Beacon Primary Academy
Summary of performance 2016
Summary
Beacon Primary
Academy is a larger than average primary school in an area of high deprivation
in central Springfield. Most pupils are from ethnic minority backgrounds – the
majority are Pakistani or Bangladeshi  and English is an additional language
for the majority of pupils in the school. Almost half of pupils are eligible for
free school meals, which is considerably higher than national average, and the
school ranks amongst the 20% most deprived nationally.
Historically, prior attainment at key stage 1 has been
significantly below average but this has improved and prior attainment of
current years 4 and 5 is broadly in line with national average.
Floor Standards
Measure

Floor measure

School

Met?

% EXS RWM

65%

49%

No

Progress Reading

5

0.01

Yes

Progress Writing

7

2.40

Yes

Progress Maths

5

2.42

Yes

Overall
floor standards met?

Yes

The school fell below the attainment floor measure of 65%
achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths combined but it
is close to the national average of 53%. It should be noted that the majority
of schools nationally fell below the 65% threshold. The school is above all 3
progress floor measures (it was significantly above average for progress in
writing and maths) and is therefore above floor. Furthermore, the school is not
considered to be ‘coasting’ on the basis of its 2016 progress results.
Key stage 2
FFT Analysis of main
key stage 2 results
FFT data shows that the average score in reading and maths
tests combined in 2016 was 100.5, which is significantly below average, but is
1.6 points higher, and significantly above expected, when pupil start points
are taken into account. Furthermore, the result of 49% achieving the expected
standard in reading, writing and maths, despite being below national average of
53%, is significantly higher than expected by 12% points, considering the start
points of pupils. This indicates that, under normal circumstances, just 37% of
pupils would achieve the expected standard in the three subjects, which translates
into 10 more pupils achieving the overall expected standard than would be
expected to do so in a school where ‘average’ progress is made. FFT ranks the
school in the top 25% for progress, maintaining its 2015 position and an
improvement on 2014 when it was ranked at the 33^{rd} percentile for
progress.
Overall progress in maths is +2.4, which is significantly
above average and ranks the schools at the 17^{th} percentile. This
contrasts with reading, the progress score for which is 0.0, indicating that progress
in that subject was average. This is perhaps to be expected in a cohort
comprising such a high proportion of EAL pupils, and should be considered
alongside pupils’ progress in grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS). Here the
progress score is +4.1, which is significantly above average, demonstrating
that pupils made excellent progress in this subject in comparison to pupils
with similar start points nationally. The school is ranked at the 6^{th}
percentile (top 6% of schools) for progress in GPS.
FFT analysis shows that all but two pupil groups made more
than average progress, with many making significantly more than average
progress. The ‘any other’ ethnic minority group of pupils (8 pupils) made
average progress, and SEN support group making less than average progress. However,
it should be noted that SEN pupils are often shown to make less than average
progress in a VA model where they are compared against pupils nationally with
similarly low start points – a group that includes EAL pupils.
RAISE Summary report
Progress at Key Stage
2
Overall progress in writing and maths was significantly
above average and was positive for all pupils and disadvantaged pupils in each
prior attainment band. Notably, progress in maths was significantly above
average for disadvantaged pupils overall, and significantly above average in
writing and maths for disadvantaged pupils in the low prior attainment group. As
in FFT data, progress in reading was 0, indicating pupils making average
progress.
Further analysis of pupil group progress data reveals that
no groups’ progress was not significantly below average in any subject and many
groups were significantly above in writing and maths. A notable area for
further investigation is the progress of high prior attainers, which was
broadly in line with average in maths and below (but not significantly below)
average in writing.
Please note: overall
low/middle/high is defined by KS1 APS. Subject low/middle/high refers to
pupil’s level in that particular subject at KS1.
Attainment at Key
Stage 2
49% of pupils achieved the expected standard in reading,
writing and maths at KS2 which is just below the national average. No pupils
achieved the higher standard in the three subjects combined. Percentages
meeting the expected standard in writing and maths are above national average
overall and for each prior attainment band; and disadvantaged pupils’
attainment of expected standards was generally in line with the national
averages for nondisadvantaged pupils in these two subjects, and above in the
case of low prior attaining disadvantaged pupils. No gaps are therefore
identified in writing and maths in terms of percentages of disadvantaged pupils
meeting expected standards.
The key issues are twofold: attainment of expected standards
in reading and greater depth in writing. Here, large gaps from national average
