ENQUIRY OF KEY STAGE 2 DATA FROM ONE
SCHOOL
7.1: Context.
To support the ambitions of the research, each of the case study schools were asked, quite early on in the study, if they would allow access to pupils’ progress data from KS2 through to KS4. KS2 results of pupils reflect an assessment of ability in English, maths (and in a selection of schools, science) as they exit primary
education. KS2 results are graded between ‘W’ (broadly representing no score or no test taken) through to ‘7’ (the highest possible score). A measure of ‘expected progress’ (set currently at 3 levels) is located in the belief that pupils achieving a level 4 in English or in maths by the end of KS2, should be expected to achieve at least a C grade GCSE in that subject. The consequence being that pupils achieving a level 3 or below, even if they make their expected levels of progress, will at best achieve a D grade and so would need to overachieve comparative to the testing and assessment regime currently in place. As GCSE floor targets are predicated on the attainment of grades at C or above, it was this cohort (i.e. those with KS2 scores of 3 or lower) which were the focus of this study.
After protracted but understandable deliberation given the potentially sensitive nature of the data, two of the schools declined to make any data available. One school, however, decided to allow access on a very limited basis. Consequently, data were provided for 3 years, 2013, 2014 and 2015 for those pupils entering their school with KS2 scores of 3 or lower.
176
Any results generated from data examined, for one school over a period of 3 years, cannot ‘prove’ anything of significance; it can however suggest signposts towards issues that might be significant with further study and analysis of a larger dataset.
7.2: Headline data.
Table 7.1: School 1 – Low Performers in English at key stage 2.
English Year Pupils with KS2 score <3 Pupils who achieved GCSE grade C<
Pupils who did not achieve a
minimum of GCSE grade C
% of pupils who did not attain
GCSE floor targets
2013 142 72 70 49%
2014 128 62 66 52%
2015* 55 17 38 69%
(* Note: KS2 results for 2015 affected by ‘boycott’ of testing regime by primary school teachers.)
Table 7.2: School 1 – Low Performers in maths at key stage 2.
(* Note: KS2 results for 2015 affected by ‘boycott’ of testing regime by primary school teachers.)
The government website Raise Online, (2015) states that “… In 2010, a number of schools boycotted the Key Stage 2 national curriculum tests and therefore, this year [2015], the number of pupils without a test result is higher than usual ...” This tends to devalue any data provided for 2015 and as a consequence any analysis has been restricted to the data provided only for 2013 and 2014.
Maths Year Pupils with KS2 score <3 Pupils who achieved GCSE grade C<
Pupils who did not achieve a minimum of GCSE grade C
% of pupils who did not attain GCSE floor targets
2013 123 56 67 55%
2014 112 54 58 52%
177
Even with the above caveats in mind it is evident from the data that approximately half of those pupils who entered the school with KS2 scores of 3 or less did not attain the minimum (floor target) qualification of Grade C in English and maths by the end of KS4. I argue that this group is illustrative of a group which I term the “disconnected minority”. Indicative of a conflict perspective, this group lies outside the ‘mainstream’ of recognisable academic results as a result of the intense focus on A*-C passes at the GCSE stage and are therefore marginalised, or ignored by the systems of measurement which prevail.
A corollary is, of course identifiable, that approximately 50% of the whole cohort, for both English and maths, attained a minimum of a grade C and can therefore be argued as ‘overachieving’. Why this disparity exists cannot be explained at this point. An explanation from within the paradigms of educational psychology and child development, discussed in chapter 4, might simply be the differing rates at which a number of psychologists (as represented in table 4.1 above) argue that children develop cognitive skills (also, c.f. Bandura, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Alternatively, or contemporaneously, results could be enhanced by the school using targeted interventions with a cohort of pupils as described above in discussions on the use of pupil premium. The latter perception generated a short series of questions for the survey which revealed that, according to respondents, schools involved in the research were achieving good results from the use of a variety of interventions. It is known that a proportionate number of
respondents were from school 1, which had agreed to the use of the entry data which, to a small degree, helps to authenticate any propositions which might arise from the survey results.
178
90% of respondents reported that their school was implementing interventions directly aimed at those pupils identified as low achievers at KS2. Interventions included 1:1 mentoring, attendance at ‘Saturday School’ on a voluntary basis, behavioural management and in a small number of cases, support for extra-curricular activities. When asked, in a supplementary question, whether these interventions were effective, the results as represented in figure 7.1 below, were:
Figure 7.1: Success of interventions with low performers in school 1.
The articulation of ‘partial success’ may begin to suggest a reasoning for the disparity between those who can overachieve and those who fail to reach GCSE grade C but further, more detailed analysis is required in this area; not least because it is not known whether all low performers benefit from interventions or simply a targeted group within that whole cohort. Evidence from the use of pupil premium, described below in chapter 8 suggests that quite often a number of pupils who would benefit from interventions are not included in the initiatives which pupil premium funding supports.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Unsuccessful To early to judge Partial success Complete success
How successful have interventions been at delivering lasting change for the pupils involved?
