23%
38%
41%
4%
0%
7%
0%
5%
43%
11%
28%
40%
8%
Sam has a 91%
47%estimate
41%
41%
23%
score
of 5+
2930
8
0%
0%
0%
8
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
46%
91%
5+
99%
11%
92%
46%
6+
0%
4%
48%
6+
87%
0%
64%
4%
0%
0%
0%
91%
99%
92%
48%
87%
64%
Sam has a 91%

estimate
53
The Fischer Family Trust school context model uses the percentage of pupils entitled to
free school meals, the average attainment of the school intake, and also the distribution of
that attainment. This is then used in addition to the prior attainment factors listed in
Exercise 2 to give Type B estimates (prior attainment + school context), Type C (Type B
estimates adjusted for national or LEA targets), and Type D (Type B estimates adjusted to
equal the progress made by the top 25% of schools).
For our three pupils, if they attend a school with high free school meals and a low intake,
their estimates are slightly lower:
Type B Estimate
Probability of Level 5+
Probability of Level 6+
En
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Sc
Anna Grapefruit
63%
66%
67%
9%
13%
8%
Sam Oregano
76%
99%
90%
18%
79%
32%
Ivan Banana
28%
98%
2%
76%
Probability
of Level62%
5+
Probability
of Level 7%
6+
En
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Sc
Anna Grapefruit
9%setting,13%
Schools
can use the Type B63%
model to66%
underpin67%
their target
knowing8%
that pupils
Sam Oregano
76%
99%
90%
18%
79%
32%
should
at the very least achieve
with similar
Ivan Banana
28% in line
98%
62% schools.
2%
76%
7%
The Fischer Family Trust Type D estimate gives us slightly higher estimates, and is useful
for schools wanting to set ambitious targets, or whose value-added is already good, and
they want to know what to consider in order to sustain good progress. For our three
pupils, still in the same schools
with high
free school
meals
and lowof
intake:
Probability
of Level
5+
Probability
Level 6+
Anna Grapefruit
Type
Estimate
SamD
Oregano
Ivan Banana
Anna Grapefruit
Sam Oregano
Ivan Banana
En
Ma
Sc
80%
76%
78%
87%
99%
94%
40%
99%
Probability
of Level75%
5+
En
Ma
Sc
80%
76%
78%
87%
99%
94%
40%
99%
75%
En
Ma
Sc
13%
17%
12%
27%
86%
45%
2%
84%
Probability
of Level10%
6+
En
Ma
Sc
13%
17%
12%
27%
86%
45%
2%
84%
10%
Again, the overall conclusions and targets remain the same, but Ivan Bananas probability
of achieving a Level 5 in English is affected by being in this type of school. If we only
considered prior attainment (Type A) it is 40%, but drops to 28% when also including
school context (Type B), and rises back to 40% if progress is in line with the top 25% of
schools after also accounting for school context.
54
At this point, we either have from Progress Charts, the Autumn Package or the Fischer
Family Trust an estimate for each child, which can be used as a basis for target setting,
which in turn will reflect the aspirations of the school. For example, the Key Stage 3
strategy aims for more pupils to progress from Level 3 to Level 5, so we would use the
estimates and prior attainment to identify pupils who have a chance of a Level 5 e.g. a
20% to 60% estimate, and look to set targets for a Level 5 based on a programme of
intervention and support.
55

It is important for schools to look at the typical progress made by their pupils. Progress
may be much higher than nationally, and so using national data for estimates may feel a
little low. Alternatively, progress may be much lower, and so the school needs to use the
national data as a floor to aspire to.
One school looked at the progress made by a group of 18 pupils with similar prior attainment
at the end of Key Stage 2, as they all had a Level 4 in the English, maths and science tests. They
had a list of teacher assessments at the end of Key Stage 2, the marks converted to a fine grade
(a pupil on the bottom of Level 4 was 4.0, a pupil with a mark in the middle 4.50, up to 4.99 for
the maximum marks to obtain a level 4), and the Key Stage test levels.
For example, Robert Apricot had a mid-level 4 for KS2 English, and low level 4 for maths
and science, yet by the end of Key Stage 3 had progressed to a Level 5 in maths.
Meanwhile, Jenna Cinnamon had high marks for KS2 English and science. She at least
progressed to a Level 5 in all subjects at the end of Key Stage 3, but could she have
achieved a Level 6?
Look at the remaining 16 pupils, and highlight any subjects where they may have
underachieved. What general conclusions would you draw for these 18 pupils?
Robert Apricot
Jenna Cinnamon
Siobhan Satsuma
Sarah Apple
Ricky Peppercorn
Aimee Parsley
Ashley Oregano
Chelsea Watermelon
Katrina Tumeric
Leon Mango
Katrina Olive
Chloe Garlic
Darren Ginger
Mark Mace
Maria Mango
Elizabeth Satsuma
David Tumeric
Harry Cumin
56
KS2 Teacher
Assessments
En
Ma Sc
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
KS2 Fine Grades

