Annex 5

SCHOOL ORGANISATION REVIEW

PUPIL PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH FINDINGS

PART 2

October 2006

1 11/12/2006 Contents – Pupils Performance Research Findings Part 2 October 2006

This document is a collection of responses to specific queries raised since the Part 1 findings were presented to the Policy Development Panel (PDP). Each section responds to a specific issue raised during the consultation phase.

Section Page

Overview: summary of main points raised by each section 3

1 Responses to specific PDP questions from Part 1 evidence

Is there any evidence that students in Suffolk schools with sixth forms on site 8 perform better than those schools with no sixth form?

Children from hard pressed backgrounds appear to be doing well in the 11 secondary phase within three tier schools. Can we clarify what is happening?

2 2006 National Curriculum Performance in Suffolk 16

3 2006 differences between the 2 and 3 tier systems 19

4 Contextual Value Added performance from Key Stage 1 to 3 based on Fischer 23 Family Trust data in pyramids

5 Contextual Value Added performance in clusters based on DfES / Ofsted data 26

6 National benchmarking comparisons 33

7 Key Ofsted judgements comparing primary, middle and secondary schools 34

8 Benefits and disadvantages of flexible approaches to KS3 39

9 Are dips in attainment at transfer cumulative? A review of evidence 42

10 Performance of children vulnerable to under attainment 47

11 Primary school size 49

12 Secondary school size 52

13 The impact of sixth form size on effectiveness 56

14 Pupil stability and movement between schools 61

15 Measures to address school improvement in Suffolk 63

2 11/12/2006 Summary of main points raised by each section

Section 1 - Specific questions raised by the Policy Development Panel.

a) Is there any evidence that students in Suffolk schools with sixth forms on site perform better than those schools with no sixth form? There is no clear evidence that attainment of Key Stage 4 students is better in schools with sixth forms. It is likely that these schools enter students for more examinations as there is often greater timetable flexibility and therefore students gain more total points. The average GCSE point score is similar for schools with and without sixth forms. On this measure, which reflects quality rather than breadth, schools without sixth forms do slightly better – fewer subjects but slightly higher grades.

b) Children from hard pressed backgrounds appear to be doing well in the secondary phase within three tier schools. Can we clarify what is happening? Lower attaining children from “hard pressed” neighbourhoods are doing better within the 3 tier system. Pupils with low prior attainment make more progress in the 3 tier system than similar pupils in 2 tier schools. Middle and higher attaining pupils make more progress from age 7 to 14 in 2 tier schools.

Section 2 - National Curriculum performance in Suffolk 2006

c) Based on provisional results, the pattern of performance in Suffolk in 2006 is broadly similar to previous years. At Key Stage 1 (age 7) we are above the national average and compare well with similar local authorities. At Key Stage 2 (age 11) we are below or just at the national average and compare poorly with our statistical neighbour authorities. At Key Stage 3 (age 14) we are above the national average with better performance in English and science than in mathematics when compared to similar authorities. Early Key Stage 4 results show steady improvement at GCSE but comparative information is not available until October 19th 2006.

Section 3 - Differences between the 2 and 3 tier systems over 4 years from 2003 to 2006

d) In 2006, schools in the 3 tier system moved slightly closer to 2 tier schools at Key Stage 2 (age 11). The gap in English closed from 5% to 3% at the expected level (Level 4+). In science it closed slightly from 3% in 2005 to 2% in 2006 and in mathematics the 5% gap stayed exactly the same. However four year aggregates from 2002 to 2005 show exactly the same picture when updated to include the 2006 results. The aggregated Level 4+ gap using 2003 to 2006 data remains the same as that presented in the Part 1 research at 4% for English, 6% for mathematics and 3% for science with 2 tier schools performing best.

e) At Key Stage 3 (age 14) the gap between the two systems widened in 2006. At the expected level (Level 5+) it increased in English from 2% to 6%, in mathematics it stayed the same and in science it increased from 1% to 2%. Four year aggregate results for 2003 to 2006 show a similar pattern to those presented in the Part 1 research for 2002 to 2005. The gap is slightly widened from 3% to 4% for English and from no difference between the systems to a 1% gap for science. In mathematics the gap closed from 2% to 1%. In all subjects 2 tier schools performed better than 3 tier.

f) At Key Stage 4 (age 16) results are provisional and will not be released by DfES until 19th October 2006. However based on an early data feed through NCER, exam board information suggests little difference from the Part 1 research with the 2 tier system outperforming 3 tier schools for 5 or more A* to C grades by 3%. The 3 tier system outperforms the 2 tier for 5 or more A* to G grades by 1% and 2003 to 2006 point scores are similar in both systems.

3 11/12/2006

Section 4 - Pyramid based Contextual Value Added (CVA) progress using FFT data

g) Progress measures using FFT data to track a cohort of students from age 7 in 1997 to age 14 in 2005 show variability across pyramids of schools. From Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 2 (age 11) seventeen pyramids out of eighteen in the 3 tier system shows less progress than that found nationally. Two tier pyramids showed progress nearer to the national average with four pyramids doing less well.

h) From Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 3 (age 14) all but two of the 3 tier pyramids make better progress than that found nationally. This supports the Part 1 research evidence where good progress in Key Stage 3 was highlighted but it should be recognised that the starting point was lower and the gap not completely closed with 2 tier schools. In two tier pyramids there was greater variability in progress and a greater number of pyramids where progress was less than that found nationally.

i) From Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 3 (age 14) there was variability in both the 2 and 3 tier systems. Progress was lower than the national average in two out of twenty 2 tier pyramids and seven out of eighteen 3 tier pyramids. This data should be used with care because there have been great changes within schools during this period of time.

Section 5 - Cluster by cluster DfES / Ofsted CVA scores and ranking based on 2005 results

j) DfES and Ofsted publish a measure of contextual value added (CVA) progress each year. These measures of progress also show great variability across schools in the 2 and 3 tier systems. There are significantly high and low performing schools in both systems.

Section 6 - National benchmarking comparisons

k) When the 2 and 3 tier systems are compared with the national average for Key Stage 2 (age 11) in 2005, 3 tier schools do less well than 2 tier schools. About a third of 2 tier schools and two thirds of 3 tier schools are below the national average for English. 40% of 2 tier schools and 70% of 3 tier schools are below the national average for mathematics. A quarter of 2 tier schools and a half of 3 tier schools are below the average for science. Roughly the same proportions of schools are below the government floor target of 65% of pupils at Level 4 and above. 85% of 3 tier schools and 12 % of 2 tier schools are significantly below the CVA national average in 2005.

l) At Key Stage 4 (age 16) 30% of 2 tier schools and 39% of 3 tier schools were below the national average for results at 5+ A* to C grades in 2005. For total points score, the position is reversed with 33% of 3 tier schools below average and 40% of 2 tier schools. Only one school was below government floor targets (30% 5+ A* to C grades) and this was in the 2 tier system. CVA progress from Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 4 (age 16) is good in both systems. 3 tier schools have the edge on this measure with 72% significantly above average compared with half the 2 tier schools achieving this. However it must be noted that Key Stage 2 outcomes, the starting point for these 3 tier schools, were low.

Section 7 - Key Ofsted Judgements

m) Nationally, a higher proportion of primary and secondary schools are judged to be excellent or very good for overall effectiveness, pupils’ achievement and leadership than is the case with middle schools. However, there are slightly higher levels of unsatisfactory or poor judgements in these areas in secondary schools than in middle schools. For most Ofsted judgements middle schools nationally are in line with primary schools and slightly better

4 11/12/2006 than secondary schools. Suffolk middle schools compare well with middle schools nationally except for standards of work seen and mathematics.

n) Within Suffolk there is little difference between the proportions of 2 and 3 tier schools placed in Ofsted categories of concern. Ofsted judgements of Suffolk schools were presented in the Part 1 research. The best area of performance for middle schools is recorded against attitudes, values and personal qualities where it is in line with primary schools. The weakest performance is recorded against standards achieved. For overall effectiveness middle school performance is similar to Suffolk primary schools with secondary schools generally performing slightly better.

Section 8 - Benefits and disadvantages of flexible approaches to KS3

o) There are potential benefits from flexible approaches to Key Stage 3. If Key Stage 3 was condensed to 2 years, this would be convenient within the present 3 tier system as the point of transfer from middle to upper schools would be at the end of a shortened Key Stage and accountability for performance would clearly rest with middle schools. However, we know that some young people will be unable to complete Key Stage 3 in two years – in 2006 only about three quarters reached the expected level (Level 5). We will need to remember that one size will not fit all students.

p) In Suffolk we have schools exploiting Key Stage 3 flexibilities in a variety of ways. Some are developing support and induction programmes in Year 7 to prepare students for learning in Key Stage 3. This should help to ensure better progress and leaves the end of Key Stage 3 at age 14 as it is now. There are other schools planning to shorten Key Stage 3 to provide new learning opportunities and a more flexible and relevant curriculum in Key Stage 4 a year earlier.

q) There is no conclusive evidence that condensing Key Stage 3 will benefit all pupils. Accelerating Key Stage 3 will not improve outcomes at Key Stage 2 and this is the key priority for 3 tier schools.

Section 9 - Are dips in attainment at transfer cumulative?

r) A review of evidence tentatively supports the notion that delaying the move from the elementary (primary) school until pupils are older helps to reduce dips in transfer. There is less of a case for arguing that the dips are cumulative so that pupils attending a three-tier system of schooling are permanently disadvantaged. However, these judgements rely on a handful of studies and most of these consist of statistical analysis of previously collected data, rather than research which has been designed to test specific hypotheses about the effects of transfer at different ages. Only two of the studies found have been published after undergoing academic peer review. The remainder are made up of Board of Education evaluations or doctoral theses. In these circumstances it is argued that the best evidence available on which to base a judgment about the merits of the 2 versus 3 tier arrangement comes from the internal reports compiled by Suffolk’s own Advisory Service.

Section 10 - Performance of children vulnerable to under attainment in Suffolk

s) Because of small numbers and dissimilar patterns of population distribution it would not be valid to compare performance of groups vulnerable to under attainment across the 2 and 3 tier systems. Attainment of ethnic minority groups in Suffolk is in line with national trends and varies from year to year as cohorts are small. The performance of Black Caribbean boys is a key priority.

5 11/12/2006 t) From age 7 to 11, children with statements of special needs made better than expected progress. From age 11 to 16 their progress was in line with expectations for 5+ A* to C grades. Suffolk performance for 5 passes at A* to G grades was below expectations but improving. The performance of Looked After Children improved in 2005 and compares well with national data.

Section 11 - Primary school size

u) Small primary schools (less than 120 on roll) account for about 20% of Suffolk children at age 7 and 6% at age 11. Small schools generally outperform bigger schools but direct comparisons are difficult because socio-economic factors are not similar. There are few British studies on the relationship between school size and performance but Spielhofer (2002) suggests no significant effect of school size on Key Stage 2 outcomes. In the United States the evidence is inconclusive but there is a suggestion that small schools may have the edge on performance – particularly where there is social disadvantage. Small schools in Suffolk compare well with larger schools when Ofsted judgements are analysed.

Section 12 - Secondary school size

v) The EPPI review findings suggest that there is no overall consistent relationship between secondary school size and outcomes. The findings suggest that we can be reasonably confident that exam attainment is maximised and absence is minimised at a certain point in the range of secondary school size. Studies vary in defining an optimum range of size. In terms of expenditure per student, costs decline as schools get larger. However, the findings also suggest that teacher and student perceptions of school climate decline in bigger schools and some kinds of violent behaviour may increase. This review refutes some myths regarding the advantages and disadvantages of smaller and larger schools. For example, that student achievement is universally higher in smaller schools and that student behaviour is universally worse in larger schools have been shown to be inconsistent with evidence. The relationship appears to be much more complex than such simple arguments suggest.

w) Evidence from research in Welsh schools suggests that smaller schools often produce higher GCSE performance. It also suggests that the tendency for schools to expand in response to good GCSE performance may contribute to the impression that bigger schools get better results. In Suffolk there are too few schools to make reliable judgements about school size and performance. Links between school size and attainment would be tenuous.