179
7.3: Unpacking the headline data.
The headline data obtained from school 1 can be subdivided according to KS2 score on entry, based on the scale of W – 3. A return of ‘W’ indicates that a pupil was not tested, for example for reasons of absence. As per the rationale offered above, 2015 results omitted. These data might offer clues to why some pupils are able to exceed their expected levels of progress whilst others cannot.
Figure 7.2: School 1 – KS2 Low performers scores on entry.
It is evident from the graph that in both years, in both subjects, there were significantly more entrants with the higher KS2 score of 3 than in either of the other groupings. It is a simpler proposition for the majority of those pupils, firstly to realise their expected 3 levels of progress up to grade D at GCSE and then much less of a ‘stretch’ to exceed their expected targets and reach a grade C. This assumption is supported by the school data, represented in the graph below, which shows that for both English and maths,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
English 2013 Maths 2013 English 2013 Maths 2014
School 1: Low performers KS2 scores on entry 2013 and 2014
180
those pupils who enter with a KS2 score of 3 are much more likely to reach a minimum of grade C than those who enter with scores of ‘W’ or 2.
Figure 7.3: Attainment of GCSE grade C based on KS” entry score.
The total number of grade C GCSE passes achieved by these pupils correlates to the headline data from the relevant DfE figures; in 2013 72% for English and 56% for maths; and in 2014 62% for English and 54% for maths. In each year for this group of pupils, for both subjects, a range of 85% - 95% of grade C passes are attributable to those entering the school with a KS2 score of 3.
As considerable emphasis is placed on the measure by the education system, it is worth briefly considering how low performers relate to their ‘expected levels of progress’ metric. This has been discussed at some length in earlier chapters. Simply for reiteration, the standard for all pupils is an expectation that, whatever the KS2 score on entry, a minimum of 3 levels progress should be recognisable between KS2 and KS4 benchmarks so that broadly:
6 7 3 8 66 49 59 46 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
English 2013 Maths 2013 English 2014 Maths 2014
School 1 - attainment of grade C GCSE based on KS2 entry score
181
Table 7.3: Expected levels of progress benchmarks.
It can be seen that the opportunity for low performers to reach grade C is an
infinitely more difficult prospect than for those with higher KS2 scores on entry and yet, a proportion of those pupils are able to make that adjustment as shown in the graph below, based on the data from school 1.
Figure 7.4: School 1 – percentage of low performers exceeding expected levels of progress. KS 2 score on entry Expected levels of progress Target KS 4 Result Levels needed to reach Grade C W 3 GCSE Grade F 6 2 3 GCSE Grade E 5 3 3 GCSE Grade D 4 4 3 GCSE Grade C 0 5 3 GCSE Grade B -1 6 3 GCSE Grade A -2 7 3 GCSE Grade A* -3 50.7 45.5 48.4 48.2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 English Maths
School 1 - entrants with KS2 scores of 3
- % of pupils exceeding expected levels of progress to reach grade C GCSE
182
Once again, this raises the question of how some pupils are recognised as
overachieving whilst others are finding it difficult to simply reach their predicted levels. As nothing is known about the nature of the cohort of low performers that these data represent, a number of variables would need to be considered.
Importantly, an identification of types of intervention, who had received
interventions, to what extent and the set of metrics used to measure outcomes would be needed initially. Any number of other variables, such as family background, gender, ethnicity, would also need to be factored in to enable full extrapolation of the data. More than 2 years’ data from only one school would also be needed before any real generalisations could be made.
7.4: Signposts in the data.
As they are very limited in size, scope and context, analysis of the data from school 1 can only signpost issues which might help answer the research questions which form the basis of this thesis. The data do, however:
• Help to identify and begin to quantify the cohort which, I am arguing, the education system fails. In school 1 data there are approximately 50% of low performers at KS2 who cannot make the levels of progress needed to reach the grade C target at GCSE. This is important in supporting the argument, made throughout this thesis, that this cohort is ignored or disregarded by the education system. Furthermore, as the discourse on underachievement seems focussed elsewhere (white working class boys, Afro-Caribbean boys, for
183
example) as a discrete entity, this cohort may be underrepresented in academic literature.
• Contain evidence that informs lines of enquiry for the survey and the later interviews conducted at the empirical stage of the research. For example:
o In identifying a cohort for whom 4+ levels of progress are unachievable, accepting that they cannot therefore achieve the minimum academic metric of success, GCSE grade C. How can this be remedied?
o With caveats, the data suggest that interventions work for some but not others. Why is this?
o Are all low performers at KS2 offered the interventions; if not, why not?
o Is the “consistent” percentage split (around 50/50) of those that overachieve and those who fail to reach floor targets, suggestive of a structural failure?
o Is it possible that the ‘failing’ starts when KS2 tests are done; are a proportion of KS2 scores inaccurate, especially for those identified as low performers?
184