En
4.4
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.7
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.5
Ma
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.8
Sc
4.1
4.9
4.0
4.6
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.8
KS3 Test Levels

En
4
5
A
7
5
A
4
5
5
6
A
5
4
4
6
7
4
4
Ma
5
5
A
6
5
A
5
4
3
5
4
5
4
5
6
5
5
6
Sc
4
5
A
5
4
A
5
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
When the school did this exercise they highlighted the pupils who didnt achieve a Level 5
(shaded in red)
Robert Apricot
Jenna Cinnamon
Siobhan Satsuma
Sarah Apple
Ricky Peppercorn
Aimee Parsley
Ashley Oregano
Chelsea Watermelon
Katrina Tumeric
Leon Mango
Katrina Olive
Chloe Garlic
Darren Ginger
Mark Mace
Maria Mango
Elizabeth Satsuma
David Tumeric
Harry Cumin
KS2 Teacher
Assessments
En
Ma Sc
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
KS2 Fine Grades

En
4.4
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.7
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.5
Ma
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.8
Sc
4.1
4.9
4.0
4.6
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.8
KS3 Test Levels

En
4
5
A
7
5
A
4
5
5
6
A
5
4
4
6
7
4
4
Ma
5
5
A
6
5
A
5
4
3
5
4
5
4
5
6
5
5
6
Sc
4
5
A
5
4
A
5
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
Generally progress was lower than anticipated. For example, using Autumn Package data
or equivalent, they anticipated some 70-80% of these pupils going on to achieve a Level 4
in English, but only 9 out 18 did, and 3 pupils were absent. However, some pupils made
very good progress. For example, both Sarah Apple and Elizabeth Satsuma both achieved
a Level 7, and the school picked up early on that Sarah was already a Level 5 in English
from her teacher assessment, having just missed out on a test Level 5 by a few marks.
They concluded there was a lot of within-school variation. Pupils of similar attainment
taking the same subject didnt always progress to at least a Level 5, while some did better
than expected, and with the exception of Darren Ginger and Katrina Olive, pupils attained
at least one Level 5. The school felt that better target setting backed up by intervention
and support, with early indicators of possible underachievement would help to ensure
such pupils in the future would at least attain a Level 5.
57

The school then looked at the pupils who would start this Autumn Term with a Level 4 in
English, maths and science. Whereas last year there had been just 18 pupils, now there are
36, but we shall just look at the first 10.
Abigail
Peppercorn
Abigail
Peppercorn
Abigail
Thyme
Abigail
Thyme
Anna Pear
Anna Pear
Ashley Bay
Leaf
Ashley Bay
Leaf
Bethany
Garlic
Bethany
Garlic
Colin
Orange
Colin
Orange
Colin
Satsuma
Colin
Satsuma
Dale
Strawberry
Dale
Strawberry
Daniel
Lemon
Daniel
Lemon
KS2 Teacher
Assessments
KS2 Teacher
EnAssessments
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Sc
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
KS2 Test Fine

KS2Grades
Test Fine
En Grades
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Sc
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.1
4.7
4.8
4.1
4.7
4.8
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.2
5.0
4.7
4.2
5.0
4.7
4.2
4.1
4.8
4.2
4.1
4.8
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.4
4.8
5.0
4.4
4.8
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.3
4.7
5.0
4.3
4.7
5.0
KS3 Level 5
Estimates
KS3
Level 5
En Estimates
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Sc
96% 96% 89%
96% 96% 89%
82% 95% 87%
82% 95% 87%
75% 74% 79%
75% 74% 79%
70% 99% 91%
70% 99% 91%
75% 65% 69%
75% 65% 69%
67% 80% 83%
67% 80% 83%
81% 99% 97%
81% 99% 97%
81% 95% 84%
81% 95% 84%
74% 97% 93%
74% 97% 93%
What targets would you set for these pupils?