Section 13 - The impact of sixth form size on effectiveness

x) National research suggests that there is an optimum minimum size for a sixth form and also suggests that on balance larger sixth forms provide greater benefits. Whilst there is no definitive agreement on a minimum number, most studies indicate that sixth forms with fewer than 200 students can only become financially viable by reducing the range of courses offered. Student choice and achievement are also linked to the size of institution in Annex 25 of the Part 1 research. An analysis of 2005 A Level results revealed that almost all of the most successful Suffolk sixth forms had a student number over 200. Provisional data for 2006 reinforces these findings. Although there is evidence of a clear link between the size of an institution and its effectiveness it is important to recognise that other factors impact on the success of a school sixth form. Some of the poorest performing sixth forms in Suffolk are not only small, they also serve communities where indices of multiple deprivation point to low aspirations. A number of Suffolk school sixth forms serve geographically isolated areas. Whilst these students may not have had as wide a choice of curriculum as they would in a larger institution this may be compensated by local access to

6 11/12/2006 provision reducing travel times and it may be necessary to seek compromise where students achieve satisfactory or better outcomes despite the size of their sixth form. When considering the viability of sixth forms in Suffolk it is important to look at the local context and availability of alternative provision, as well as the size of the sixth form.

Section 14 - Pupil stability and movement between schools

y) There is high stability in Suffolk schools with a low level of movement between the 2 and 3 tier systems. A higher proportion of pupils move into 3 tier schools between age 11 and 16 than into 2 tier schools. Proportionately there are more middle and lower ability pupils entering 3 tier schools. ACORN data also suggests that more wealthy achiever and comfortably off children join 2 tier schools and more moderate means and hard pressed children join the 3 tier system. The analysis of 2005 GCSE performance for pupils remaining within Suffolk schools for Key Stage 3 and 4 showed a gap between the systems of 2% (61% vs 59%). This gap of 2% is similar to the performance of all students including those entering school between age 11 and 16 (59% vs 57%). The inclusion of “incomers” lowers the totals and does not appear to be significantly different in the 2 systems suggesting that any transitions depress outcomes for students. Movement to destinations after Year 11 at the end of compulsory schooling is similar in the 2 systems with slightly more (3%) students in 2 tier schools entering further structured learning.

Section 15 - Measures to address school improvement in Suffolk

z) A wide range of support for school improvement was reported in Part 1 evidence. This has continued in 2006 and has been focussed on Key Stage 2 in the 3 tier system and underperforming 2 tier schools. However, in spite of slight improvement this year there still remains a great deal to be done to support all schools with children in Key Stage 2. A comprehensive set of initiatives has also been put in place within the county to deliver the 14-19 Strategy and improve standards in post 16 education. Depending on the decision of the Council about school organisation in the future, support will need to be configured differently against a climate of declining resources, budget pressures and savings. If the 3 tier system is retained, a continued focus on Key Stage 2 attainment will be required. If there is to be a change to 2 tier schools across the county there will be implications for training and staff development. Retaining the capacity to support school improvement and work with schools where there are concerns will be crucial whatever decision is made.

7 11/12/2006 SECTION 1: Responses to specific Policy Development Panel (PDP) questions from Part 1

PDP Question: Is there any evidence that students in Suffolk schools with sixth forms on site perform better than those schools with no sixth form?

There is no clear evidence that attainment of Key Stage 4 students is better in schools with sixth forms. It is likely that these schools enter students for more examinations as there is often greater timetable flexibility and therefore students gain more total points. The average GCSE point score is similar for both types of school. On this measure, which reflects quality rather than breadth, schools without sixth forms do slightly better – fewer subjects but slightly higher grades.

Socioeconomic context

1. In the 2005 Year 11 cohort 14% of students studied in schools with no sixth forms and 86% in schools with sixth forms. Proportions of wealthy achievers and comfortably off students are largely similar between the two school types. Schools without sixth forms have significantly more hard-pressed pupils and fewer in the moderate means group.

2. There is a wide variety in the socioeconomic circumstances of schools with no sixth forms. All schools without sixth forms are 2 tier schools so transfer points are not similar. Schools with sixth forms are spread across the 2 and 3 tier systems.

Proportion of year 10 pupils by ACORN Socio-economic 3. The two types of schools are group in schools with and without sixth forms not similar and it is therefore 45% not fair to make direct 39% comparisons. The data 40% 37% provided in this paper must be 35% 28%29% used with care and any 30% 27% interpretation must take the 25% No Sixth 20% 18% Sixth socioeconomic background of 14% 15% schools into account. The 10% proportions of young people in 5% 5% Year 10 reflect other cohorts. 1% 2% 0% WA UP CO MM HP

Chart 1

KS3 to 4 value added progress (age 14 to 16) compared to national quartiles 2004 to 2005

4. For average points per VA KS3 to GCSE Ave Pts by sixth form provision entry per pupil, against national quartile groups by prior attainment performance by school type is largely similar. Both 100% types of school produce a 26% 31% 30% 26% 28% 29% higher proportion of pupils 75% than nationally in the top >UQ 25% by prior attainment 29% 26% 26% 26% 27% 28% >M 50% and this is largely

Chart 2

8 11/12/2006

VA KS3 to GCSE Tot Pts by sixth form provision against 5. For total points, schools national quartile groups by prior attainment without 6th forms have considerably fewer pupils 100% in the national upper 15% 15% 15% 29% 25% 27% quartile than schools with 75% 6th forms, which have 30% 32% 31% >UQ more in the national 29% 28% 28% >M upper quartile. Lower 50%

25% 21% 23% 21% 24% 21% schools with sixth forms have more timetabling 0% 2004 2004 2005 2005 Overall Overall flexibility and therefore enter students for more No sixth Sixth No sixth Sixth No sixth Sixth examinations. Chart 3

Value added progress from Key Stage 3 to 4 (age 14 to 16) based on points scores 2005

6. All data in this section is based on the 7,800 students completing GCSE exams in 2005. This chart shows students’ KS3 average points score (age 14) plotted against GCSE average points score (Section 96) for schools with and without sixth forms.

Value added GCSE Average points from KS3 points in sixth and non-sixth form schools

60

50

40

No sixth 30 Sixth

20 GCSE tot points 2005 points tot GCSE 10

0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Key StageKS2 3 ave ave points points

Chart 4

7. The final two columns show the outcomes in Table 1 average GCSE points for each school type KS3 (ave) K3 GCSE GCSE for students with the same points at Key level points No sixth Sixth Stage 3. A student with Level 5 (33 points) 4 27 27 26 at KS3 gains an average of one point more 5 33 36 35 than a student in a sixth form school (1 6 39 43 42 grade = 6 GCSE S96 points). 7 45 49 48

9 11/12/2006

Value added GCSE Total points from KS3 points in sixth and non-sixth form schools

600

500

400

No sixth 300 Sixth

200 GCSE tot points 2005 points tot GCSE 100

0 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 KS3 ave points

Chart 5

8. This chart shows students’ KS3 average points score plotted against GCSE total points score (Section 96) for schools with and without sixth forms. Students in schools with sixth forms show a higher level of total points than those in schools without sixth forms. For lower attaining students the difference between schools is smaller and it widens for those with higher prior attainment at Key Stage 3.

9. The final two columns show the calculated Table 2 outcomes in GCSE points for each school KS3 average K3 GCSE GCSE type for students with the same points at level points No sixth Sixth Key Stage 3. A student with Level 5 (33 4 27 231 239 points) at KS3 gains 14 points in a sixth 5 33 335 349 form school as against a non sixth form 6 39 421 441 school. 14 points represents just over 2 7 46 506 531 GCSE grades.

Overall conclusion

10. There is no evidence that attainment of Key Stage 4 students is better in schools with sixth forms than those without.

11. It is likely that schools with sixth forms enter students for more examinations as there is often greater timetable flexibility and therefore students can gain more total points.

12. The average GCSE point score per entry is similar for both types of school. On this measure, which reflects quality rather than breadth, schools without sixth forms do slightly better – fewer subjects but slightly higher grades.

10 11/12/2006 PDP Question: Children from hard pressed backgrounds appear to be doing well in the secondary phase within three tier schools. Can we clarify what is happening?

It would appear that it is lower attaining children from “hard pressed” neighbourhoods who are doing better within the 3 tier system. Pupils with low prior attainment make more progress in the 3 tier system than similar pupils in 2 tier schools. Middle and higher attaining pupils make more progress from age 7 to 14 in 2 tier schools.

13. This investigation focuses on pupils whose postcode indicates that they live in hard pressed neighbourhoods as defined by ACORN data and as recorded in PLASC (the annual school census) for 2005. The data used was for Year 10 (age 14) and Year 6 (age 11) pupils who completed tests in 2005 and was matched back to their prior attainment at age 7.

Percentage of pupils in each ACORN category with a record of SEN in 14. Children from hard pressed Year 10 2005/6 neighbourhoods cover the whole ability 40.0% range. However, in areas of 35.0% disadvantage the level of special needs 30.0%

25.0% support required is often higher. This is 20.0% true in Suffolk where more children from 15.0% hard pressed neighbourhoods have a 10.0% record of Special Educational Needs 5.0%

0.0% (SEN) than for other ACORN groups. WA UP CO MM HP SEN A 24.5% 0.8% 26.6% 13.7% 34.2% SEN P 23.6% 1.9% 28.3% 15.7% 30.5% In considering how “hard pressed” pupils SEN S 24.7% 2.0% 26.7% 13.3% 33.3% do we also need to consider prior Chart 6 attainment as this may be the major factor involved.

15. There are 3 stages recognised for SEN Count of pupils in year 10 2005/6 with record of SEN -APRIL 2006

children. 400 356 350 Stages of SEN 321 A = Action 300 P = Action Plus 250 2 tier S = Statement of SEN 200 155 3 tier 140 150 122

Number of pupils of Number 111 The proportion of pupils recorded at 100 each stage in PLASC (the annual school 50 census) is in line with the proportions of 0 APS children in the 2 and 3 tier systems (45% SEN Stage

to 55%). Chart 7

WA = Wealthy Achievers / UP = Urban Prosperity / CO = Comfortably Off / MM = Moderate Means / HP = Hard Pressed.

Children from hard pressed neighbourhoods in Year 6 2005 (Age 11)

Number of hard pressed pupils in each prior 16. Pupils can be sorted into broad bands of attainment group for 2 and 3 tier schools lower, middle and upper ability based on prior attainment at age 7 (using Fischer 800 699 676 700 Family Trust standardised scores). This 600 498 chart shows the distribution of prior 500 404 400 324 attainment for children from hard 300 244 200 pressed neighbourhoods for the Year 6 100 cohorts in 2004 and 2005 combined. 0 2L 3L 2M 3M 2U 3U The pattern is similar in other year groups. Chart 8

11 11/12/2006 KS2 English % Level 4+ for hard pressed pupils 17. The patterns at Key Stage 2 (age 11) by prior attainment group and tier

replicate the findings highlighted in the 98.0 96.0 100.0 86.4 main report. 90.0 83.3 80.0 70.0 In English, mathematics and science the 60.0 performance of these children is broadly 50.0 37.9 36.2 40.0 similar in the two systems with a slight 30.0 advantage to children in 2 tier schools – 20.0 10.0 particularly for mathematics. 0.0 2tier-L 3tier-L 2tier-M 3tier-M 2tier-U 3tier-U Level 4 is the expected level nationally at Chart 9 age 11.

