The department for Education’s primary school accountability guidance states that the “[expected progress] measure has been replaced by a value-added measure. There is no ‘target’ for the amount of progress an individual pupil is expected to make.”
This is indeed the case for the official progress measure, which compares each pupil’s attainment score against the national average for pupils with similar start points.
There is, however, a data fly in the progress ointment. The new primary inspection dashboards now show percentages achieving the expected and high (or greater depth) standard in reading, writing and maths for each prior-attainment band. Unlike progress measures, for which prior attainment is based on overall key stage 1 average point score, here it is defined by the pupil’s level in the particular subject at key stage 1 (low = L1 or below; middle = L2; high = L3). The percentage of pupils achieving, say, the expected standard at KS2 from a level 2 (middle) start point is then compared with the national figure for the same group, all of which bears an uncanny resemblance to the progress matrices of old.
Colour coding is then used to indicate sizeable gaps from national average that equate to a certain number of pupils: dark green for gaps of two or more pupils, light green for one pupil above, light red for one pupil below, and dark red for two or more pupils below.
The first thing to point out is that the colour coding does not denote statistical significance. The second is that this is not an expected progress measure, despite some already referring to it as such.
Most worrying is the application of this method at KS1. Pupils are grouped as emerging, expected or exceeding on the basis of their development in specific early learning goals at foundation stage and KS1 results are compared against national figures for each prior attainment band. Again, red and green boxes are used to indicate sizeable gaps and many schools have weaknesses identified on page 1 of the dashboard, where a gap equating to two or more pupils below national average is defined as “well below”. The concerns here are numerous:
- A good level of development at early years foundation stage (EYFS) is not taken into account.
- Early learning goals were never supposed to be used as an indicator of future achievement.
- The data implies expected progress from EYFS to KS1. Schools are left trying to explain why more emerging pupils did not achieve the expected standard at KS1, or why pupils that met the early learning goals in reading didn’t go on to achieve greater depth.
It seems that reports of the death of expected progress have been greatly exaggerated.
James Pembroke founded Sig+, an independent school data consultancy, after 10 years working with the Learning and Skills Council and local authorities.