When the National results for the KS2 assessment were released this week, the “disappointing but expected” dip drew a lot of attention. (At this point, we are still waiting to hear the outcome of the missing papers and the impact these results will have on the overall percentages.)

Part of the furore is because the figures reveal there is significant ground to be recovered if the aim laid out in the White Paper - for 90 per cent of students to leave primary school working at the expected standard in reading, writing and maths by 2030 - is to be achieved.

Setting and missing targets is something we have seen before, and we don’t have to look very far back into the history of KS2 national testing to find other examples of when targets imposed by the Department for Education (DfE) have failed to have the intended impact.

In 2015, a year into teaching the new curriculum and a year before the first tests, the DfE issued a floor standard that required at least 85 per cent of pupils in each school to reach the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at KS2.

This was a huge change from the previous accountability regime, in which 65 per cent or more were expected to achieve the old level 4.

Primary schools were therefore faced with the daunting prospect of a tougher standard and a higher threshold. Then, during the hazy summer months when no one was looking, the guidance changed and the threshold was dropped back to 65 per cent. When schools returned in the autumn term, everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

Why that threshold changed was never explained - and it’s a moot point now anyway because floor standards were scrapped in 2017 - but maybe the DfE realised that it was setting the bar far too high.

Naturally, there was a lot of speculation in the lead up to the publication of the first set of results in July 2016, but no one predicted what came to pass: 53 per cent of pupils achieved expected standards in the those three core subjects. We were in a bizarre situation where England had fallen 12 points below its floor standard (and a country mile below the briefly intended 85 per cent threshold).

And then there was writing. While just 66 per cent of pupils achieved the expected standard in the reading in 2016, 74 per cent managed to reach the standard in writing. This raised eyebrows because reading is tested at KS2 whereas writing is teacher assessed.

The disparity in results led FFT’s Education Datalab to scrutinise the numbers and reach the conclusion that some local authorities had harsher moderation regimes while others were perhaps more lenient.

Despite much debate - and disbelief - national writing results would remain higher than reading at key stage 2 for the next three years. It is little wonder that writing data forms no part of the baseline for the progress 8 measure.

Between 2016 and 2019, results in all subjects improved with the exception of reading, which saw a dip in the percentage achieving the expected standard, from 75 per cent in 2018 to 73 per cent a year later.

Also in 2019, the percentage achieving expected standards in all three subjects finally reached the, by then, obsolete floor standard of 65 per cent. It had taken four years. And while it could be claimed that this slow but steady increase reflected an improvement in national standards, it should be noted that each consecutive cohort had had an additional year’s teaching of the new national curriculum.

The cohort that should have had a complete experience of the new curriculum through KS1 and 2 was the one due to be assessed in 2020. But something completely unpredictable happened: on 23 March 2020, the UK went into a nationwide lockdown and statutory assessment was paused for the next two years.

Various studies have attempted to quantify the effect of this prolonged period of disruption to education. Most concluded that maths took a bigger hit than reading and disadvantaged pupils suffered more than their more affluent peers.

Impact of pandemic

That is why this year’s KS2 results have been so eagerly anticipated: we will finally have some idea of the impact of the pandemic on pupils’ learning. And the numbers paint an interesting picture. In reading, 74 per cent of pupils achieved the expected standard, one point up on 2019 and the second highest result since the new tests began in 2016.

Meanwhile, other subjects saw decreases, with maths falling from 79 per cent in 2019 to 71 per cent in 2022; and grammar, punctuation, and spelling down from 78 per cent to 72 per cent over the same period. Most interesting, perhaps, is writing, which saw the biggest drop of any subject. In 2019, 78 per cent met the standard in the subject; this year’s result stands at 69 per cent. Finally, the writing result is lower than that for reading.

Despite the surprising improvement in the reading result, with results in other subjects down, the combined measure could only go one way. After three years hovering above the 60 per cent line, it is now back below it for the first time since 2016. In 2022, the percentage of pupils achieving the expected standard in all three subjects is 59 per cent. That White Paper target for 90 per cent to achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths now seems a very long way off indeed.

What would be a better alternative to a fixed floor standard? Given that no school is reviewing its cohort and deciding to write off the chances of 10 per cent of its pupils on the say-so of an arbitrary target, is there any need for them at all?

Instead, what we need to embed is that all primary teachers - in every classroom, teaching every year group - aspire for their pupils who take the KS2 tests to reach the expected standard. For some, that may not happen but that has to be the aim.

James Pembroke is the founder of Sig+, an independent school data consultancy (www.sigplus.co.uk)