Analysis of end of year Assessment data via CASPA academic year 2015-16
The Ridgeway Community School mainly defines expected progress as staying within 5 percentile points of the progress across the core subjects typically expected from a student, given their age and prior achievement, as measured by CASPA. Therefore any increase of more than 5 percentile points is defined as above expected progress and any decrease in attainment of 5 percentile points or more is defined as below expected progress. These levels have been agreed by the Surrey CASPA pilot group and are the parameters used by the majority of Surrey special schools, as well as the indicators used in the central Surrey CASPA annual report. This method of defining progress has flaws, but is the most accurate method that the school currently are aware of. Because of this, the school will endeavour to explore other measures of progress alongside the main method stated above.
In late June 2016, The Ridgeway’s assessment data was transferred from SOLAR into CASPA for analysis. This was similar to the date given last year and will represent a full year at the school for most students.
This represents the fourth year that the school has used SOLAR as its main assessment tool. It can remain a time consuming exercise and there is a larger expectation in some classes. However, I believe that the principle of using SOLAR is becoming embedded in the school and it has been easier for teachers to keep assessments up to date this year. There have been occasional mentions by teachers of students coming to them with questionable assessments, but these are greatly reduced on previous years.
As in the last 3 years, teachers were involved in mid-year data for most students. Any student who was in danger of making below expected progress according to CASPA was flagged up, with the relevant teacher being given a slip of paper informing them of the data, what was required to move the student to the expected progress , and any necessary interventions. If a student was in danger of making below expected progress, teachers were informed of what would be required to move them into the expected progress group. If the student was already in the expected progress group, then teachers were informed of how much progress was required for them to move into the above expected progress group. Teachers were then asked to make a prediction as to whether individual students could make the progress required to move up a group and predictions were once again pleasingly accurate, if slightly erring slightly on the optimistic side.
For the first time this year, these mid-year assessments were broken down into each of the core subjects, with teachers being told about progress in English, Maths and Science. This split did show that Science was often behind the other 2 subjects and led to some classes reviewing their Science teaching and adding extra Science sessions.
Similarly to last year, internal moderation of SOLAR took place. Following the issues with Science detailed above, Science was chosen for moderation. There was agreement that the tasks used were appropriate, but there was a general feeling that more information could be added to SOLAR. Some teachers have asked whether TAs could be part of this moderation next year, as they are responsible for some of the assessment entry.
P scales remain mandatory for collection, so have not been altered in SOLAR. There is currently no indication whether this will also be the case next year, although there have been strong suggestions that P Scales will not continue beyond this year. For this year, The Ridgeway once again chose to continue to use National Curriculum levels to assess students, as did all other schools in the SPAN network. INSET days this year have been spent developing an alternative to National Curriculum levels, along with staff from Gosden House school. New procedures should be in place from September, but will obviously depend a little on advice from the DfE.
Progress measured by CASPA remains Outstanding.
Percentile Graphs
Once again, the graphs used to define progress amongst students have been updated, now showing data from 2013-2015. Once again, there is a definite jump in results around Key Stage 1 and a levelling off for students of FE age. This once again means that it should be borne in mind that expectations may be a little too high in Key Stage 1 and too low in Key Stage 5. The nature of the percentile graphs also means that it will be more difficult for both the more and less able students to change categories.
Overall Figures
Overall progress has been Outstanding. Using an average of core subjects (Literacy, Numeracy and Science) the vast majority of students have made at least expected progress, with 13 students, from the 68 in the data set making significantly above expected progress. This is a slightly lower proportion than last year. 3 students made significantly Below Expected Progress and they will be discussed below. This is a slightly higher percentage than last year.
Above Expected Progress | 13 (out of 68) | 19% |
Expected Progress | 52 (out of 68) | 76% |
Below Expected Progress | 3 (out of 68) | 4% |
Deeper analysis
In April, I retrospectively looked at last year’s assessment data, breaking the figures down into 5 sections rather than 3. This still defines significantly above expected progress as a rise of 5 percentile points or and significantly below expected progress as a drop of more than 5 percentile points. This tends to lead to a large expected progress in the middle. To address this, I will break this group into 3 sections, so that a fall of more than 2 percentile points is now defined as slightly below expected progress and a rise of 2 or 2 more percentile points is defined as slightly above expected progress.