KS2 Science %Level 4+ hard pressed pupils by KS2 Maths %Level 4+ for hard pressed pupils by prior attainment group and tier prior attainment group and tier

98.8 96.9 98.0 100.0 96.0 100.0 90.8 89.6 90.0 90.0 80.2 80.0 80.0 68.7 70.0 70.0 58.1 60.0 53.3 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 33.6 26.8 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 2tier-L 3tier-L 2tier-M 3tier-M 2tier-U 3tier-U 2tier-L 3tier-L 2tier-M 3tier-M 2tier-U 3tier-U

Chart 10 Chart 11

Children from hard pressed neighbourhoods in Year 9 2005 (Age 14)

18. Level 5 is the expected level nationally KS3 English %Level 5+ by prior attainment group and tier at the end of Key Stage 3 (age 14). 95.5% 100.0% 92.3% It is clear that middle and lower 77.7% 80.0% 72.5% performing students do better in the 3 60.0% tier system in all three core subjects. 39.7% 41.7% 40.0% Higher performing “hard pressed 20.0%

students” do better in 2 tier schools. 0.0% 2tier-L 3tier-L 2tier-M 3tier-M 2tier-U 3tier-U

Chart 12

KS3 Maths %Level 5+ by prior attainment group KS3 Science %Level 5+ by prior attainment group and tier and tier 98.2% 100.0% 93.5% 94.6% 90.0% 100.0% 92.3% 79.8% 90.0% 80.0% 75.7% 80.0% 74.9% 70.0% 66.5% 70.0% 60.0% 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 36.9% 36.6% 40.0% 34.2% 40.0% 32.5% 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2tier-L 3tier-L 2tier-M 3tier-M 2tier-U 3tier-U 2tier-L 3tier-L 2tier-M 3tier-M 2tier-U 3tier-U

Chart 13 Chart 14

12 11/12/2006 Comparing “estimates” and “actual attainment for Year 10 2005 (Age 14)

19. The Fischer Family Trust database provides estimates of future performance based on prior attainment and other school based socioeconomic factors. One way of checking progress of individual pupils is to compare estimates with actual performance. The charts in this section are based on this approach. The zero line represents the average estimate for each ACORN group. Bars above the zero line indicate that attainment was higher than the estimate. Bars below the line indicate that the estimate was not met by students in this group. The vertical axis represents tenths of a National Curriculum level.

English

Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by ACORN Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by ACORN category - English - Lower Ability PA category - English - Middle Ability PA

0.50 0.40

0.40 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 2 tier 2 tier 0.10 0.10 3 tier 3 tier 0.00 All 0.00 All WA UP CO MM HP WA UP CO MM HP -0.10 -0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.30

-0.40 -0.30

Chart 15 Chart 16 Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by ACORN category - English - Upper Ability PA 20. In English, lower and middle ability 0.30 0.25 pupils from hard pressed backgrounds in 0.20 3 tier schools are nearer to their 0.15

0.10 2 tier estimates than those in 2 tier schools. 0.05 3 tier 0.00 All WA UP CO MM HP -0.05 Higher attaining pupils from hard -0.10

-0.15 pressed backgrounds do better in 2 tier -0.20 schools.

Chart 17

Mathematics

Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 005 by ACORN Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by category - Mathematics - Lower Ability PA ACORN category - Mathematics - Middle Ability PA

0.35 0.50

0.30 0.40 0.25

0.20 0.30

0.15 2 tier 0.20 2 tier 0.10 3 tier 3 tier 0.05 All 0.10 All

0.00 0.00 WA UP CO MM HP -0.05 WA UP CO MM HP -0.10 -0.10

-0.15 -0.20

Chart 18 Chart 19 Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by ACORN category - Mathematics - Upper Ability PA 21. In mathematics, lower and middle 0.25 ability pupils from hard pressed 0.20

0.15 backgrounds in 3 tier schools are nearer 0.10 to their estimates than those in 2 tier 0.05 2 tier 3 tier schools but the difference is less than for 0.00 All WA UP CO MM HP -0.05 English. -0.10 -0.15 Higher attaining pupils from hard -0.20 pressed backgrounds do better in 2 tier Chart 20 schools.

13 11/12/2006 Science

Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by ACORN Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by category -Science - Lower Ability PA ACORN category -Science - Middle Ability PA

0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40

0.30 0.30

0.20 2 tier 0.20 2 tier 3 tier 3 tier 0.10 All 0.10 All

0.00 0.00 WA UP CO MM HP WA UP CO MM HP -0.10 -0.10

-0.20 -0.20

Chart 21 Chart 22 Average difference between KS3 Estimates (from K1) and Actuals 2005 by ACORN category - Science - Upper Ability PA 22. In science, where the main report 0.30

0.25 suggested a significant gap with 9%

0.20 more hard pressed pupils achieving L5 0.15 or more in the 3 tier system, it is clear 2 tier 0.10 3 tier that this advantage is based on lower 0.05 All 0.00 and middle ability pupils who achieve WA UP CO MM HP -0.05 levels near to their estimates. -0.10 -0.15 Higher attaining pupils from hard Chart 23 pressed backgrounds do better in 2 tier schools.

23. Children from hard pressed neighbourhoods do not meet estimates for all three subjects but performance is better for lower and middle ability pupils in the three tier system. This suggests that the difference between the systems for children from hard pressed neighbourhoods may be related more to ability (identified by attainment at Key Stage 1 – age 7) rather than socioeconomic factors. The three tier schools are doing better for lower ability children generally – not just the hard pressed. There just happen to be more children with lower prior attainment in the hard pressed group.

Progress over time based on the Fischer Family Trust standardised score.

24. The Fischer Family Trust database provides a standardised score based on combined teacher assessment and test levels across English, mathematics and science at each Key Stage. A standardised score of around 100 would relate to the expected level for each Key Stage. The charts in this section are based on the pupils that completed Year 9 (age 14) in 2005.

Overall progress from Key KS1 to 3 progress in the two and three tier systems Stage 1 to 3 (age 7 to 14) 138.00

128.00 25. For pupils with low ability (less than 88) 118.00

there is little difference 108.00 between the 2 and 3 3 tier tier systems. 98.00 2 tier Key Stage 3 Stage Key

88.00 For pupils with a Key Stage 1 score below 75 78.00 3 tier schools perform 68.00 better. 68 78 88 98 108 118 128 138 Key Stage 1 Chart 24

14 11/12/2006

Overall progress from Key KS1 to 2 progress in the two and three tier systems Stage 1 to 2 130.00 (age 7 to 11)

120.00 26. In line with the main 110.00 report, most children perform better in the 2 100.00 3 tier 2 tier tier system. But, based Key Stage2 Key 90.00 on prior attainment, there is little difference 80.00 between the 2 systems 70.00 for the least able and 69 79 89 99 109 119 129 139 Key Stage 1 those with a very high standardised score. Chart 25

Overall progress from Key KS2 to 3 progress in the two and three tier systems Stage 2 to 3 (age 11 to 14) 148.00

138.00 27. Lower and lower middle ability children make 128.00 slightly more progress in 3 118.00 3 tier tier schools. 108.00 2 tier Pupils with higher prior 3 Stage Key 98.00 attainment make slightly 88.00

better progress in 3 tier 78.00 schools. 68.00 68 78 88 98 108 118 128 138 148 Key Stage 2

Chart 26

Overall conclusion

28. As the performance of pupils from hard pressed neighbourhoods was investigated in the 2 and 3 tier systems, it became clear that prior attainment was the key factor.

29. Hard pressed children generally do not meet FFT estimated performance levels based on Key Stage 1 (age 7) prior attainment but in 3 tier schools they appear to be closer than in 2 tier schools. This is not true of all hard pressed pupils. Higher ability children do better in 2 tier schools.

30. The difference in performance between the two systems highlighted in the original report is more likely to be accounted for by ability or prior attainment. Lower ability pupils in 3 tier schools make better progress than similar pupils in 2 tier schools regardless of their socioeconomic group. Likewise, more able pupils make better progress in 2 tier schools regardless of their ACORN group.

15 11/12/2006 SECTION 2: National Curriculum performance in Suffolk 2006

All 2006 information is provisional and based on early unconfirmed release of data. For Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 the DfES First Statistical Releases have been used. These results will be confirmed later in the Autumn Term 2006.

Overall summary for 2006

Table 3 National Average Similar Local Trends over time Targets Authorities Key Stage 1 Above for all aspects. Top half and top Steady n/a Age 7 Writing significantly quartile for some improvement over above. aspects time but a fall in 2006 Key Stage 2 Eng and Sci at Bottom quartile Slow improvement Eng on line for Age 11 national average for better gains in 2006 2007 (+2%) but L4+ and below at L5+ a challenge for Ma below at L4+ and Ma (+4%) L5+ Key Stage 3 Above for all aspects. Top half but Ma in Steady On line for 2007 Age 14 Eng and Sci bottom quartile improvement Ma (+1%) more significantly above challenging for Sci (+3%) and Eng (+4%)

Our 10 “Statistical Neighbour” Local Authorities are Somerset, Oxfordshire, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall, Cambridgeshire.

Numbers in brackets in statistical neighbour tables are 2005 positions.

Key Stage 1 (age 7)

31. The new arrangements for KS1 are now becoming embedded and teachers report assessments without the requirement for statutory tests. However, there is still turbulence in results when compared to trends in previous years. Assessments at Key Stage 1 have fallen nationally in 2006.

32. Level 2+ and Level 2b+ results reflect the national change showing a slight decrease but we remain just above the national average. In comparison with our 10 statistical neighbour local authorities, Suffolk compares well and remains in a mid table position for all measures.

33. At Level 3+, national results have shown a slight decrease. In writing, Suffolk results stayed the same but reading and mathematics have seen a 2% and 3% decline on last year. Compared with our 10 statistical neighbours, we remain in an upper / mid table position except for writing, where we are second overall.

Table 4 Comparisons with Reading Writing Maths Science statistical neighbours L2+ 3rd (2) 5th (2) 6th (2) 7th (2) L2b+ 6th (6) 4th (4) 7th (4) n/a L3+ 5th (4) 2nd (3) 4th (1) 4th (5) Ave Points 5th 2nd 5th 4th

16 11/12/2006 Key Stage 2 (age 11)

34. Improving standards at Key Stage 2 remains a key priority for 2007. Overall, there have been Suffolk gains in all aspects of Key Stage 2 except for reading at Level 4+. There were bigger gains in writing, mathematics and English at the higher levels but we still need to significantly improve performance in all three core subjects for our 11 year old children.

35. English at L4+ is now in line with the national average following a 1% improvement from 2005. In comparison with our 10 statistical neighbours we are 7th - our highest position at Key Stage 2. Suffolk results for reading are broadly in line with the national average and the previous year. Writing has increased by 5%, an improvement over the national increase of 3%.

36. Nationally, L5+ English has increased by 6%. Suffolk has seen a 5% improvement so we remain 1% behind the national average and towards the bottom of our group of statistical neighbours. Reading in Suffolk at L5+ has shown a 6% gain compared with a 3% gain nationally. This brings our results in line with the national average but we remain at the lower end of the statistical neighbour group. Writing L5+ has shown similar national and Suffolk gains and is broadly in line with the national average. We remain at the lower end of the statistical neighbour group.

37. In mathematics at L4+ there has been a 2% improvement on last year, with a slight decrease nationally. This closes the gap between Suffolk and the national average to 1%. However, we remain at the lower end of the statistical neighbour group for this measure.

38. Mathematics at L5+ improved by 2% both locally and nationally so Suffolk remains 2% behind the national average and bottom of the statistical neighbour group.

39. Nationally science L4+ results have decreased by 1% and Suffolk schools have maintained the level of 2005 so we are now in line with the national average.

40. Science at L5+ in Suffolk remained the same as in 2005 but the national average dropped by 2%. However this still leaves us in the bottom quartile compared to similar authorities.

Table 5 Comparisons with English Reading Writing Maths Science statistical neighbours L4+ 7th (9) 10th 8th 10th (11) 9th (11) L5+ 9th (9) 10th 9th 11th (11) 9th (10) Ave Points 8th n/a n/a 9th 9th Overall average points for English, mathematics and science places us 10th.

Key Stage 3 (age 14)

41. There have been gains in maths and science in line with national improvements. English results dropped in Suffolk but less than they did nationally. Overall Key Stage 3 performance is good but improving standards in mathematics and at the higher levels remains a priority.

42. Suffolk performance in English at L5+ has shown a 2% decrease and nationally there was a 3% drop. This leaves us over 4% above the national average and in the top quartile compared to similar authorities. At L6+ we are broadly in line with 2005 and we remain significantly above the national average. Reading at the higher levels (L6+) has improved by more than 3%. The performance of boys is lower than girls but Suffolk boys do well in English compared to our statistical neighbours.

17 11/12/2006 43. Maths at L5+ has shown a 2% improvement and at L6+ there is a 3% improvement. These are similar to gains nationally and leave us in the bottom quartile compared to similar authorities.