Abigail Peppercorn
Abigail
Abigail Peppercorn
Thyme
Abigail
Thyme
Anna Pear
Anna
AshleyPear
Bay Leaf
Ashley
Leaf
BethanyBay
Garlic
Bethany
Garlic
Colin Orange
Colin
Colin Orange
Satsuma
Colin
Satsuma
Dale Strawberry
Dale
Strawberry
Daniel
Lemon
Daniel Lemon
58
English
English
Maths
Maths
Science
Science
Comments
Comments
KS3 Level 6
Estimates
KS3
Level 6
En Estimates
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Sc
53% 62% 29%
53% 62% 29%
22% 59% 25%
22% 59% 25%
15% 19% 16%
15% 19% 16%
14% 81% 33%
14% 81% 33%
16% 12% 10%
16% 12% 10%
12% 25% 20%
12% 25% 20%
23% 85% 56%
23% 85% 56%
23% 56% 21%
23% 56% 21%
17% 70% 39%
17% 70% 39%
This is what the school did, but the teacher was also using her professional judgement and
knowledge of the pupils to be informed by the data, but to modify it in light of other
factors.
English
Maths
Science
Abigail Peppercorn
Abigail Thyme
Anna Pear
Ashley Bay Leaf
Bethany Garlic
Colin Orange
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
Colin Satsuma
Dale Strawberry
Daniel Lemon
5
5
6
6
5
5
Comments
Aptitude for Science
Attendance problems
High CATs scores indicated

greater potential
59

The school then looked at the pupils with at least one Level 3 in the KS2 tests
Sc
KS2 Test Fine

Grades
En
Ma
Sc
KS3 Level 5
Estimates
En
Ma
Sc
2.7
2.8
3.0
8%
1%
1%
3.1
3.6
3.7
9%
16%
15%
3.2
3.3
2.6
19%
4%
1%
2.7
3.5
3.7
3%
8%
6%
2.8
3.6
4.0
4%
15%
19%
4.0
2.6
3.4
53%
1%
5%
4.0
3.9
4.8
60%
37%
51%
3.2
3.4
4.3
11%
14%
34%
3.6
2.4
3.1
34%
0%
4%
2.8
2.4
3.0
3%
0%
2%
KS2 Teacher
Assessments
En
Ma
Sc
En
Ma
Anna Cumin
Ashley
Cinnamon
Ashley Sage
Abigail
Apricot
Adam
Pomegranate
Chelsea
Grapefruit
Chelsea
Lemon
Christian
Bay Leaf
Christina
Onion
Christopher
Lime
KS2 Test Levels
There were 70 pupils in total, and the first 10 are listed here.
Which of these pupils would you set a Level 5 target for?
Which pupils are at risk of not achieving a Level 4?
What other information would you want about these pupils?
60
This is what the teacher did .....

English
Maths
Science
Abigail Apricot
Adam Pomegranate
Anna Cumin
Ashley Cinnamon
Ashley Sage
Chelsea Grapefruit
Chelsea Lemon
Christian Bay Leaf
Christina Onion
Christopher Lime
Comments
Key Stage 1 to 2 value-added

suggested underachievement at Key
Stage 2
Maths teacher assessment and early

work indicated potential of Level 5
61

Schools can use progress charts with students when identifying potential progress
Student A: Bethany Onion
Bethany Onion achieved a Level 5 in English, maths and science at the end of Key Stage 3,
and she is taking GCSEs in 8 subjects:
50%
50%
40%
37%
40%
37%
30%
30%
20%
20%
37%
30%
13%
13%
9%
10%
1%
0%
1%
3%
1%
E
D
C
B
2003 GCSE English Grade
0%
A*
2%
F
E
D
C
B
A
2003 GCSE English Literature Grade
40%
0%
A*
39%
29%
30%
29%
22%
21%
20%
20%
10%
10%
3%
0%
1%
50%
38%
30%
0%
4%
2%

50%
40%
12%
10%
6%
5%
3%
1%
F
E
D
C
B
2003 GCSE Mathematics Grade
0%
0%
A*
0%
1%
1%
2%
F
E
D
C
B
2003 GCSE Double Science Grade
0%
0%
A*
50%
50%
40%
40%
33%
29%
30%
30%
30%
25%
20%
20%
10%
62
2%
17%
9%
10%
8%
2%
0%
20%
4%
4%
1%
F
E
D
C
B
2003 GCSE Geography Grade
0%
A*
0%
9%
5%
2%
0%
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
A*
2003 GCSE Design & Technology (Graphics) Grade
50%
50%
40%
40%
33%
30%
30%
27%
25%
22%
20%
14%
12%
9%
10%
10%
5%
2%
1%
0%
22%
20%
17%
E
D
C
B
2003 GCSE French Grade
3%
1%
0%
A*
0%
5%
2%
E
D
C
B
2003 GCSE History Grade
0%
A*
The charts suggest Bethany is most likely to achieve a grade D or C in most subjects, but
this doesnt take account of her aptitude for those subjects, nor the typical progress that
pupils currently make in the school. However, her teachers can use the graphs to suggest
which grades are achieveable. For example, Bethany is currently on course to achieve a
grade D in English Literature, but her teacher uses the chart to suggest she should aspire
for a C grade, as almost 40% of pupils like Bethany currently achieve a C grade.
By the end of Year 10, Bethany had the following target grades for the end of Key Stage 4,
and a series of current grades estimating what she could achieve at the end of Key Stage 4
given her current achievement. The current grades reflect her coursework and marks, and
while some improvement could be expected during Year 11, they are a good estimate of
what she could achieve by the end of Year 11.
Subject
English
English Literature
Maths
Double Science
Design and Technology (Graphics)
French
History
Geography
Target Grade
C
C
C
D/C
C
D
D
C
Current Grade
C
D
E
C
B
D
D
D
Bethany has a particular aptitude for design and technology, and is on course to achieve a
C in English and Double Science. The school wants Bethany to achieve at least one more C
grade, but also has to raise achievement in mathematics, which is currently two grades
below target.
63
Student B: Ricky Pomegranate