This gives the following table;
Significantly Above Expected Progress | 13 (out of 68) | 19% |
Slightly Above Expected Progress | 17 (out of 68) | 25% |
Expected Progress | 31(out of 68) | 46% |
Slightly Below Expected Progress | 4 (out of 68) | 6% |
Below Expected Progress | 3 (out of 68) | 4% |
Below Expected Progress students
In March, 10 students were identified as being in danger of making below expected progress. Class teachers were given details on any of these students who were in their class and asked to create an action plan if any interventions were required. I also worked with these teachers to predict whether their students would achieve the levels required to move at least into the expected progress group and these predications proved largely accurate. Following these steps, only 3 students were left in the below expected progress group, all in Key Stage 1.
Last year, this group only consisted of one student, also in Key Stage 1. This year they have made slightly more progress than last year and is now right in the middle of the expected progress group. The 3 students who are in the below expected progress group this year have been assessed and specific provision identified for September 2016. I believe it is possible that 1 of these students does not have all of their information up to date.
Last year I noted that although the below progress group was very small, a number of students had only just moved into the expected progress group, so it is pleasing to see that there are only a further 4 students in the slightly below expected progress group, compared to 17 in the slightly above expected progress group. Of these 4, 1 has had many absences this year and other health problems. 1 is also in Key Stage 1 and has made progress this year, but is suffering from the very high expectations mentioned earlier. I am confident that if they continue as they are they will at least be in the expected progress group next year. 1 further student has made some progress, but had previous assessments questioned by their new teacher. The final student in this group is an able Key Stage 2 student, who was very close to expected progress. Once, again expectations are very high and I am confident they will be at least in the expected progress group next year if they continue on their current path.
Two year period
2014-2015 | 2015-2016 | Overall | |
Above Expected Progress | 16 out of 72 = 22% | 13 out of 68 = 19% | 20 out of 59 = 34% |
Expected Progress | 55 out of 72 = 71% | 52 out of 68 = 76% | 35 out of 59 =59% |
Below Expected Progress | 1 out of 72 = 1% | 3 out of 68 = 4% | 4 out of 59 = 7% |
Looking at the figures over a two year period, the below expected progress group grows slightly, but the above expected progress group grows significantly, with more than 1 third of the students making significantly above expected progress. The figures used above for 2014-15 are the figures used at the time, i.e. using the percentiles available in 2015. They would look slightly different now. The overall figures are the results of using this year’s percentiles, looking back over 2 years. These figures reinforce the idea that progress is outstanding throughout the school, as above average amounts of progress add up over the years.
Three year period
2013-14 | 2014-2015 | 2015-2016 | Overall | |
Above Expected Progress | 13 out of 71 = 19% | 16 out of 72 = 22% | 13 out of 68 = 19% | 19 out of 46 =
41% |
Expected Progress | 55 out of 71 = 77% | 55 out of 72 = 71% | 52 out of 68 = 76% | 20 out of 46 =
43% |
Below Expected Progress | 6 out of 71 = 8% | 1 out of 72 = 1% | 3 out of 68 = 4% | 7 out of 46 =
15% |
The three year period now only uses periods where SOLAR has been used, rather than B squared, so gives a fair comparison. Progress is once again outstanding over this period.
Comparison between cohorts
As in previous reports, I will compare the progress of various cohorts throughout the school. As very few significant differences between cohorts have ever been detected at these times, I will start my comparisons by only using significantly above and below expected progress. If any differences between cohorts seem to be in place, I will dig deeper, by also looking at the five different levels of progress.
Comparing progress of boys and girls
Boys | Girls | |
Above Expected Progress | 5 out of 41 = 12% | 8 out of 27 = 30% |
Expected Progress | 35 out of 41 = 85% | 17 out of 27 = 63% |
Below Expected Progress | 1 out of 41= 2% | 2 out of 27 = 7% |
The groups are similar, with both the above and below expected progress percentages being higher for girls. This is not a significant trend at this point, but is worth watching in future years. Last year, the groups were very similar, so I will not analyse any more.
