Analysis of end of year Assessment data 2017-18
The Ridgeway 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.
In late June 2018, 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 sixth and final year that the school has used SOLAR as its main assessment tool, as we will be introducing our own Assessment Software from September 2018, COMPAS, (Communicating Progress, Attainment & Successes). We have spent over a year designing the new software which will be in place for September 2018. Using all we have learnt from SOLAR and other data systems we hope to have made something that we can use to effectively track pupil progress continually throughout the year, as well as not limiting assessment opportunities for the pupils who need to consolidate a skill.
As in the last 5 years, teachers were involved in mid-year data for most students. Any student who was in danger of making below expected or slightly below 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 reassuringly accurate. Using the data targeted pupils for specific individual intervention work. This proved successful with all bar 4 pupils being supported to raise their progress levels to Nationally Expected progress by the end of the year.
Overall progress has been Outstanding. Using an average of core subjects (Literacy and Numeracy) the majority of students have made at least expected progress, 4 students made significantly below expected progress and they will be discussed below.
|Above Expected Progress||11 (out of 75)||15%|
|Expected Progress||60 (out of 75)||80%|
|Below Expected Progress||4 (out of 75)||5%|
Why is this Outstanding?
The balance of the achievement is not in line with national data for an even Bell Curve as the numbers in Expected are disproportionately High.
More importantly the way CASPA works is to reconfigure Expected progress on the previous single year’s assessment, hence Above expected progress in the previous year becomes Expected the next. This creates unrealistic expectations for these pupils and they can then present as falling in the lower percentiles of Expected or even Below Expected;
Example – an SLD child will on average make 1 P level rise in a 3 year period, hence 33.3% per annum would be expected progress.
SLD Child Z therefore starts 2016 with a CASPA expectation of making 33.3% progress within a P Level. In 2016 17 Child Z makes 56% progress within a P Level and is identified as making Above Expected Progress.
CASPA then sets the expectation for Child Z at 56% of a P Level as Expected Progress for 2017 18.
Child Z makes 40% progress in a P Level 2017 18.
Technically Child Z has still made above Nationally Expected Progress, however CASPA will now identify Child Z as making below Expected Progress
To balance this out and overcome this potential for pupils to be ‘penalised’ by the data system, the solution is to look at progress balanced over a two and three year period.
Looking at The Core Data for 2016 17 the number of pupils achieving Above Expected Progress was 25 out of 73 = 34%. This is well above the National expectation and the adjustment made by CASPA will have made it very difficult for these pupils to maintain a scoring of Above Expected Progress 2017 18.
This is reflected in the 2017 18 Data which reflects a much higher Expected Progress group, whilst Below Expected numbers have remained statistically the same.
The Outstanding Judgement comes from understanding the data system and reviewing progress over a two and three year period, as shown in this report.
We have broken these figures down into 5 sections rather than 3 in order to have a deeper analysis of the data. This still defines above expected progress as a rise of 5 percentile points or and 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, we 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.
|Above Expected Progress||11 (out of 75)||15%|
|Slightly Above Expected Progress||12 (out of 75)||16%|
|Expected Progress||27 (out of 75)||36%|
|Slightly Below Expected Progress||21 (out of 75)||28%|
|Below Expected Progress||4 (out of 75)||5%|
Below Expected Progress students
In March, 29 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. We 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 4 students were left in the below expected progress group.
Two year period
|Above Expected Progress||25 out of 73 = 34%||11 out of 75 = 15%||30 out of 58 = 52%|
|Expected Progress||45 out of 73 = 62%||60 out of 75 = 80%||24 out of 58 = 41%|
|Below Expected Progress||3 out of 73 = 4%||4 out of 75 = 5%||4 out of 58 = 7%|
Looking at the overall figures over a two-year period, the below expected progress group remains the same, but the above expected progress group grows significantly, with more than 1 third of the students making significantly above expected progress. 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
|Above Expected Progress||13 out of 68 = 19%||25 out of 73 = 34%||11 out of 75 = 15%||22 out of 43 = 51%|
|Expected Progress||52 out of 68 = 76%||45 out of 73 = 62%||60 out of 75 = 80%||15 out of 43 = 35%|
|Below Expected Progress||3 out of 68 = 4%||3 out of 73 = 4%||4 out of 75 = 5%||6 out of 43 = 14%|
As you can see, progress is once again outstanding over this three-year period.