By the end of Key Stage 3 Ricky had achieve a Level 4 in English, a Level 6 in maths, and a
Level 5 in Science. He also had a Level 7 Teacher Assessment for maths. While his average
point score is 33 points ((27 + 39 + 33)/3), the school needs to take account of Rickys
aptitude for maths.
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
37%
37%
37%
30%
30%
30%
20%
20%
13%
12%
9%
10%
0%
1%
1%
3%
1%
0%
A*
0%
4%
2%
1%
2003 GCSE English Grade
2%
0%
A*
2003 GCSE Literature Grade
Key Stage 3 Average Points Score >= 38
60%
12%
10%
31<= Key Stage 3 Average Points Score <= 33
50%
50%
39%
40%
41%
40%
29%
30%
30%
27%
20%
10%
0%
22%
20%
37%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
6%
3%
A*
0%
2003 GCSE Mathematics Grade
1%
2%
0%
0%
A*
2003 GCSE Double Science Grade
50%
1%
50%
40%
40%
33%
29%
30%
30%
30%
25%
20%
20%
10%
4%
2%
2003 GCSE Geography Grade
64
0%
A*
9%
9%
4%
1%
17%
10%
8%
2%
0%
20%
5%
2%
0%
2003 GCSE Design & Technology (Graphics) Grade
0%
A*
50%
50%
40%
40%
33%
30%
30%
27%
25%
22%
22%
20%
20%
17%
14%
12%
10%
5%
2%
1%
0%
9%
10%
2003 GCSE French Grade
3%
1%
0%
A*
0%
5%
2%
0%
A*
2003 GCSE History Grade
So although Ricky has the same overall point score as Bethany, the school uses a different
progress chart. Though it is difficult to decide which one to use because they are based on
the average point score, the school decides to use the graph for score of 38 or more, as his
point score for maths is 39 and the teacher assessment 45.
65

Contextual value-added data compares the progress made by pupils by comparing them
with similar pupils in similar schools, and then giving the resulting difference a percentile
rank from 1 to 100.
If a school is in the top 25% of schools, then their value-added is significantly positive.
Conversely, if a school is in the bottom 25% of schools, then its value-added is
significantly low.
Rather than use one years data for one Key Stage, the approach looks at progress from
KS2KS3, KS3KS4, and KS2KS4 over a number of years.
School A:
Value-added KS2 ->
KS3
KS3
KS4
1998/99
KS3
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
1998/99
2002/03
1999/00
2000/01
KS4
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2000/01
2004/05
2001/02
Value-added KS3 ->

KS4
% of pupils
Value-added KS2 ->

KS4
Actual KS4
Core
Overall
5 or
Capped
5 or
Capped
Percentile
Rank
(based on
Matched Pupils)
Subjects
Points
more A*Points
more A*Points
Value-added
KS2
->
KS3 ->
KS2 ->
Level
5+
Score
CValue-added
Passes
Score
CValue-added
Passes
Score
KS3
KS4
KS4
of pupils
% 5+%
A*% No
C
Passes
Actual KS4
80
Core
Subjects
45
Level 5+
30
50
80
38
45
2000/01 2002/03
30
2001/02 2003/04
50
In2002/03
school A,
in
1998/99
2004/05
38
68
Overall
Points
63
Score
45
45
68
34
63
520
or
more
30A*C Passes
67
Capped
Points
62
Score
515
or
more
25A*C Passes
80
Capped
Points
70
Score
% 5+ A*42%
C
% No
6%
Passes
50
49%
2%
20
30
40
67
62
40
15
25
40
80
70
50
40%
42%
49%
5%
6%
2%
40
45
45
pupils34made
40
40
40%
5%
low progress from KS2 KS3, which the school had to

remedy in KS4. It managed to do for the 40% of pupils who achieved 5+ A*-C grades, but
the value-added using a capped points score was slightly below average. Since then, the
school have improved value-added from KS2KS3 across both the threshold indicator and
the overall points score, as it tries to ensure all pupils make good progress.
Value-added KS2 ->
KS3
School B:
Value-added KS2 ->