are identified particularly for the middle prior attaining group, and the gap
between the middle disadvantaged group and nondisadvantaged pupils nationally
in reading is notably wide (4). Gaps of 2 pupils or lower are classified as
‘well below’ average. There is also a gap identified in terms of high prior
attainers achieving the high standard in reading, writing and maths combined.
This is due to the lack of pupils achieving greater depth in writing.
Attainment at Key
Stage 1
Attainment of expected standards at KS1 was above and well
above average in all subjects overall and for each prior attainment group.
Disadvantaged pupils’ attainment of expected standards was above average in
writing and well above in reading and maths. All but one of the nonemerging
disadvantaged pupil group (i.e. those disadvantaged pupils that had met the
early goals) achieved the expected standard at KS1.
FFT data shows that 63% of pupils in this cohort achieved
expected standards in reading, writing and maths combined, which is 12% points
higher than estimated when pupils’ EYFS outcomes are taken into account. As at
KS2, this equates to around 10 more pupils achieving expected standards in the
three subjects than perhaps would be expected in a school where average
progress is made. FFT data shows that attainment of expected standards at KS1
was above expected for nearly all groups, and significantly above in many
cases, most notably Bangladeshi, FSM pupils and lower prior attainers. Only SEN
pupils’ attainment fell short of estimated outcomes – the gap equating to one
pupil not meeting expected standards.
As at KS2, it is achievement of greater depth (high
standard) that is the key issue, particularly for ‘middle’ prior attainment
pupils  in this case, those that had met the early learning goals in that
specific subject at EYFS (EY expected). FFT shows that the percentage of high
prior attainers achieving greater depth in reading, writing and maths combined
(25%) was in line with ‘expectations’. However, the percentage of middle prior
attainers doing the same was below: no pupils managed the higher standard in
all three subjects, which is deemed to be 5% (or 2 pupils) below
estimated.
RAISE shows gaps ranging from 1 pupil below average (EY
‘expected’ disadvantaged pupils achieving greater depth in writing at KS1) to 6
pupils below (EY ‘expected’ pupils (all pupils) achieving greater depth in
reading at KS1). A further investigation into middle prior attaining pupils
achieving high standards is recommended. It is, for example, likely that many
pupils placed in the EY ‘expected’ prior attainment group, based on EYFS
outcome in that particular subject area, did not achieve GLD.
Percentages of EY ‘exceeding’ pupils (the high prior
attainment group) achieving greater depth at KS1 are also low but numbers of
pupils are small and gaps do not generally equate to 1 pupil, except in the
case of writing, where the school figure for all pupils is flagged as 2 (i.e.
2 pupils below average). It should be noted that there are no pupils in the EY ‘exceeding’
group for maths and only 4 pupils are in this group for reading, in contrast
with writing where 10 pupils are identified as exceeding based on EY outcomes. This
is unusual as writing is usually the lower of the 3 EYFS areas.
Phonics
Phonics continues to improve overall and for all key groups.
Notably, the percentage of disadvantaged pupils achieving the expected standard
in phonics is above that not of nondisadvantaged nationally, and has been for
the past 3 years. 95% of disadvantaged pupils achieved the expected standard in
Y1 in 2016.
Summary
Overall progress at KS2 is high particularly in writing and
maths where scores are above and significantly above average for certain
groups. Progress in reading is in line with national average but this is
perhaps to be expected for a cohort comprising mostly EAL pupils. Progress in
writing for high prior attainers is below average but there are serious
concerns over the accuracy and reliability of teacher assessment in writing nationally. Three
more pupils assessed at greater depth instead of expected standard in writing
would have turned the negative progress score into a positive.
Overall attainment at KS2 is broadly in line with national
averages. RAISE highlights relatively low attainment for middle prior
attainment group in reading and the middle and high prior attainment groups in
writing. Attainment of lower prior attainers tends to be in line with or above
average. This is reflected in the progress measures (see above).
Attainment at KS1 is similar to KS2 with relatively low
percentages of middle prior attaining pupils achieving higher standards.
However, it is likely that strong improvements in phonics alongside the further
embedding of the new curriculum will see this situation change in future years.
The key issue arising from data is the relatively low progress made by middle prior attaining pupils and this should be a key focus in future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMany schools will be pinning their hopes on the progress measures, and it's these that worry me. The first major distinction between the new and existing progress floor standards is that the new ones are VAbased, whereas the existing ones relate to the percentage of pupils making two levels of progress. Have a best site http://www.statementofpurposegraduateschool.com/ucapplicationpromptshowtoanswer/ and take advantages.
ReplyDelete