44. Science at L5+ has improved by 1% and L6+ performance has improved by 3 %. These improvements are reflected in national results and we continue to be significantly above the national average and in the top half of the statistical neighbour group.

Table 6 Comparisons with English Reading Writing Maths Science statistical neighbours L5+ 2nd (5) 4th (5) 2nd (3) 9th (9) 4th (6) L6+ 4th (4) 3rd (5) 4th (1) 10th (7) 7th (7) Ave Points 3rd n/a n/a 8th 5th Overall average points for English, mathematics and science places us 5th.

Key Stage 4 (age 16)

45. The DfES First Statistical Release is due to be published on October 19th 2006. Comparison with similar authorities is not possible until this data is available.

46. We have an early release of Suffolk data only from NCER (EPAS database) and this has been used for all Key Stage 4 analysis in this report. This information is still provisional and does not take account of appeals and remarking. It should be used with caution.

47. Early indications show a slight improvement on last year and the final Suffolk result will be see about 59% of students achieving 5 or more A* to C grades. Only 3% of students did not gain a pass and 92% gained 5 or more passes at A* to G grades.

48. For 5 or more A* to C grades including English and mathematics the Suffolk result for 2005 was 46% students gaining 5 or more A* to C grades. In 2006 the provisional figure is about the same - provisionally at 45.5%.

49. The total point score rose by nearly 9 points from 362.2 in 2005 to 370.9 in 2006 and the capped points (best 8 subjects) rose from 298.7 to 297.5.

18 11/12/2006 SECTION 3: Differences between the 2 and 3 tier systems over 4 years from 2003 to 2006 The tables in this section have been updated from the Part 1 Research Findings to include a 4 year aggregate with provisional 2006 data.

Key Stage 2 performance in the 2 and 3 tier systems 2003 to 2006 (age 11)

The expected level at age 11 is Level 4. Higher attaining pupils will gain Level 5 or above.

50. In 2006 schools in the 3 tier system moved closer to 2 tier schools. In English the gap was reduced from 5% to 3% at both Level 4+ and Level 5+. In mathematics the gap at Level 4+ remains the same as in 2005. For higher performing pupils at Level 5 and above the gap was reduced from 6% in 2005 to 4% in 2006. In science the gap in 2005 was 3% and in 2006 it was slightly reduced to 2%. At Level 5+ it was reduced from 5% to 1% but it should be noted that at this level performance in 2 tier schools dropped.

English

En 4+ En 5+

100 100 90 90 79 81 81 80 78 76 78 76 80 75 76 80 70 70 2003 2003 60 2004 60 2004 50 2005 50 2005

40 2006 40 33 2006 29 30 28 27 28 25 Aggregate 30 Aggregate 30 24 25 23 20 20

10 10 0 0 En 4+ En 4+ En 5+ En 5+

2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier

Chart 27 Chart 28 51. The overall 4 year aggregate for English at Level 4+ shows the 2 tier system outperforming the 3 tier by 4%. In 2005 the gap between the systems was 5% and in 2006 this was reduced to 3%. At Level 5+ the aggregate difference is also 4%. In 2005 the gap between 2 and 3 tier schools was 5%. In 2006 there were significant gains for all schools and the gap was reduced to 3% too.

Reading

Re 4+ Re 5+

100 100 87 90 85 84 85 90 83 81 82 82 82 82 80 80 70 70 2003 2003 60 2004 60 2004 48 50 46 45 45 45 2005 50 2005 41 41 38 40 40 2006 40 34 2006 Aggregate 30 Aggregate 30

20 20 10 10 0 0 Re 4+ Re 4+ Re 5+ Re 5+

2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier

Chart 29 Chart 30 52. Over the last 4 years the 3 tier system has performed less well than the 2 tier system by 3% at Level 4 and above in reading. In 2005 the gap was 5% and this was reduced in 2006 to 2%. However, this should be noted in the context of a dip of 3% for 2 tier schools. For higher performing pupils at Level 5+ the gap over 4 years is 5% with the 2 tier system outperforming the 3 tier schools. In 2005 the gap was 7%. In 2006 this was reduced to 3%.

19 11/12/2006 Wr 4+ Wr 5+ Writing 100 100 90 90 80 80 69 65 65 65 70 63 65 62 70 60 61 2003 2003 57 60 2004 60 2004 50 2005 50 2005 40 2006 40 2006 30 Aggregate 30 Aggregate 18 15 18 16 17 17 15 20 20 12 14 14 10 10 0 0 Wr 4+ Wr 4+ Wr 5+ Wr 5+

2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier

Chart 31 Chart 32 53. For writing at Level 4 and above the difference between the 2 and 3 tier systems over 4 years is 4%. In 2005 the 2 tier system did better by 5% and in 2006 the gap was 4%. At Level 5+ the aggregate gap over 4 years is 3%. The difference in 2005 was 2% and this increased to 3% in 2006 with the 2 tier system outperforming the 3 tier system.

Ma 4+ Ma 5+ Mathematics 100 100

90 90 76 77 75 80 73 75 80 70 72 67 68 69 70 2003 70 2003 60 2004 60 2004 50 2005 50 2005

40 2006 40 2006 32 30 32 31 Aggregate 28 28 Aggregate 30 30 23 23 24 25 20 20 10 10

0 0 Ma 4+ Ma 4+ Ma 5+ Ma 5+

2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier

Chart 33 Chart 34 54. Over a 4 year period at level 4 and above the 2 tier system outperforms the 3 tier by 6%. In 2005 the gap was 5% and this remains the same in 2006. For higher performing pupils at L5+ there is an aggregated gap of 6%. In 2005 the gap was 6%. In 2006 it reduced to 4%.

Sc 4+ Science Sc 5+

100 100 89 88 88 88 88 90 85 85 85 86 85 90 80 80 70 70 2003 2003 60 2004 60 2004 47 45 45 45 50 2005 50 42 42 44 2005 39 40 2006 40 35 35 2006 Aggregate 30 Aggregate 30

20 20 10 10

0 0 Sc 4+ Sc 4+ Sc 5+ Sc 5+

2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier

Chart 35 Chart 36 55. Over a 4 year period the difference in science is 3% at Level 4 and above. The gap in 2005 was 3% and in 2006 it slightly reduced to 2%. At Level 5 and above the 4 year difference is 6%. The gap of 5% in 2005 was reduced to 1% in 2006 but results dipped in 2 tier schools.

20 11/12/2006 Key Stage 3 performance in the 2 and 3 tier systems 2003 to 2006 (age 14)

The expected level at age 14 is Level 5. Higher attaining pupils will gain Level 6 or above.

56. Generally the gap between the 2 and 3 tier systems has widened in 2006. In English at Level 5 and above it increased from 2% to 6% and at Level 6+ from 4% to 5%. In mathematics the 2% difference at Level 5+ remains the same but at Level 6+ the gap widened from 1% to 4%. In science the difference increased from 1% to 2% at Level 5+ and from 2% to 4% at Level 6+

English

En 5+ En 6+

100 100 90 90 80 77 79 77 77 80 74 73 74 73 80 69 70 70 2003 2003 60 60 2004 50 2004 50 50 46 40 41 42 2005 38 36 37 2005 40 40 33 34 2006 2006 30 30 Aggregate Aggregate 20 20 10 10 0 0 Tw o Tier Three Tier Tw o Tier Three Tier

Chart 36 Chart 37

57. Over a 4 year period the 2 tier system out performs 3 tier schools at Level 5+ by 4%. The gap in 2005 was 2% and in 2006 it increased to 6%. At the higher levels the 4 year aggregated difference at Level 6 and above is 5%. In 2005 the gap was 4% and in 2006 it increased to 5%.

Mathematics

Ma 5+ Ma 6+

100 100

90 90 80 78 77 78 80 75 77 75 76 75 76 80

70 70 61 61 58 60 2003 57 57 55 2003 60 60 53 52 52 2004 2004 50 50 2005 2005 40 40 2006 2006 30 Aggregate 30 Aggregate 20 20

10 10

0 0 Tw o Tier Three Tier Tw o Tier Three Tier

Chart 38 Chart 39

58. The aggregated results over 4 years for mathematics at Level 5+ show the 2 tier system just outperforming 3 tier schools by 1%. The difference in 2005 was 2% and this gap remains the same in 2006. At Level 6 and above 3 tier school lag behind 2 tier schools by 3%. In 2005 the gap was 1% and in 2006 this increased to 4%.

21 11/12/2006 Science

Sc 5+ Sc 6+

100 100

90 90 78 76 76 76 76 76 80 80 73 73 75 75 70 70 2003 60 2003 60 2004 46 47 47 47 2004 50 50 45 45 43 43 2005 40 37 2005 40 40 2006 2006 30 30 Aggregate Aggregate 20 20

10 10

0 0 Tw o Tier Three Tier Tw o Tier Three Tier

Chart 40 Chart 41

59. The aggregated results from 2003 to 2006 for science at level 5+ show the 2 tier system just has the edge by 1%. In 2005 the gap was 1% and this slightly increased to 2% in 2006. At Level 6 and above the 2 tier system is better by 2% over a 4 year period. In 2005 the gap was 2% and this increased to 4% in 2006.

Key Stage 4 performance in the 2 and 3 tier systems 2003 to 2006 (age 16)

% Gaining 5+ A*-C and %+ A* to G grades at GCSE Key Stage 4 results are provisional and subject to change 100 90 80 70 60. The 4 year aggregated results for 60 50 percentage 5 or more A* to C 40 grades gives a 3% difference 30 20 between the two systems. This is 10 unchanged from the Part 1 research. 0 5AC 5AC 5AG 5AG 2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier 61. For 5 or more passes at A* to G 2003 59 56 92 93 2004 59 57 92 93 grades the 3 tier system does better 2005 59 57 92 94 by 1% over 4 years. This too is 2006 61 58 93 93 Aggregate 60 57 92 93 similar to the Part 1 research.

Chart 42

Total points and capped points per pupil 62. In the 2 tier system results for 5 or more A* to C grades including English and 50

mathematics stand provisionally at 40 47.8%. For 3 tier schools it is 44.6% - a 30 gap of 3.2%. This is slightly less than in 2005 (3.7%). 20 10

0 63. The total point scores in the 2 systems TotPts TotPts CapTotPts CapTotPts remain similar. This too was reflected in 2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier 2003 43 43 37 36 the Part 1 research. 2004 43 44 37 36 2005 44 45 38 37 2006 45 45 38 37 Aggregate 44 44 37 37

Chart 43

22 11/12/2006 SECTION 4: Pyramid based Contextual Value Added (CVA) progress using FFT data

64. The data in this section is based on 2005 Year 9 students matched back to Key Stage 2 from 2001 and Key Stage 1 from 1997. Schools 1 to 18 are in the 3 tier system and schools 19 to 38 are in the 2 tier system. The analysis uses value added means for English, maths and science combined. The zero line represents the national average and the vertical axis is the difference from this in National Curriculum levels. This analysis was commissioned specially from the Fischer Family Trust team.

VA_MN_KS12 Chart 44

ACT 0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 IND VA_MN_KS12 -0.30 Three tier pyramids value added progress from -0.40 Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 2 (age 11) Matched data from 1997 to 2001 -0.50

-0.60 123456789101112131415161718

D ROUTE SCH_KS3

VA_MN_KS12 Chart 45

ACT Two tier pyramids value added progress from 0.60 Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 2 (age 11) Matched data from 1997 to 2001 0.50

0.40

0.30

IND 0.20 VA_MN_KS12

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

A

ROUTE SCH_KS3

23 11/12/2006 Three tier pyramids value added progress from Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 3 (age 14) Matched data from 2001 to 2005

VA_MN_KS23 Chart 46

ACT 0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

IND 0.20 VA_MN_KS23

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 123456789101112131415161718

D ROUTE SCH_KS3

Two tier pyramids value added progress from Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 3 (age 14) Matched data from 2001 to 2005

VA_MN_KS23 Chart 47

ACT 0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

IND 0.20 VA_MN_KS23

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

A ROUTE SCH_KS3

24 11/12/2006 Three tier pyramids value added progress from Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 3 (age 14) Matched data from 1997 to 2005

VA_MN_KS13 Chart 48

ACT 0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 IND VA_MN_KS13 -0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40 123456789101112131415161718

D ROUTE SCH_KS3

Two tier pyramids value added progress from Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 3 (age 14) Matched data from 1997 to 2005

VA_MN_KS13 Chart 49

ACT 0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

IND 0.20 VA_MN_KS13

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

A ROUTE SCH_KS3

25 11/12/2006 SECTION 5: Cluster by cluster DfES / Ofsted CVA scores and ranking based on 2005 results

65. The tables in this section provide a measure of Contextual Value Added (CVA) progress used by Ofsted and the DfES. The methodology is different to that used by the Fischer Family Trust but has many similarities. It is used in performance tables and Ofsted publications. A score of 100 represents the national average and where school outcomes are significantly low or high this is indicated by a shaded box. The four columns to the right of the table show the percentile ranking compared to all schools nationally for overall performance (average points, English, mathematics and science. For example 1 means the school is in the top 1% of all schools nationally and 99 means that a school is in the bottom 1% of all schools nationally. Schools are arranged in Community Cluster groupings.

