1. Results for Filton College

2. Aim To help inspectors and providers, better analyse performance when considering the social and economic disadvantage profile of its learner cohort. Prior to an inspection, the SePI will help to raise questions and areas for further investigation. However, it will not be used to justify poor attainment. Users of the report should not base their judgements solely on the comparative data found in the SePI; it is indicative only.

3. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and Success Rates The report is based on outputs from the 'Index of Multiple Deprivation‘ (IMD) 2007, applied to individual learner's postcodes. IMD 2007 combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of economic, social and housing issues, into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. This allows each area to be ranked relative to one another according to their level of deprivation. The resulting analysis compares learner responsive provider 2009/10 success rates, by age and level, with national averages referenced against statistical neighbours i.e. calculated using average quartile success rates.

4. Filton Overview – IMD average score against Success Rates

5. Average IMD score The Socio-economic Performance Indicator (SePI) report links an average Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007 score, based on the postcodes of individual learners who enrolled on a specified level of programme to 2009/10 long qualification success rates.

6. Rank % Rank - The percentage rank positions a college or provider’s average IMD score in each cohort (on a range of 1 to 100) when all providers of the same type are taken into account. Note: regarding the rank order - 1% position represents very high deprivation and 100% position represents very low deprivation

7. Average quartile success rates Average quartile success rates - based on the % rank order of the average IMD score for all providers of the same type within a given cohort or grouping. Note: To calculate the mean for each quartile, all the ‘raw data’ for the relevant colleges/providers in a particular cohort were added together, that is, as if they had attended one fictitious college or provider and an average success rate calculated. Using this approach mean success rates were calculated for each of quartile group (0- 25, over 25 -50, over 50 -75 and over 75 -100). To reiterate, the 0-25 quartile represents relatively very high deprivation and the 75-100 quartile represents relatively very low deprivation.