KS4
Actual KS4
Core
Overall
5 or
Capped
5 or
Capped
Percentile
Rank
(based on
Matched Pupils)
Subjects
Points
more A*Points
more A*Points
Value-added
KS2
->
KS3 ->
KS2 ->
Level
5+
Score
CValue-added
Passes
Score
CValue-added
Passes
Score
KS3
KS4
KS4
of pupils
% 5+%
A*% No
C
Passes
Actual KS4
2000/01
KS4
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2000/01
2004/05
2001/02
53
Core
Subjects
58
Level 5+
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
80
67
30
KS3
KS4
1998/99
KS3
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
1998/99
2002/03
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
66
Value-added KS3 ->

KS4
% of pupils
80
67
53
30
58
40
Overall
Points
37
Score
77
40
25
37
77
40
25
540
or
more
42A*C Passes
35
Capped
Points
56
Score
540
or
more
52A*C Passes
38
Capped
Points
49
Score
% 5+ A*42%
C
% No
1%
Passes
52
49%
1%
40
42
60
35
56
37
40
52
60
38
49
52
40%
42%
49%
2%
1%
1%
60
37
60
40%
2%
In school B, the value-added across all indicators was average, but dropped in 2000/01 for
KS2KS3. The school could have chosen to focus only of the 5+ A*-C pupils, but still
ensured pupils were entered for exams, and kept its number of pupils with no passes low,
and the value-added for the capped points score average. In 2002/03 it managed good
value-added from KS2KS3, which it hopes will feed through to improvements at KS4 in
two years time.
67

In our example school of 100 pupils, we can compare estimate against actual results.
In this case, we will look at English. For each pupil, using their prior attainment, we have
an estimated fine grade, and from their actual marks a fine grade.
KS3 Fine
Estimated KS3 English KS3 English
Grade
Residual
Fine Grade
Marks
Level
(using
(+/-)
KS3 Fine
marks)
Grade
Estimated KS3 English KS3 English
Max Olive
3.77
11
3
3.80 Residual
0.03
(using
(+/-)
Fine Grade
Marks
Level
Chelsea Grapefruit
4.69
19
4
4.21
-0.48
marks)
David
Orange
4.15
Max
Olive
3.77
11 18
3 4
3.804.14
0.03 0.00
Mark Pomegranate
5.27
Chelsea
Grapefruit
4.69
19 15
4 3
4.213.96
-0.48-1.31
Abigail
Tarragon
5.81
42
5
5.60
David Orange
4.15
18
4
4.14
0.00-0.21
Total
23.68
Mark
Pomegranate
5.27
15
3
3.9621.72
-1.31-1.97
Average
4.74
Abigail
Tarragon
5.81
42
5
5.604.34
-0.21-0.39
Figures
subject to rounding
Total
23.68
21.72
-1.97
Average
4.74
4.34
-0.39
subject to rounding
For example, Max Olive has a mean grade estimate of 3.77, and his Figures
11 marks
equate to
3.80, a very slight difference of 0.03. The only pupil of significant difference of the five is
Mark Pomegrante estimated to achieve 5.27, but actually achieved 3.96. The school then
plotted
8.00 all the estimates and actuals on a graph.
8.00
7.00
Actual KS3 English Fine Grade

Actual KS3 English Fine Grade
7.00
Mark
Pomegranate
Mark
Pomegranate
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
Max Olive
Max Olive
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
KS3 Estimated English Fine Grade
68
6.00
KS3 Estimated
Grade
5.00 English Fine 6.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
We can also look at the same differences grouped by different groups

Either as a table
Estimate
4.51
Estimate
4.85
4.51
4.32
4.85
4.32 4.75
4.63
4.75
4.88
4.63
4.65
4.88
4.65
Boys
Girls
Boys
Set 1
Girls
Set 1 Set 2
Set 3
Set 2
Set 4
Set 3
Overall
Set 4
Overall
Actual
4.13
Actual
4.52
4.13
3.89
4.52
3.89 4.31
4.36
4.31
4.59
4.36
4.33
4.59
4.33
Difference
-0.38
Difference
-0.33
-0.38
-0.44
-0.33
-0.44 -0.44
-0.27
-0.44
-0.29
-0.27
-0.32
-0.29
-0.32
Or as a graph
5.00
5.00
4.50
Key Stage 3 Fine Grade
Key Stage 3 Fine Grade
4.50
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.50
3.00
Estimate
Actual Set 1
4.32
Estimate
3.00
Actual
3.89
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4
Male
Female
4.32
4.75
4.63
4.88
4.51
4.85
3.89
Set 2
4.31
Set 3
4.36
Set 4
4.59
Male
4.13
Female
4.52
Overall
4.65
Overall
4.75
4.63
4.88
4.51
4.85
4.65
4.31
4.36
4.59
4.13
4.52
4.33
4.33
This may be a useful way of approaching the data, to see if there are any patterns or
specific groups to focus on.
69
Exercise 10: Dividing Pupils into Sets/Teaching Groups