Table 6

Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 1(age 7) Key Stage 2 (age 11)

Taken from 2005 Ofsted / DfES CVA KS1-2 performance tables by Cluster Significance Av Pts Percentile Rank

CVA Sci Percentile Rank CVA Eng Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank BURY ST EDMUNDS Hardwick Middle School 99.8 0 57 16 76 75 3 tier Horringer Court Middle School 99.3 -1 78 78 77 72 Howard Middle School 99.4 -1 75 66 85 65 St James CofE VA Middle School 99.5 -1 70 85 55 65 St Louis Catholic Middle School 99.8 0 59 59 65 52 Westley Middle School 99.1 -1 83 69 94 76 EAST IPSWICH Britannia Primary School and Nursery 102.2 1 1 5 2 2 2 tier Broke Hall Community Primary School 100.0 0 50 14 80 58 Cliff Lane Primary School 100.0 0 49 27 57 64 Clifford Road Primary School 99.7 0 62 27 78 71 Morland Primary School 100.3 0 39 31 32 60 Murrayfield Community Primary School 98.8 -1 89 63 78 98 Ravenswood Community Primary School 99.2 -1 80 40 94 77 Rose Hill Primary School 98.8 -1 89 87 94 76 St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Ipswich 99.7 0 62 43 79 57 FELIXSTOWE Causton Junior School 100.1 0 45 68 50 26 2 tier Colneis Junior School 99.6 0 69 21 88 79 Grange Community Primary School 99.1 -1 84 87 90 59 Kingsfleet Primary School 99.8 0 58 66 49 60 Langer Primary School 100.6 0 27 4 40 61 Trimley St Martin Primary School 99.9 0 57 84 39 43 Trimley St Mary Primary School 99.8 0 60 52 77 45 FOREST HEATH Breckland Middle School 99.4 -1 73 71 65 75 3 tier College Heath Middle School 99.7 0 65 85 68 35 Riverside Middle School 99.5 -1 70 67 80 60 Scaltback Middle School 100.1 0 48 78 52 18 St Felix CofE VC Middle School 99.0 -1 85 62 77 94 Charsfield Church of England Voluntary Controlled FRAMLINGHAM/LEISTON Primary School 100.3 0 36 56 26 27 Dennington Church of England Voluntary Mixed 2 and 3 tier Controlled Primary School 100.1 0 45 8 41 88 Easton Community Primary School 99.8 0 61 43 81 48 Leiston Middle School 99.3 -1 79 73 60 87 Saxmundham Middle School 99.0 -1 87 96 79 64 Sir Robert Hitcham's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 101.5 1 6 10 9 8 Wickham Market Community Primary School 100.1 0 44 38 28 69 HAVERHILL Chalkstone Middle School 97.5 -1 99 91 100 99 3 tier Clare Middle School 98.3 -1 96 87 98 95 Haverhill Castle Hill Community Middle School 97.7 -1 99 96 98 99 Parkway Middle School 99.2 -1 80 81 81 70

26 11/12/2006 Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 1(age 7) Key Stage 2 (age 11)

Taken from 2005 Ofsted / DfES performance tables by Cluster CVA KS1-2 Significance Av Pts Percentile Rank CVA Sci Percentile Rank CVA Eng Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank All Saints Church of England Voluntary Aided HIGH SUFFOLK Primary School, Laxfield 100.2 0 41 25 35 67 Bedfield Church of England Voluntary Controlled 2 tier Primary School 100.1 0 46 41 48 49 Earl Soham Community Primary School 100.1 0 47 76 25 44 Fressingfield Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.3 0 36 72 24 Gislingham Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.0 0 49 15 70 62 Helmingham Community Primary School 100.0 0 53 69 34 55 Mellis Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.2 0 44 40 42 54 Mendham Primary School 100.8 0 21 27 21 27 Occold Primary School 100.1 0 46 29 78 31 Palgrave Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.8 0 60 80 76 20 Sir Robert Hitcham's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 100.0 0 49 85 16 50 St Botolph's Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.3 0 37 28 33 54 St Edmund's Primary School 99.5 0 72 94 45 57 St Peter and St Paul Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Eye 101.5 1 5 7 6 10 Stoke Ash Community Primary School 99.5 0 73 19 91 79 Stonham Aspal Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 100.8 0 19 22 14 35 Stradbroke Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.3 0 38 32 51 37 Thorndon Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.5 0 30 45 15 44 Wetheringsett Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.9 0 18 47 32 4 Wilby Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 101.6 1 5 3 23 5 Worlingworth Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 101.2 0 10 63 2 14 Wortham Primary School 101.2 1 10 1 56 12 NORTH IPSWICH Rushmere Hall Primary School 100.1 0 45 60 37 42 2 tier Sidegate Primary School 101.1 1 11 35 13 6 St Helen's Primary School 100.7 1 22 25 21 28 St John's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Ipswich 100.1 0 45 53 41 46 St Margaret's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Ipswich 100.1 0 45 49 43 47 NORTH LOWESTOFT Foxborough Middle School 98.7 -1 92 89 92 87 3 tier Lothingland Middle School 98.9 -1 88 86 95 70 Roman Hill Middle School 98.6 -1 93 99 97 53 The Harris Middle School 98.4 -1 95 82 99 91 SOUTH IPSWICH Downing Primary School 100.6 0 28 37 53 25 2 tier Gusford Community Primary School 98.8 -1 89 81 93 82 Halifax Primary School 98.4 -1 95 89 97 90 Hillside Community Primary School 99.7 0 63 68 42 72 Ranelagh Primary School 101.2 1 10 38 4 10 Sprites Primary School 98.3 -1 96 95 92 96 St Mark's Catholic Primary School, Ipswich 101.2 1 11 14 13 15 SOUTH LOWESTOFT Elm Tree Middle School 98.8 -1 89 60 94 91 Mainly 3 tier Kirkley Middle School 98.0 -1 98 94 99 95 Pakefield Middle School 99.0 -1 86 96 85 56 St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School 99.4 0 74 39 91 72

27 11/12/2006 Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 1(age 7) Key Stage 2 (age 11)

Taken from 2005 Ofsted / DfES performance tables by Cluster CVA KS1-2 Significance Av Pts Percentile Rank CVA Sci Percentile Rank CVA Eng Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank Bentley Church of England Voluntary Controlled SOUTH SUFFOLK Primary School 100.3 0 36 41 48 26 2 tier Bildeston Primary School 101.5 1 5 32 1 22 Brooklands Primary School 99.1 -1 83 78 77 85 Capel St Mary Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.7 0 63 34 79 69 Chelmondiston Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.5 0 70 63 72 69 Copdock Primary School 99.5 0 70 79 65 58 East Bergholt Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.1 -1 84 69 84 85 Elmsett Church of England VC Primary School 101.7 1 4 3 8 10 Hadleigh Community Primary School 100.9 1 18 3 53 26 Hintlesham and Chattisham Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.7 0 22 22 24 39 Holbrook Primary School 101.0 1 15 29 12 25 Kersey Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.7 0 62 80 52 45 Shotley Community Primary School 100.6 0 28 77 18 11 St Mary's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Hadleigh 99.8 0 59 86 44 41 Stratford St Mary Primary School 100.3 0 36 12 28 79 Stutton Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.2 0 41 53 36 59 Tattingstone Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 101.4 1 7 20 6 9 Whatfield Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.6 0 27 37 39 17 STOWMARKET Bacton Community Middle School 99.0 -1 85 90 77 76 3 tier Combs Middle School 98.1 -1 97 99 96 85 Needham Market Middle School 99.4 -1 76 83 74 64 Stowmarket Middle School 99.2 -1 82 51 92 82 All Saints Church of England Voluntary Controlled SUDBURY Middle School, Sudbury 98.6 -1 93 74 92 96 3 tier Great Cornard Middle School 99.0 -1 86 74 82 89 Stoke-by-Nayland Middle School 100.3 0 39 42 62 21 Uplands Community Middle School 99.1 -1 83 71 85 82 Blackbourne Church of England Voluntary THURSTON Controlled Middle School, Stanton 100.0 0 52 5 92 60 3 tier Ixworth Middle School 98.3 -1 96 96 96 90 Beyton Middle School 99.6 -1 67 77 70 50 WAVENEY & BLYTH Beccles Middle School 99.8 0 61 24 78 69 Mainly 3 tier Bungay Middle School 99.3 -1 79 93 57 71 Gisleham Middle School 99.6 -1 67 83 57 53 Halesworth Middle School 99.6 -1 67 65 70 62 St Benet's Catholic Primary School 101.2 1 10 6 21 17 St Edmund's Catholic Primary School 100.2 0 42 60 52 21 Worlingham Middle School 99.4 -1 74 59 79 73

28 11/12/2006 Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 1(age 7) Key Stage 2 (age 11)

Taken from 2005 Ofsted / DfES performance tables by Cluster CVA KS1-2 Significance Av Pts Percentile Rank CVA Sci Percentile Rank CVA Eng Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank Bramford Church of England Voluntary Controlled WEST IPSWICH Primary School 100.1 0 45 75 50 18 2 tier Castle Hill Junior School 98.9 -1 88 95 87 67 Claydon Primary School 99.8 0 59 44 55 73 Dale Hall Community Primary School 100.0 0 50 25 58 67 Handford Hall Primary School 99.6 0 69 66 85 44 Henley Primary School 99.8 0 58 73 54 43 Saint Matthew's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Ipswich 99.2 -1 80 42 81 92 Somersham Primary School 99.4 0 76 57 56 Springfield Junior School 98.6 -1 93 73 98 87 Sproughton Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.5 0 71 91 62 43 St Pancras Catholic Primary School, Ipswich 100.0 0 52 60 29 67 Whitehouse Junior School 99.3 -1 77 26 76 95 Whitton Community Primary School 99.6 0 66 39 81 65 Witnesham Primary School 99.4 0 74 58 94 43 WOODBRIDGE / Bawdsey Church of England Voluntary Controlled KESGRAVE Primary School 100.3 0 38 32 35 52 2 tier Bealings School 100.0 0 50 84 60 13 Beaumont Community Primary School 100.1 0 45 61 38 40 Birchwood Primary School 101.2 1 10 38 8 6 Bucklesham Primary School 100.1 0 48 55 63 29 Cedarwood Primary School 99.9 0 57 77 44 45 Eyke Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 100.1 0 46 82 55 12 Gorseland Primary School 99.8 0 57 50 48 71 Grundisburgh Primary School 100.0 0 51 47 39 65 Heath Primary School, Kesgrave 99.3 -1 77 72 74 76 Hollesley Primary School 99.1 0 83 89 80 64 Kyson Primary School 99.8 0 58 42 68 58 Martlesham Beacon Hill Primary School 99.2 0 80 85 83 71 Melton Primary School 100.2 0 44 47 34 54 Nacton Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School 99.5 0 70 73 60 68 Orford Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School 100.9 0 16 19 25 16 Otley Primary School 99.6 0 66 38 66 80 Piper's Vale Community Primary School 100.2 0 43 26 35 70 Sandlings Primary School 99.6 0 67 36 79 72 St Mary's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School, Woodbridge 101.2 1 10 35 4 14 Waldringfield Primary School 100.0 0 50 81 30 37 Woodbridge Primary School 100.0 0 52 70 60 28