Comparison Between Cohorts
As in previous reports, we will compare the progress of various cohorts throughout the school. As very few significant differences between cohorts have ever been detected at these times, we will start our comparisons by only using Below Expected, Expected and Above expected progress. If any differences between cohorts seem to be out of place, we will dig deeper, by also looking at the five different levels of progress.
Comparing progress of boys and girls
|Above Expected Progress||8 out of 40 = 20%||3 out of 33 = 9%|
|Expected Progress||29 out of 40 = 72%||29 out of 33 = 88%|
|Below Expected Progress||3 out of 40= 8%||1 out of 33 = 3%|
The groups are similar, with the above expected progress percentages being slightly higher for boys. This is not a significant trend at this point, but is worth watching in future years. Last year, the groups were very similar, again with the above being weighted more on the girls.
|Boys over 3 years||Girls over 3 years|
|Above Expected Progress||13 out of 23 = 57%||9 out of 20 = 45%|
|Expected Progress||9 out of 23 = 39%||6 out of 20 = 30%|
|Below Expected Progress||1 out of 23= 4%||5 out of 20 = 25%|
There is a limited number of pupils from which we can pull 3-year data from for girls and boys, however you can see from above that over the 3 years the girls trend more towards being below and the boys end up going above expectations. These are not statistically significant numbers and when drilled down to individuals we can identify issues through specific case studies.
Comparison of Different Learning Difficulties
|Above Expected Progress||1 out of 11 = 9%||9 out of 58 = 16%|
|Expected Progress||10 out of 11 =91%||46 out of 58 = 79%|
|Below Expected Progress||0||3 out of 58 = 5%|
The comparison between the two cohorts is very similar with a heavier weighting in the expected column for both groups.
|PMLD over 3 years||SLD over 3 years|
|Above Expected Progress||3 out of 7 = 43%||19 out of 36 = 53%|
|Expected Progress||3 out of 7 = 43%||12 out of 36 = 33%|
|Below Expected Progress||1 out of 7= 14%||5 out of 36 = 14%|
The three-year comparison data set is too small to draw any information from; however, it is reassuring to see that over the 3 years both groups make a relatively even level of progress.
Comparison of Looked After Care Status
The data set of 2 children for our Children Looked After cohort, is too small to draw a comparison from, none have made below expected progress.
Comparison of Ethnicity
For this analysis, we are simply going to group students into White British, or Ethnic Minorities
|White British||Ethnic Minorities|
|Above Expected Progress||7 out of 60 = 12%||4 out of 15= 27%|
|Expected Progress||50 out of 60 = 83%||10 out of 15 = 66%|
|Below Expected Progress||3 out of 60 = 5%||1 out of 15 = 7%|
The comparison between the two cohorts is very similar with a heavier weighting in the expected column for both groups. Groups from ethnic minorities are certainly not falling behind their peers.
|White British over 3 years||Ethnic Minorities over 3 years|
|Above Expected Progress||20 out of 37 = 54%||2 out of 6= 33%|
|Expected Progress||12 out of 37 = 32%||3 out of 6 = 50%|
|Below Expected Progress||5 out of 37 = 14%||1 out of 6 = 17%|
Comparison of Students whose parents are in The Forces.
There are only three students in school who have a parent in The Forces and they have once again made expected progress. It is difficult to draw any more conclusions from such a small sample size.
Students Eligible for Pupil Premium
|Eligible for Pupil Premium||Not eligible for Pupil Premium|
|Above Expected Progress||5 out of 21 = 24%||20 out of 52 = 38%|
|Expected Progress||16 out of 21 =76%||29 out of 52 = 56%|
|Below Expected Progress||0||3 out of 52 = 6%|
Students eligible for Pupil Premium have done very well this year, with none making below expected progress.
Students in the ASD department
ASD pupils within the ASD department and how they compare against the whole school.
|Significantly Above Expected Progress||2 out of 7 = 28%||9 out of 68 = 13%|
|Expected Progress||5 out of 7 = 71%||55 out of 68 = 81%|
|Significantly Below Expected Progress||0||4 out of 68 = 6%|
The groups are similar and the lack of ASD children in the significantly below category shows that the ASD department is working to support their needs as all are making above or expected progress.
Overall progress remains Outstanding and the gaps between cohorts remain minimal if there at all. The 4 students who have made below expected progress are identified and they will be monitored closely next year. Although there will be some adjustment period when moving onto the new system, we are confident that it will allow us to keep up to date progress of pupils and monitor groups closer throughout the year rather than just at the end, giving a more accurate reading of progress.
Antonia Gaut and Pippa Fox Data Analysts June 2018