The school looked at prior attainment in order to inform decisions about setting.
Such decisions take account of:
Supportive parents
Pupil potential
Knowing what a teacher can do with particular pupils
Learning styles
Group pupils in productive groups
Match teacher intervention
It is important to know what a teacher can do with particular pupils. Some may be better
at developing the potential of certain pupils, but all should aim to be able to work with all
types of pupil, including the high fliers, those certain of obtaining threshold indicators, and
those at risk of underachievement.
For example, this school had 100 pupils each year which it setted into four groups:
Set 1, with the pupils generally with the lowest prior attainment, had more pupils
achieving a level 4 by 2003
In Set 2, more pupils were achieving a level 4 or level 5 by 2003
In Set 3, while more than 50% of pupils achieved a level 5, this was some 20%
(5 pupils) below the estimate for 2002 and 2003
In Set 4, nearly all pupils achieve a level 5 by 2003.
It is then important to review the outcomes of setting.
70
Number
Key Stage 3 English:
2001of pupils at each level
Set
Set 1
Set 1
2
2
Set 1
3
Set 3
2
4
4
Set
3
Total
Total
Set
4
Total
Pupils
Pupils
25
25
Pupils
25
25
25
100
100
25
100
Number
A
Bof pupils
N at each
3 level
4
Number
of
pupils
at
each
level
A
B
N
3
4
3
10
10
2
3
10
10
2
A
B
N
3
4
2
6
6
1
9
6
6
1
9
3
10
10
2
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
2
5
6
6
1
9
1
2
1
1
2
5
9
17
17
6
19
9
17
17
6
19
2
1
5
9
17
17
6
19
5
5
5
1
1
13
13
1
11
11
13
25
25
11
25
6
6
6
1
1
5
5
1
6
6
5
6
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
Key Stage 3 English: 2002

Set
Set 1
Set 1
2
Set 2
1
3
3
Set 2
4
4
Set
3
Total
Total
Set 4
Total
Pupils
Pupils
25
25
Pupils
25
25
25
100
100
25
100
Number of pupils at each level

Number
A
Bof pupils
N at each
3 level
4
Number
A
B
N at each
38 level
4
1
5of pupils
10
1
1
5
10
1
A
B
N
38
4
2
1
5
5
2
1
5
3
5
1
5
10
8
1
1
5
3
1
1
5
3
2
1
5
3
5
1
1
1
1
5
3
4
6
16
17
12
4
6
16
17
12
1
3
4
6
16
17
12
5
5
5
9
9
10
10
9
15
15
10
34
34
15
34
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
5
9
9
4
9
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
% estimate % actual
5+ %
Level
5+
%Level
estimate
actual
Level 5+ Level 5+
% estimate % actual
Level 5+ Level 5+
Est
Est
3%
3%
Est
21%
21%
3%
59%
59%
21%
82%
82%
59%
42%
42%
82%
42%
Act
Act
0%
0%
Act
4%
4%
0%
56%
56%
4%
68%
68%
56%
32%
32%
68%
32%
% estimate % actual
5+ %
Level
5+
%Level
estimate
actual
Level 5+ Level 5+
% estimate % actual
Level 5+ Level 5+
Est
Est
0%
0%
Est
48%
48%
0%
80%
80%
48%
80%
52%
52%
80%
52%
Act
Act
0%
0%
Act
36%
36%
0%
60%
60%
36%
84%
84%
60%
45%
45%
84%
45%
Diff
Diff
-3%
-3%
Diff
-17%
-17%
-3%
-3%
-17%
-14%
-14%
-3%
-10%
-10%
-14%
-10%
Diff
Diff
0%
0%
Diff
-12%
-12%
0%
-20%
-20%
-12%
+4%
+4%
-20%
-7%
-7%
+4%
-7%
Key Stage 3 English: 2003

Set
Set 1
Set 1
2
2
Set 1
3
3
Set 2
4
Set
4
3
Total
Total
Set
4
Total
Pupils
Pupils
25
25
Pupils
25
25
25
100
100
25
100
Questions:
Number of pupils at each level