Significantly High 1 Significantly Low -1 No significance

29 11/12/2006 Table 7

Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 3 (age 14)

Taken from Ofsted / DfES 2005 performance CVA KS2-3 Significance tables by Cluster Av Pts Percentile Rank CVA Sci Percentile Rank CVA Eng Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank BURY ST EDMUNDS Bury St Edmunds County Upper School 101.2 1 10 36 6 7 King Edward VI Church of England Voluntary 3 tier Controlled Upper School 102.1 1 1 11 6 0 St Benedict's Catholic School 101.9 1 2 13 1 11 EAST IPSWICH Copleston High School 99.7 0 70 68 45 80 2 tier Holywells High School 100.6 1 30 86 4 15 FELIXSTOWE Deben High School 100.1 0 52 59 60 39 2 tier Orwell High School 99.1 -1 89 93 90 58 FOREST HEATH Newmarket College 100.2 0 48 86 28 17 3 tier Mildenhall College of Technology 99.5 -1 77 85 58 66 FRAMLINGHAM/LEISTON Thomas Mills High School 101.8 1 3 10 2 9 Mixed 2 and 3 tier Leiston Community High School 101.2 1 10 8 17 28 HAVERHILL Castle Manor Community Upper School 101.0 1 15 33 16 12 3 tier Samuel Ward Upper School and Technology College 101.3 1 8 18 5 25 HIGH SUFFOLK Hartismere High School 101.6 1 5 8 2 24 2 tier Stradbroke Business and Enterprise College 101.0 1 16 7 36 40 Debenham Church of England Voluntary Controlled High School 101.8 1 2 2 16 6 NORTH IPSWICH Northgate High School 99.9 0 62 50 71 55 2 tier St Alban's Catholic High School 101.4 1 7 10 9 19 NORTH LOWESTOFT The Denes High School 101.8 1 2 13 3 3 3 tier The Benjamin Britten High School 100.3 0 42 67 45 17 SOUTH IPSWICH Stoke High School 100.1 0 51 63 49 34 2 tier Chantry High School and Sixth Form Centre 100.9 1 18 29 31 15 SOUTH LOWESTOFT 3 tier Kirkley Community High School 101.2 1 12 13 18 19 SOUTH SUFFOLK Hadleigh High School 100.8 1 23 12 64 26 2 tier East Bergholt High School 100.1 0 51 74 31 46 Holbrook High School 101.7 1 3 3 13 12 STOWMARKET Stowmarket High School 101.7 1 3 2 4 19 3tier Stowupland High School 101.5 1 6 9 12 11 SUDBURY Sudbury Upper School & Arts College 101.4 1 7 53 7 1 3 tier Great Cornard Upper School and Technology College 100.7 1 27 16 35 55 THURSTON 3 tier Thurston Community College 101.3 1 8 25 15 6 WAVENEY & BLYTH Sir John Leman High School 100.5 1 32 64 11 30 3 tier Bungay High School 101.9 1 1 18 6 1 WEST IPSWICH Thurleston High School 99.3 -1 83 73 89 63 2 tier Westbourne High School 101.2 1 10 6 41 12 Claydon High School 100.0 0 59 38 88 38 WOODBRIDGE / KESGRAVE Farlingaye High School 101.9 1 1 4 7 4 2 tier Kesgrave High School 100.2 0 45 73 46 18

Signiicantly High Signiicantly Low No significance

66. A score of 100 represents the national average and where school outcomes are significantly low or high this is indicated by a shaded box. The four columns to the right of the table show the percentile ranking compared to all schools nationally for overall performance (average points, English, mathematics and science. For example 1 means the school is in the top 1% of all schools nationally and 99 means that a school is in the bottom 1% of all schools nationally. Schools are arranged in Community Cluster groupings. Although this data is presented by secondary school, it should be noted that middle schools teach 2 years of the Key Stage 3 Programme of Study.

30 11/12/2006 Table 8

Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 4 (age 16)

Taken from Ofsted / DfES 2005 performance CVA KS2-4 tables by Cluster Significance Av Pts Percentile Rank CVA Eng Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank CVA Science Percentile Rank BURY ST EDMUNDS Bury St Edmunds County Upper School 1035.2 1 3 5 20 16 King Edward VI Church of England Voluntary 3 tier Controlled Upper School 1013.7 1 22 4 22 15 St Benedict's Catholic School 1030.5 1 4 4 4 14 EAST IPSWICH Copleston High School 990.2 -1 74 58 76 68 2 tier Holywells High School 983.8 -1 84 58 20 92 FELIXSTOWE Deben High School 1000.5 0 51 52 41 14 2 tier Orwell High School 1002.2 0 48 53 47 26 FOREST HEATH Newmarket College 1007.5 0 35 18 53 28 3 tier Mildenhall College of Technology 1009.1 1 32 68 80 62 FRAMLINGHAM/LEISTON Thomas Mills High School 1030.5 1 4 26 41 12 Mixed 2 and 3 tier Leiston Community High School 1030.1 1 4 4 2 13 HAVERHILL Castle Manor Community Upper School 970.2 -1 96 78 49 59 3 tier Samuel Ward Upper School and Technology College 1014.1 1 21 9 4 60 HIGH SUFFOLK Hartismere High School 1006.8 0 37 19 24 17 2 tier Stradbroke Business and Enterprise College 1015.8 1 18 2 2 22 Debenham Church of England Voluntary Controlled High School 1030.0 1 4 10 13 13 NORTH IPSWICH Northgate High School 998.9 0 54 27 82 42 2 tier St Alban's Catholic High School 1020.4 1 12 7 14 22 NORTH LOWESTOFT The Denes High School 1019.9 1 13 5 6 7 3 tier The Benjamin Britten High School 1024.6 1 8 42 94 46 SOUTH IPSWICH Stoke High School 1024.3 1 8 24 16 11 2 tier Chantry High School and Sixth Form Centre 997.0 0 59 9 36 20 SOUTH LOWESTOFT 3 tier Kirkley Community High School 999.5 0 53 64 39 36 SOUTH SUFFOLK Hadleigh High School 1016.6 1 17 1 26 19 2 tier East Bergholt High School 1011.3 1 26 5 56 34 Holbrook High School 1007.2 0 36 47 66 30 STOWMARKET Stowmarket High School 1014.1 1 21 14 18 32 3 tier Stowupland High School 1010.7 1 28 41 39 23 SUDBURY Sudbury Upper School & Arts College 1013.7 1 22 61 17 19 3 tier Great Cornard Upper School and Technology College 995.6 0 63 31 18 54 THURSTON 3 tier Thurston Community College 1026.1 1 7 17 6 17 WAVENEY & BLYTH Sir John Leman High School 1008.5 1 33 18 20 17 3 tier Bungay High School 1001.8 0 48 45 26 33 WEST IPSWICH Thurleston High School 995.5 0 63 78 72 5 2 tier Westbourne High School 1012.4 1 24 48 56 26 Claydon High School 1016.3 1 17 29 75 13 WOODBRIDGE / KESGRAVE Farlingaye High School 1024.1 1 8 32 1 15 2 tier Kesgrave High School 1002.9 0 46 55 66 29

Significantly High 1 Significantly Low -1 No significance

67. Key Stage 4 points are calculated differently to those in Key Stage 2 and 3 and a score of 1000 represents the national average. Where school outcomes are significantly low or high this is indicated by a shaded box. The four columns to the right of the table show the percentile ranking compared to all schools nationally for overall performance (average points, English, mathematics and science. For example 1 means the school is in the top 1% of all schools nationally and 99 means that a school is in the bottom 1% of all schools nationally. Schools are arranged in Community Cluster groupings.

31 11/12/2006 Table 9

Contextual Value Added from Key Stage 3 (age 14) to Key Stage 4 (age 16)

Taken from Ofsted / DfES 2005 performance CVA KS3-4 Significance tables by Cluster Av Pts Percentile Rank CVA Maths Percentile Rank CVA English Percentile Rank CVA Science Percentile Rank BURY ST EDMUNDS Bury St Edmunds County Upper School 1027.9 1 5 9 39 20 King Edward VI Church of England Voluntary 3 tier Controlled Upper School 1000.0 0 52 19 71 26 St Benedict's Catholic School 1018.2 1 11 7 39 21 EAST IPSWICH Copleston High School 998.9 0 56 26 72 50 2 tier Holywells High School 976.4 -1 96 67 58 99 FELIXSTOWE Deben High School 1002.4 0 45 27 37 15 2 tier Orwell High School 994.4 0 68 83 33 24 FOREST HEATH Newmarket College 1009.1 1 27 6 79 33 3 tier Mildenhall College of Technology 1007.9 1 30 54 92 77 FRAMLINGHAM/LEISTON Thomas Mills High School 1028.1 1 4 21 67 13 Mixed 2 and 3 tier Leiston Community High School 999.5 0 54 72 13 23 HAVERHILL Castle Manor Business & Enterprose College 976.0 -1 96 53 41 52 3 tier Samuel Ward Upper School and Technology College 995.9 0 64 45 10 88 HIGH SUFFOLK Hartismere High School 994.2 0 68 39 54 24 2 tier Stradbroke Business and Enterprise College 1010.7 0 23 6 2 37 Debenham Church of England Voluntary Controlled High School 1023.2 1 7 18 12 14 NORTH IPSWICH Northgate High School 1001.8 0 47 28 70 30 2 tier St Alban's Catholic High School 1008.2 0 29 18 39 33 NORTH LOWESTOFT The Denes High School 999.4 0 54 26 30 9 3 tier The Benjamin Britten High School 1027.6 1 5 25 96 47 SOUTH IPSWICH Stoke High School 1012.5 1 20 53 35 15 2 tier Chantry High School and Sixth Form Centre 996.2 0 64 16 29 18 SOUTH LOWESTOFT 3 tier Kirkley Community High School 1004.0 0 40 31 50 31 SOUTH SUFFOLK Hadleigh High School 1007.1 0 32 2 65 30 2 tier East Bergholt High School 1010.6 1 23 3 73 32 Holbrook High School 994.6 0 67 82 74 40 STOWMARKET Stowmarket High School 1014.3 1 16 6 35 26 3 tier Stowupland High School 1004.5 0 39 50 59 26 SUDBURY Sudbury Upper School & Arts College 995.7 0 64 89 62 40 3 tier Great Cornard Upper School and Technology College 994.3 0 68 28 21 62 THURSTON 3 tier Thurston Community College 1002.7 0 45 68 21 29 WAVENEY & BLYTH Sir John Leman High School 997.2 0 60 16 69 35 3 tier Bungay High School 985.7 -1 87 67 62 62 WEST IPSWICH Thurleston High School 1001.9 0 47 66 79 5 2 tier Westbourne High School 1016.5 1 13 23 59 22 Claydon High School 1003.1 0 43 51 94 19 WOODBRIDGE / KESGRAVE Farlingaye High School 1008.8 1 28 69 6 26 2 tier Kesgrave High School 999.5 0 54 63 60 24

Signiicantly High 1 Signiicantly Low -1 No significance

68. Key Stage 4 points are calculated differently to those in Key Stage 2 and 3 and a score of 1000 represents the national average. Where school outcomes are significantly low or high this is indicated by a shaded box. The four columns to the right of the table show the percentile ranking compared to all schools nationally for overall performance (average points, English, mathematics and science. For example 1 means the school is in the top 1% of all schools nationally and 99 means that a school is in the bottom 1% of all schools nationally. Schools are arranged in Community Cluster groupings.

