1. joining the dots Closing the Gap Getting a better understanding of the data 1 Mike Treadaway, FFT

2. joining the dots Changes…. 2014 Wolf Review implemented First entry only counted for performance tables Wolf Review implemented First entry only counted for performance tables 2015 Some schools opt for Progress 8 Details of KS2 accountability (and KS1?) New Baseline (September 2015) Some schools opt for Progress 8 Details of KS2 accountability (and KS1?) New Baseline (September 2015) 2016 1-8 Scale used for Attainment 8 / Progress 8 New KS2 assessments (September 2016 Y7) 1-8 Scale used for Attainment 8 / Progress 8 New KS2 assessments (September 2016 Y7) 2017 First reformed GCSEs taken (English and mathematics) 1-9 Scale used for new GCSEs New Points Scale for ‘legacy’ GCSEs First reformed GCSEs taken (English and mathematics) 1-9 Scale used for new GCSEs New Points Scale for ‘legacy’ GCSEs 2018 2019 2018 2019 More reformed GCSEs 2021 Pupils with new KS2 assessment from 2016 are now Y11 2022 Pupils with new baseline in 2015 are now Y6

3. joining the dots Issues What’s the best way to measure the gap? Is looking ONLY at attainment gaps good enough? Are all ‘disadvantaged’ pupils the same? What resources can help us to do the above? How will we measure the gap when end of key stage assessments change?

4. joining the dots Headlines

5. joining the dots What if we measured things differently?

6. joining the dots Measuring the Gap Threshold –Measure only changes around the threshold Points –Measure changes for all pupils ChangeL4+APS L2 -> L30+1 L3 -> L4+1 L4 -> L50+1 ChangeA*CAPS E -> D0+1 D -> C+1 C -> B0+1 Key Stage 2 Key Stage 4 Threshold measures are important –But to focus ONLY on them can be misleading

7. Pupil Premium (PP) vs not Pupil Premium (Attainment) Similar Gaps ? 0.5 Level Gap PP Not PP PP Not PP Average KS2 Level

8. Pupil Premium vs not Pupil Premium (Expected Attainment) Similar Gaps? 0.8 ‘Expected’ Level gap 0.2 ‘Expected’ Level gap PP Not PP PP Not PP Estimated KS2 Level (from KS1)

9. Pupil Premium vs not Pupil Premium (Expected Attainment) Similar Gaps? Level gap 0.3 HIGHER than expected Actual Gap Expec Gap KS2 Level Gap Actual Gap Expec Gap Level gap 0.3 LOWER than expected

10. joining the dots Measuring the Gap Looking at attainment gaps is important Can be misleading if gap at entry is not taken into account Look at gaps in attainment AND in value-added

11. joining the dots C B D E Year 11 Attainment in 2013 (Average GCSE Grade) Year Group when last FSM The “Invisible Group” FSM ‘Ever not 6’ Never FSM Last FSM in Year 11 Pupil Premium ‘FSM6’

12. joining the dots Closing the Gap - FFT Resources Estimates don’t take account of pupils’ FSM status This provides greater level of challenge for disadvantaged pupils. FFT Aspire Pupil target-setting reports show some pupil characteristics (FSM,EAL, SEN) Reports can be filtered to show, for example, white disadvantaged pupils only. Pupil Premium report (June) FFT Student Explorer Can filter pupils by range of characteristics. Can show complete history (e.g. schools attended, attainment, FSM status) for individual pupils. Currently in FFT Live, Aspire version in April / May.

13. joining the dots Closing the Gap - EEF Toolkit FFT worked with Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) to help in the design and production of ‘Families of Schools’ toolkit Key aspects: Enables schools to compare with 50 similar schools. Focus is mainly upon 3 year summaries – particularly important for schools with low % of disadvantaged pupils. Enables assessment of gaps in both attainment and value-added Currently 2013 data, will be updated with 2014 data (March / April) Currently KS4, working with EEF on KS2 version

14. joining the dots Closing the Gap - Tracking Many schools use tracking systems such as ‘Target Tracker’ Whatever system is in use, ensure that important gaps are picked up as early as possible: Example from Wirral Principle of ‘notional prior attainment’ 14

15. joining the dots Measuring the Gap.. In the future End of KS assessments are going to change Scaled Scores at KS2 Attainment 8 and Reformed GCSEs at KS4 Does this mean that we can’t compare gaps over time? Possible solutions: DfE publication (for feedback) December 2014 FFT Pilot with Essex 15

16. joining the dots Possible Solutions DfE proposal Ranks pupils based on attainment in English and mathematics Compares average ranks Only for data at national level – DfE considering whether approach will work for schools and LAs FFT Pilot with Essex Uses standardised scores derived from measures such as average NC level, average GCSE grade In each year, national average (all pupils) is 100 Looks at both attainment and value-added 16

17. joining the dots How is Essex doing? Uses FFT Pilot methodology Also uses FFT ‘Similar Schools’ methodology Initial analyses compare: Essex Regions within Essex Individual schools With National Similar Schools outside Essex 17

18. joining the dots Key Stage 1 18 Gap of 10 points = 1 sublevel Value-added gap about 25% of total gap Trend (for individual years): Not EALEAL Closing slower than national, about same rate as for similar schools. Widening. Same pattern in similar schools but widening faster in Essex.

19. joining the dots Key Stage 2 19 Gap of 10 points = 0.5 NC Level Value-added gap about 25% of total gap Trend (for individual years): Not EALEAL Closing 3 times faster than national and much faster than for similar schools Attainment gap widening, VA gap closing. National stable, similar schools closing gap.

20. joining the dots Key Stage 4 – Average GCSE Grade 20 Gap of 8 points = 1 GCSE Grade Value-added gap about 40% of total gap Trend (for individual years): Not EALEAL Attainment gap stable – but didn’t suffer from widening seen in national for 2014 caused by impact of first entry. Attainment gap closing, VA gap variable. Same pattern as for similar schools.

21. joining the dots Next stages … Explore variations within Essex Between areas Between schools Provide Essex with underlying data to support detailed evaluation of vulnerable groups Extend to cover wider range of indicators Refine methodology based upon feedback 21