Comparison of Different Learning Difficulties
PMLD | SLD | |
Above Expected Progress | 8 out of 21 = 38% | 5 out of 47 = 11% |
Expected Progress | 13 out of 21 =62% | 39 out of 47 = 83% |
Below Expected Progress | 0 | 3 out of 47 = 6% |
This is once again a significant difference in progress. Students in the Complex Needs department have continued to make outstanding progress. SLD students have done well, but not so many are in the Above Expected Progress Group. For more analysis on these students, please see a separate More Able and Talented report, which will be written in July. It is possible, however, that one of the below expected progress students will be re designated as PMLD next year. They are moving to a personalised provision next year. As there is a significant difference in progress, I will look at a five level analysis
PMLD | SLD | |
Significantly Above Expected Progress | 8 out of 21 = 38% | 5 out of 47 = 11% |
Slightly Above Expected Progress | 8 out of 21 = 38% | 9 out of 47 = 18% |
Expected Progress | 4 out of 21 =19% | 27 out of 47 = 57% |
Slightly Below Expected Progress | 1 out of 21 = 5% | 3 out of 47 = 6% |
Below Expected Progress | 0 | 3 out of 47 = 6% |
With this split, it can be seen that the progress of both groups is Outstanding, but especially so for PMLD students.
Comparison of Looked After Care Status
There are now only 2 LAC students in school, for whom comparison is possible, one of whom made above expected progress and one of whom made expected progress. This is too small a group to draw any more conclusions from.
Comparison of Free School Meals Status
This group has again reduced in size and comparison is only possible for 7 students, all of whom made expected progress. Once again, there is not a great deal of information we can gain from such a small group, but they do not seem to be falling behind.
Comparison of Ethnicity
For this analysis, I am simply going to group students into White British, or ethnic minorities
White British | Ethnic Minorities | |
Above Expected Progress | 8 out of 55 = 15% | 5 out of 13= 38% |
Expected Progress | 44 out of 55 = 80% | 8 out of 13 = 62% |
Below Expected Progress | 3 out of 55 = 5% | 0 |
Students from ethnic minorities do seem to do better, but I suspect this is caused by a small sample size. Groups from ethnic minorities are certainly not falling behind their peers.
Students eligible for Pupil Premium
Eligible for Pupil Premium | Not eligible for Pupil Premium | |
Above Expected Progress | 6 out of 15 = 40% | 7 out of 53 = 13% |
Expected Progress | 9 out of 15 = 60% | 43 out of 53 = 81% |
Below Expected Progress | 0 | 3 out of 53 = 6% |
Students eligible for Pupil Premium have done very well this year, with none making below expected progress.
Students in the ASD department
ASD department | Others | |
Significantly Above Expected Progress | 3 out of 9 = 33% | 10 out of 59= 17% |
Slightly Above Expected Progress | 2 out of 9 = 22% | 15 out of 59 = 25% |
Expected Progress | 4 out of 9 =44% | 27 out of 59= 46% |
Slightly Below Expected Progress | 0 | 4 out of 59 = 7% |
Significantly Below Expected Progress | 0 | 3 out of 59 = 5% |
Similarly to last year, students in the ASD department did very well. I will also look at students with an ASD diagnosis, whichever class they are in. This gives a group of 27 students, although 10 of them have not been at the school long enough to appear in progress data.
ASD | Not ASD | |
Significantly Above Expected Progress | 4 out of 17 = 24% | 9 out of 51 = 18% |
Slightly Above Expected Progress | 4 out of 17 = 24% | 13 out of 51 = 25% |
Expected Progress | 7 out of 17 =41% | 24 out of 51 = 47% |
Slightly Below Expected Progress | 0 out of 17 = 0% | 4 out of 51 = 8% |
Significantly Below Expected Progress | 2 out of 17 = 12% | 1 out of 51 = 2% |
The groups are similar, although slightly skewed, as 2 ASD are in the significantly below expected progress group. However, no ASD students are in the slightly below expected progress group, so I do not think this is significant.
Overall Conclusions.
Overall progress remains Outstanding. The numbers of students making significantly above expected progress are slightly down on last year, but when the expected progress group is expanded to include slightly above and below expected progress, the results are pleasing. The 3 students who have made significantly below expected progress will have a different provision next year and it should be remembered that they are all in Key Stage 1, where data expectations are at their highest. There is again a significant difference in progress between PMLD and SLD students, largely due to the success of the new complex needs department. Progress for SLD students is still Outstanding. There are no significant differences between other cohorts in school.
Neil French Data Analyst July 201