32 11/12/2006 SECTION 6: National benchmarking comparisons

Table 10 For 2005 results 2 tier schools 3 tier schools

% of Suffolk schools below the national average at Key Stage 2 (age 11)

English 36% 67.5%

Maths 40% 70%

Science 24% 52%

% of Suffolk schools below Key Stage 2 floor targets (65% at L4+)

English 12% 10%

Maths 25% 22%

Science 3% 5%

% of schools significantly below average for Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 CVA national average 12% 85%

% of schools significantly above average for Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 CVA national average 15% 0%

For 2005 results 2 tier schools 3 tier schools

% of schools below the national average at Key Stage 4 (age 16)

5+ A* to C grades 30% 39%

5+ A* to C grades including English and mathematics 35% 39%

Total Points at GCSE equivalent 40% 33%

% of schools below Key Stage 4 floor targets (30% at 5+A* to C grades)

5% 0%

% of Suffolk schools significantly below average for Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4 CVA national average 10% 6%

% of Suffolk schools significantly above average for Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4 CVA national average 50% 72%

33 11/12/2006

SECTION 7: Key Ofsted Judgements

National Ofsted judgements for middle schools compared with primary and secondary

69. The following analysis is based on national inspection data provided by Ofsted for, primary, middle deemed secondary and secondary schools, inspected between September 2003 and July 2005.

70. According to DfES figures there are 258 middle schools deemed secondary in England. The analysis is based on inspection information for 89 middle schools deemed secondary and therefore they may not be representative of all middle schools.

71. There are some interesting differences between different types of schools, for example, a higher proportion of primary and secondary schools are judged to be excellent or very good for overall effectiveness, pupils' achievement and leadership and management, than is the case in middle schools. However, there are slightly higher levels of unsatisfactory or poor judgements in these areas in secondary schools than in middle schools.

72. Whilst these are interesting, the differences may not be a direct result of the type of school organisation, many factors impact on outcomes for children and there are examples of very effective schools and ineffective schools of all types.

Table 11

Ofsted judgement data from all inspections nationally between 2003/2005 covering 5486 primary schools, 89 middle schools deemed secondary and 1024 secondary schools.

The figures for the 15 Suffolk middle schools inspected over this period are shown in brackets. Each school represents about 7% of the figure shown.

Inspectors make judgements on a scale: excellent (grade 1); very good (2); good (3); satisfactory (4); unsatisfactory (5); poor (6); very poor (7).

Percentage of schools graded as good, very good or excellent (1 to 3) How successful is the school? Primary Middle Secondary 1D Quality of education 71 83 (93) 70 1E Leadership and management 72 74 (80) 75 1F Ethos 92 91 (93) 75 1G Inclusion 85 89 (80) 84 1H Overall effectiveness of the sixth form and the school 68 77 (86) 68 1J How the school's effectiveness has changed since its previous inspection 62 62 (53) 62 1K Parents' satisfaction with the school 88 83 (93) 77 1L Pupils' satisfaction with the school 94 92 (93) 80 1M Value for money provided by the school / cost 64 70 (86) 64 effectiveness of post-16 provision

34 11/12/2006

How high are standards?

3A Pupils' achievement 69 81 (100) 70 3B Standards of work seen 45 47 (33) 40 3C English language and literacy skills 47 47 (53) 40 3D Competence in mathematics 48 43 (27) 40 3E Competence in ICT 30 42 (47) 34

How well are pupils' attitudes, values and other personal qualities developed?

3J Attendance 48 46 (40) 45 3K Punctuality 59 74 (73) 43 3L Pupils' attitudes 93 91 (93) 75 3M Behaviour, including exclusions 91 87 (93) 69 3N Spiritual, moral, social and cultural devt 90 86 (93) 72

How effective are teaching and learning?

4A Teaching 73 84 (87) 73 4B Learning 73 84 (87) 72 4C Assessment 49 36 (33) 47

How well does the curriculum meet pupils' needs?

5A Breadth of curricular opportunities 60 61 (67) 55 5B Opportunities for enrichment 87 89 (80) 85 5C Accommodation and resources 51 48 (80) 30

How well are pupils cared for, guided and supported?

6A Pupils’ care, welfare, health and safety 90 90 (100) 78 6B Provision of support, advice and guidance based 76 69 (87) 77 on monitoring 6C Involves pupils through seeking, valuing and acting 77 84 (87) 67 on their views

How well does the school work in partnership with parents, other schools and the community?

7A Links with parents 82 72 (67) 67 7B Links with the community 85 82 (80) 86 7D Links with other schools and colleges 83 84 (80) 89

How well is the school led and managed?

8A The governance of the school 66 68 (73) 57 8B The leadership of the headteacher 84 92 (100) 89 8C The leadership of other key staff 65 74 (87) 77 8D Effectiveness of management 68 63 (73) 64

35 11/12/2006 Ofsted inspections in Suffolk

Table 12 Number of 2 and 3 tier schools in 2 tier schools 3 tier schools Ofsted categories in Suffolk

Special measures since 1993 5 5

Serious weaknesses from 11 12 1997 to 2005

Notice to improve 2005 to 2006 2 2

Infant schools, special schools and PRUs not included

Analysis of judgements made in inspections of Suffolk schools 2003 to 2005

73. The pattern of results in Suffolk school inspections is slightly different to the national picture.

74. Between April 2003 and July 2005 there were 121 inspections of Suffolk schools. A summary of the judgements made in these inspections was presented in Part 1 section 4 of the Pupil Performance evidence. This data is used again in the tables below and is presented in a different format to enable a comparison of school types against each key inspection judgement.

Inspectors make judgements on a scale: excellent (grade 1); very good (2); good (3); satisfactory (4); unsatisfactory (5); poor (6); very poor (7).

Please note that a low average grade indicates better performance.

Overall effectiveness

4.0

3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.8

2.5

2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 t o 9) Primary Schools (5 t o 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 50

36 11/12/2006 Standards achieved

4.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 to 9) Primary Schools (5 to 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 51

Attitudes, values and other personal qualities

4.0

3.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5

2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 to 9) Primary Schools (5 to 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 52

Quality of education provided

4.0

3.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8

2.5

2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 t o 9) Primary Schools (5 t o 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 53

37 11/12/2006 Quality of teaching

4.0

3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.8

2.5

2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 t o 9) Primary Schools (5 t o 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 54

Curriculum

4.0

3.5 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.6

2.5 2.1 2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 to 9) Primary Schools (5 to 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 55

Leadership and management

4.0

3.5 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Average Grade 1.0

0.5

0.0 First Schools (5 to 9) Primary Schools (5 to 11) Middle Schools (9 to 13) 2 tier Secondary Schools 3 t ier Secondary Schools

Chart 56

38 11/12/2006 SECTION 8: Benefits and disadvantages of flexible approaches to Key Stage 3

Any school can legally implement a two-year key stage – there is no need to notify anyone. Religious education, drug education, sex & relationship education and careers education must be taught in all three years of Key Stage 3 (KS3).

The statutory National Curriculum Programme of Study for each subject must be covered by the end of the Key Stage.

75. This section sets out some of the potential educational and practical issues that relate to implementing a flexible Key Stage 3. It is important to understand that flexibility at Key Stage 3 should mean more than condensing Key Stage 3 into a two-year Key Stage 3. A condensed programme is one of the options available.

76. There are several possible curriculum models including:

• A conventional Key Stage 3 from age 11 to 14 followed by Key Stage 4 from age 14 to 16;

• An accelerated or condensed Key Stage 3 from age 11 to 13 followed by a lengthened Key Stage 4 age 13 to 16;

• Enrichment opportunities provided throughout Key Stage 3 on a termly or weekly basis;

• Condensed Key Stage 3 and a flexible Key Stage 4 ending at age 15;

• Year 7 (age 11 to 12) being used to prepare learners for Key Stage 3;

• Access preparation in Key Stage 3 and a flexible approach to Key Stage 4 with some learners completing Key Stage 3 in Y12 (age 17).

77. High-quality school improvement planning is a key to the effective implementation of any change to Key Stage 3. It will require effective monitoring and evaluation of impact so that no pupils are disadvantaged. Any change to Key Stage 3 requires commitment and support from everyone involved: senior leaders, subject leaders, teachers, governors, pupils and parents.

78. Any schools implementing changes to Key Stage 3 should ensure that they:

• choose carefully the subjects and pupils for whom a condensed curriculum is likely to be of benefit;

• continually assess and track the progress of different groups of pupils to inform planning and to support learning;

• only enter pupils for the National Curriculum end of Key Stage tests when they have made the expected progress from Key Stage 2.

39 11/12/2006 79. Potential advantages of flexibility at Key Stage 3:

• Planning for flexibility provides an opportunity to rethink school aims, values and purposes.

• Implementing a flexible KS3 provides an opportunity to review and evaluate the whole curriculum incorporating radical change rather than careful ‘pruning’ of one area.

• 14-19 curriculum developments will require schools to plan for greater flexibility and changes to Key Stage 3 will be part of the process.

• The curriculum can be planned to focus on key concepts that develop knowledge, skills and understanding, rather than to deliver content.

• New systems for the rigorous assessment and tracking of pupils’ progress to support learning, teachers’ planning and monitoring can be built into the new curriculum from day one.

• Careful planning should provide an increase in the pace of learning rather than the pace of teaching.

• Improved Personalised Learning could result from the flexibility with all individuals catered for.

• Some learners will benefit from an accelerated approach with others achieving their full potential at a slower pace appropriate for their needs.

• Flexibility at Key Stage 3 offers a wide range of opportunities to be creative with the curriculum and re-motivate teachers and learners.

• If middle schools have full responsibility for Key Stage 3 this simplifies the management and transfer of data for this phase.

• Middle and Upper schools that plan for a new curriculum in partnership will benefit from increased dialogue over transition and transfer.

• High schools would be able to consider Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 as five years of opportunity rather than two distinct phases.

• School will have the ability to differentiate at the start of Key Stage 3 and provide a sound basis in Year 7 for progress in the secondary phase.

80. Potential disadvantages of flexibility at Key Stage 3:

• Some pupils will be disadvantaged by being accelerated through Key Stage 3 if the school is not able to make provision for those that require extra support to access the curriculum or a conventional timescale.

• Teachers will need to develop new schemes of work and trial their effectiveness before embarking on the changes. This will increase work load and will require re-direction of resources.

• Middle schools may not have the full range of expertise or equipment to deliver a full Key Stage 3 curriculum.

40 11/12/2006 • If all pupils take the national tests in Year 8, middle schools will not have the resources to take pupils into the range of Key Stage 4 curriculum options during the last part of the summer term. The potential gains could be lost here.

• Accommodating the flexibility to meet the needs of all pupils will cause timetabling issues.

• There is no conclusive evidence that condensing Key Stage 3 benefits all pupils.

• Accelerating Key Stage 3 will not improve poor performance at Key Stage 2 and condensing Key Stage 3 may make it even harder for some pupils to reach their full potential by the end of Year 8.

• There will be an increase in pressure on access to ICT resources in order to meet the requirements of online testing. Subjects other than ICT may find it difficult to meet the ICT entitlement without extra provision of resources.

Useful references:

Key Stage 3 Curriculum DfES 0003/2002 A condensed KS3: Designing a flexible curriculum DfES 0798-2004 DES Circular 7/90 DfE Circular 1/94

41 11/12/2006 SECTION 9: Are dips in attainment at transfer cumulative?

A Review of the Published Evidence Professor Maurice Galton, University of Cambridge

Background

81. In the late 1970s, as part of the first major UK observational study of primary schools, pupils were also followed after transfer to middle or a secondary school. In addition to the classroom observation, pupils were given standardised tests covering reading, English comprehension and basic numeracy at the end of primary school and these same tests were also administered one year later. It was found that for around 40% of the pupils transfer was associated with a hiatus in academic progress (Galton and Willcocks 1983). For the majority of these pupils the dips in attainment were small and likely to be made up over time. But for around 12% of the sample the magnitude of the dip was of the order of two standard deviations and therefore was very significant. Subsequently, some local authorities, notably Suffolk, took up the issue and confirmed the existence of a hiatus in attainment at transfer.