Number
A
Bof pupils
N at each
3 level
4
Number
A
B
N
3 level
4
4of pupils
3 at each
14
4
3
3
14
A
B
N
4
1
1
1
4
10
1
1
1
4
10
4
3
3
14
5
3
3
5
3
1
1
1
4
10
1
1
1
3
5
3
2
5
7
12
28
2
5
7
12
28
1
1
2
5
7
12
28
5
5
1
1
5
8
8
1
12
12
8
19
19
12
40
40
19
40
6
6
6
2
2
4
4
2
6
6
4
6
7
7
7
0
0
0
% estimate % actual
Level
5+
5+ %
actual
%Level
estimate
Level 5+ Level 5+
% estimate % actual
Level 5+ Level 5+
Est
Est
0%
0%
Est
28%
28%
0%
76%
76%
28%
96%
96%
76%
50%
50%
96%
50%
Act
Act
4%
4%
Act
32%
32%
4%
56%
56%
32%
92%
92%
56%
46%
46%
92%
46%
Diff
Diff
+4%
+4%
Diff
+4%
-20%
-20%
+4%
-4%
-4%
-20%
-4%
-4%
Did my groupings or settings work?

We can use the data to look back at outcomes. For example Set 4 contained some of the
pupils with the highest prior attainment and estimates, yet some pupils remained on a
level 4.
71
Abigail Tarragon
Ashley Pomegranate
Bethany Onion
Colin Pear
Dale Cumin
Dale Oregano
Daniel Ginger
Danielle Orange
David Olive
Dougal Orange
Emily Banana
Emily Bay Leaf
Ian Coriander
Jay Dill
Jay Orange
Katherine Dill
Mark Banana
Mark Pomegranate
Max Pear
Neil Parsley
Ricky Pomegranate
Sam Oregano
Sarah Bay Leaf
Sarah Olive
72
KS2 Test Fine

Grades
En
Ma
Sc
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.9
5.5
5.0
4.7
5.2
4.4
4.8
5.0
4.8
4.4
5.2
5.0
5.7
5.5
5.0
4.9
5.5
4.8
4.3
4.5
4.7
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.7
4.8
3.9
4.6
4.1
4.6
4.2
4.8
5.3
5.3
5.5
4.5
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.5
5.6
4.5
5.3
4.7
4.1
5.4
5.1
4.5
5.2
4.8
4.3
4.3
4.9
5.4
5.6
5.7
4.3
5.5
5.3
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.1
5.0
4.8
5.1
4.6
4.8
KS2 Teacher
Assessment
En
Ma
Sc
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
KS3 Test Levels

En
5
5
5
5
A
5
6
5
A
4
5
4
7
6
6
5
5
3
4
6
4
5
6
4
Ma
5
6
5
6
5
7
6
5
A
6
5
5
7
6
7
7
7
4
6
7
6
6
6
5
Sc
5
6
5
5
5
6
7
5
A
5
4
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
5
6
5
6
5
5

To calculate a value-added score per pupil, which can be aggregated for any group
of pupils, use the tables in the DfES Performance Tables site at
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables. The following example is for Key Stage 2
to Key Stage 3 Value-added in 2003.
KS2 average point score
KS2 average0point score
0
15
15
17-18
17-18
19
19
21
21
23-24
23-24
25
25
27
27
29-30
29-30
31
31
KS3 median average point score

KS3 median average
21 point score
21
21
21
21
23
23
25
25
27
27
31
31
35
35
37
37
39
39
For each pupil, calculate their average Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 point score using their
test levels.
Max Olive
Max Olive
Chelsea
Chelsea
Grapefruit
Grapefruit
David Orange
David Orange
Mark
Mark
Pomegranate
Pomegranate
Abigail
Abigail
Tarragon
Tarragon
Total
Total
Average
Average
Key Stage 2
Key Stage 2
En Ma Sc APS
En Ma Sc APS
3
3
3
21
3
3
3
21
4
N
3
21
4
N
3
21
3
4
4
25
3
4
4
25
4
5
4
29
4
5
4
29
4
4
4
27
4
4
4
27
123
123
24.6
24.6
Key Stage 3
Key Stage 3
En Ma Sc APS
En Ma Sc APS
3
4
4
25
3
4
4
25
4
3
4
25
4
3
4
25
4
6
5
33
4
6
5
33
3
4
5
27
3
4
5
27
5
5
5
33
5
5
5
33
143
143
28.6
28.6
Value-added
Value-added
Estimate Residual
Estimate Residual
25
0
25
0
25
0
25
0
31
+2
31
+2
37
-10
37
-10
35
-2
35
-2
153
-10
153
-10
30.6
-2
30.6
-2
For example, Max Olive has an average point score of 21 at the end of Key Stage 2, and
would be estimated to achieve 25 points by the end of Key Stage 3, which he managed,
giving a residual (difference) of 0. Across the five pupils, the average difference was -2 due
to the low progress of Mark Pomegranate.
73
To calculate an approximate value-added score in each subject, take the national valueadded line for each subject. This example will use Key Stage 3 English, but the same is
applicable to the tiered papers for Maths and Science, and the Key Stage 4 subjects, which
will use grades instead of marks.
2003 KS3 English Value Added Line
2003 Key Stage 3 ENGLISH Mark
2003 Key Stage 3 ENGLISH Mark
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0
90
80
70
Level 7
Level 7
60
50
Level 6
Level 6
40
Level 5
Level 5
30
20
Level 4
Level 4
15
15
17
17
19
19
21
23
25
27
21
23
25
27
The values for the median line are:

KS2
Average
KS2
Average
Points
Score
Points
Score
15
15
1717
1919
2121
2323
2525
2727
2929
3131
33+
33+
74
Median
Median
1313
1313
1313
1818
2323
3131
3939
4747
5454
6262
29
29
31
31
33+
33+
Using five pupils as an example,

Key Stage 2 Test Levels
Max Olive
Chelsea Grapefruit
David Orange
Mark
Pomegranate
Abigail Tarragon
Total
Average
En
Ma
Sc
APS
3
4
3
3
N
4
3
3
4
21
21
25
4
4
5
4
4
4
29
27
123
24.6
Key Stage 3 English

Median
Actual KS3
(estimate)
Mark
18
11
18
19
31
18
47
15
39
42
153
105
30.6
21
Residual
(+/-)
-7
+1
-13
-32
+3
-48
-9.6 marks
For each pupil calculate an average point score from the test levels. Then look up the
estimated mark (the median) from the table of values. For example, Max Olive with an
average point score of 21 would be estimated to achieve 18 marks. Then insert the actual
marks achieved, and subtract the actual mark from the estimate. In the case of Max Olive,
he achieved 7 marks below the estimate. Repeat for each pupil, and then average across
the number of pupils.
While this doesnt provide a value-added score as used in Performance Tables, it does give
an overall value for any group of pupils, and while of comparative use within a school,
cant be compared with national figures.
75

Smoking Out Underachievement: Guidance and Advice To Help Secondary Schools Use Value Added Approaches With Data

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smoking Out Underachievement: Guidance and Advice To Help Secondary Schools Use Value Added Approaches With Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smoking Out Underachievement: Guidance and Advice To Help Secondary Schools Use Value Added Approaches With Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smoking Out

Section 1: Comparing your school with other schools

Section 2: Comparing subject departments with other departments

Section 3: Comparing groups of pupils

Section 4: Bringing it all together

Outcomes and Target Groups

monitoring activity becomes interpretation

absolute scores move to value added information

summative assessment moves to the formative use of data

data is used for diagnostic purposes as well as for accountability

data as statistics to data as information and intelligence

externally required practice overtaken by self engaged professionals.

Introduction to value-added data

What data should a school use?

Things to remember when looking at data

Figure 1: Methods of calculation and methods of presentation

DfES Autumn Package

Estimate vs. Actual

Prior Attainment and

How will staff use data?

Value Added Data for the whole school

Data needs of different groups and the location of examples

Interrogation of data by different groups

Are our targets suitably challenging?

Are our spending plans suitably focused?

Headteacher/Senior Management Team

Are standards high enough for pupils from all backgrounds?

Are pupils making suitable progress?

Which are the strong/weak departments?

Who might be the strong/weak teachers?

Which teachers work best with pupils with different needs?

How can we improve on past performance with similar pupils?

Can we see any impact of new initiatives?

Subject Leader/Head of Department

What is happening to standards over time?

Can we see any impact of new initiatives?

Class Teachers and Form Tutors

Do I know pupils prior attainment scores?

Is progress good enough?

Are pupils from all backgrounds making suitable/appropriate progress?

Are my teaching approaches appropriate for all pupils?

What are the barriers to learning?

Value added data and underachievement

These schools average 5+ A*-C grades would rise by 10 percent

Their average Key Stage 3 points score would rise by 3 points.

Is there underachievement in specific subjects, groups, sets or at individual pupil

Do certain pupils underachieve each year?

Which pupils are at risk of underachieving in the future?

Which schools can we learn from?

Total number of pupils found with matching KS2 results:

Calculated Value Added Measure

24 pupils below the

2003 Key Stage 3 ENGLISH Marks

52 pupils between the

2003 Key Stage 3 English Value Added Line

25 pupils not plotted

77 pupils between the