82. Galton and Wilcocks’ study took place in three LEAs. In one LEA, with 9-13 middle schools, pupils were studied when they moved from the first school to the middle school at nine years of age. In another, with 11-14 middle schools, transfer was studied at 11 and in the third LEA with an 8-12 system pupils were followed when leaving middle school at 12. At all three ages (9, 11 and 12) dips occurred. This raised the question of whether these ‘transfer’ dips were cumulative so that pupils entering a three-tier system would be more disadvantaged than their peers who entered a two-tier arrangement. To answer this question fully it would be necessary to track a cohort of children from their last year in first school at 8 years of age until one year after transfer to High school at 14 using as a control a similar group of pupils who experienced a single transfer to a secondary school at 11 years of age. No such studies exist in the UK, partly because until the advent of unique pupil numbers (UPNs) it was difficult to keep track on pupils’ movements and partly because there is still no agreed form of testing programme in the first two years of lower secondary school, despite the development of Year 7 and 8 National Curriculum Optional Tests. All that can be done, therefore, is to accumulate partial evidence, based on the average levels of academic performance in schools operating different transfer systems, at key milestones such as the Key Stage 2 and 3 National Tests and to use these scores to predict performance at GCSE. Such analysis takes place at school level and needs to assume relatively stable pyramids so that most of the pupils from the same feeder schools tend to move to the same transfer school. In practice this needs local knowledge and only Suffolk with a reasonable mix of two and three tier pyramids is in a position to conduct such an analysis in England.

Relevant UK research

83. Apart from the Suffolk reviews of transfer (1996 and 2002) that will not be discussed here for obvious reasons, there is little comparative evidence on the differences in performance between two and three tier systems. Galton and Willcocks (1983) transfer study was replicated twenty years later in two of the three original LEAs so that comparisons between transfer at 9 and 11 years were possible. Dips were bigger when transfer occurred at 9 years. However, the situation was complicated because the test given to the pupils at 9 didn’t include 10 of the more difficult 33 test items because of the age difference. The score of a 9-year old pupil whose total was one mark less a year after transfer therefore declined by approximately 5% whereas the same loss of a mark at 11 only represented a 3% dip (Hargreaves and Galton 2002). Although Hargreaves and Galton found that the average dip at 9 years was nearly twice that at 11, the reality is therefore that the differences would have been of a far lesser magnitude had the tests been the same in all respects.

42 11/12/2006

84. In the only other relevant British study Boyle et al. (2000) conducted a statistical analysis of Year 7 progress tests in English and mathematics taken in the summer of 2000 and compared these results with the same cohorts’ scores on the 1999 Key Stage 2 national tests. The study focused on the ‘dip’ from Year 6 to Year 7 for students who moved to secondary school compared to those who were tested at middle schools. The analysis revealed that students in middle schools made more progress in Year 7 than students who made the transition from a primary to a secondary environment at the beginning of that year. However, the pupils in middle schools performed at a lower level at the end of Year 6 than the pupils then in primary schools, a difference of almost five raw score marks. The pupils in middle schools made up this difference and were scoring slightly ahead of the pupils in secondary schools at the end of Year 7. Taken together these studies suggest slightly larger dips occur when transfer takes place at the age of 9 and these pupils are still behind at the end of Key stage 2. This latter cohort of pupils, however, continues to make progress during the first year of Key Stage 3 unlike their peers who are in their first year in secondary school. These findings are not too dissimilar from those in the latest Suffolk review.

Studies from the United States of America

85. America provides several forms of tier arrangements in its school and during the last decade there are a few studies that have examined the effects of transfer at different ages. The most frequently cited is that of Alspaugh and Harting (1995) whose statistical review focused upon reading, mathematics, science, and social studies achievement. The sample consisted of a total of 540 Missouri school districts which were sub-divided into five matched groups according to their grade configuration up through grade eight. Grade configurations included two K-4, two K-5, two K-6, and two K-7 schools1. The analysis focused upon students’ scores from the Missouri Mastery and Achievement Test (MMAT). These researchers argued that the key factor accounting for dips in attainment was the change from self-contained (with generalist teaching) to departmentalized (with specialist teaching) classrooms which generally occurred at the end of elementary school. No direct information on the magnitude of the dips at different ages is provided but the above finding implies that it was of less importance whether the transfer was to a middle or high school. The ‘dips’ in reading achievement were the most significant.

86. A later study, Alspaugh (1998) did, however, address the relationship between the magnitude of the dips and the age of transfer in more detail. Using the same database the author compared 3 groups of 16 school districts in Missouri in an ex-post-facto study. A statistically significant academic ‘dip’ was found in the transition from elementary school to middle school at 6th grade, as compared with K-8 schools that did not have a school-to- school transition at 6th grade. The dip was larger when some of the students transferring to the middle school had already undergone a transfer at an earlier age (analogous to a secondary school taking a mix of pupils from ‘all-through’ and separate infant-junior schools in this country). Both K-8 elementary2 and middle school students experienced academic dips when transferring to high school at 9th grade. However, this was greater for middle school students than for K-8 elementary students. It was also found that high school dropout rates were higher for districts with Grade 6-8 middle schools than for districts with K-8 elementary schools. This analysis does therefore provide some evidence that the effect of frequent transfers may be cumulative.

1 In the American System pupils enter kindergarten at around 5 years of age. Thus a K-4 school goes from kindergarten to the end of Grade 4 by which time the pupil is 9 years old. Similarly pupils will leave theK-5 school at 10, the K-6 school at 11 and the K-7 school when they are 12 years old. 2 In a three tier system students move to High Schools (the equivalent of our secondary schools) and leave at the end of Grade 12 when they are 18 years of age. Students will attend a Junior High school (the equivalent of our middle school) prior to this move to senior school. As can be seen from the range of elementary school leaving ages there are a great number of possible combinations of High and Junior High schools.

43 11/12/2006 87. In a further analysis, Alspaugh (1999) considered the issue of dropout rates in more detail. Dropout rates for boys versus girls in high schools with grade spans of 7-12, 9-12, and 10- 12 were analysed. The sample consisted of pupil records within 45 high schools of primarily either 7-12 intake (fed by elementary schools) and 10-12 intake (fed by middle schools) with the data analysed using a three-way analysis of variance. The lowest dropout rates were in school districts in which students made only one transition from elementary to secondary school at the seventh grade level. It was found that there was a large increase in the dropout rate within 10-12 high schools during students’ transition year at 10th grade. The author suggests that this increase in dropout rates in the final transition year may be associated with the achievement dips at transfer that were identified in the 1995 paper by the same author and colleagues.

88. Two further pieces of research, both doctoral theses, are also relevant. Congdon (2005) used a regression analysis to carry out a study of achievement during transfer, involving a cross-section of schools across the state of Texas, using reading and mathematics data from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). The sample consists of eighth grade students in 1,689 schools. Schools involved consisted primarily of middle schools and junior highs, although another ten per cent of schools were grade 7-12 high schools. The author found that passing rates in 8th Grade were positively correlated with the number of grades in the school below the grade of interest, and negatively correlated with the number of grades in the school above. In simpler terms the later the delay in transferring out of elementary school the better the pass rate.

89. The second thesis (Brown 2004) examined the relationship between the number of school- to-school transitions and student achievement. Here, various middle school grade-span configurations were compared with two-tier school configurations. Again a regression analysis was used on data obtained from the Ohio Department of Education. Using a sample of 460 cases the study lent further support to the interpretation of Alspaugh (1995a) that the number of school- to-school transitions had a negative influence on district- level performance.

90. The final piece of evidence comes from an internal report carried out by Wren (2004) for an American Midwest public school district. In a similar vein to the two previous studies 232 schools from the district were given the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) 2001 test. Scores for grades 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 were analysed across elementary, middle and high schools. Using as the criteria the % of students who passed the MEAP test for their grade, the author concludes that the more transfers a pupil makes the greater the chance of failure.

91. In addition to these studies there are also two general reviews on transfer that refer to the effect of multiple transfers. Juvonen (2004) reviewed twenty years of relevant literature and analysed existing national and international data. As might be expected from the earlier part of this review the author found that very few studies had compared schools with different grade configurations. Nearly all of these tend to suggest that young teenage adults do better in K-8 schools than in they do under arrangements that require an additional transition to an intermediary school. Another recent review was undertaken by Yecke (2005) who looked at data collected in three different cities, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Milwaukee and concluded that students who transfer at grade 8 do better than students who transfer at an earlier grade, and that this improvement is maintained through high school.

Other Relevant Studies

92. In Canada Lipps (2005) has examined the academic, behavioral and emotional impact of transferring from an elementary school directly to a high school, and compared it to that of transferring to a middle school. The study was based on interviews with a sub-sample of 2,269 youths aged 10 and 11 in 1994-95, from the first and second cycles of the National

44 11/12/2006 Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). Information was also collected on the pupils’ performance on standardized achievement tests and youths, adolescents, teachers, and school principals completed questionnaires. In contrast to the American findings the author concluded that changing schools made little difference to the adolescents’ academic performance, regardless of school type. However, transferring from elementary to a middle school produced less negative emotional and behavioral impact in comparison to transfer to High Schools.

Conclusion

93. This brief review would tentatively conclude that the evidence supports the view that delaying the move from the elementary school helps to reduce dips in transfer. There is less of a case for arguing that the dips are cumulative so that pupils attending a three-tier system of schooling are permanently disadvantaged. These judgements, however, rely on a handful of studies and most of these consist of statistical analysis of previously collected data, rather than research which has been designed to test specific hypotheses about the effects of transfer at different ages. Only two of the listed studies have been published after undergoing academic peer review. The remainder consist either of internal Board of Education evaluations based on previously collected data or of doctoral theses. In neither case has it been possible to do more than examine the abstracts of these reports. In these circumstances I would argue that the best evidence available on which to base a judgment about the merits of the two versus three-tier arrangement comes from the internal reports compiled by Suffolk’s own Advisory Service. The two earlier reports enjoy high standing among academics and are regularly cited in the transfer literature. The most recent review is both detailed and thorough, and sets its analysis of the performance of Suffolk’s schools within the context of national trends. It deserves the widest circulation as a contribution to the continuing debate about the viability of middle schools within the National Curriculum framework.

References Alspaugh, J. and Harting, R. (1995). "Transition effects of school grade-level organization on student achievement." Journal of Research and Development in Education 28(3): 145-149.

Alspaugh, J. (1998). "Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and high school." Journal of Educational Research 92(1): 20-25.

Alspaugh, J. (1999). The interaction effect of transition grade to high school with gender and grade level upon dropout rates. American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal. (ERIC Document No.ED431066)

Brown, E. (2004). The effect of number of school to school transitions on district performance. Unpublished Doctoral Theses (PhD.) Faculty of the College of Education, Ohio: Ohio University.

Boyle, B., Nelson, N. et al. (2000). Transition from year 6 to year 7 in England: progression or regression? Manchester, Centre for Formative Assessment.

Congdon, W. (2005). Grade organization and school performance: evidence from Texas. Unpublished Doctoral theses (PhD.) Economics Dept. Princeton: Princeton University.

Galton, M. and Willcocks, J. (1983) (eds.) Moving from the Primary School, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hargreaves, L. and Galton, M. (2002) Moving from the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On, London: Routledge.

45 11/12/2006 Juvonen, J. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica: RAND Education.

Lipps, G. (2005). Making the Transition: The Impact of Moving from Elementary to Secondary School on Adolescents' Academic Achievement and Psychological Adjustment. Family and Labour Studies Division, Analytical Studies (FaLSDAS) Branch, Statistics Canada. No 28.

Suffolk (1997) LEA. A Report on an Investigation into What Happens when Pupils Transfer Into Their Next School at the Ages of 9, 11 and 13, Ipswich: Inspection and Advice Division, Suffolk Education Department. (available on www.slamnet.org.uk/transfer)

Suffolk (2002) LEA. Transfer Review 2001, Ipswich: Suffolk Advisory Service. (available on www.slamnet.org.uk/transfer)

Wren, S. (2004). The effect of grade span configuration and school-to-school transition on student achievement, Journal of At-risk Issues, 10 (1): 7-9.

Yecke, C. (2005). Mayhem in the middle: how middle schools have failed America - and how to make them work. Compact Guides to Education Solutions. Washington, Thomas B Fordham Institute (pp 65).

46 11/12/2006 SECTION 10: Performance of children vulnerable to under attainment in Suffolk

94. Because of small numbers and dissimilar patterns of population distribution it would not be valid to compare performance of these groups vulnerable to under attainment across the 2 and 3 tier systems. Most of the information below was presented to the Children, Schools and Young People’s Services Scrutiny Committee in November 2005 and included in the CYP Services Performance Report 2005-6. It will be updated to include 2006 outcomes by November 2006.

Attainment of ethnic minority groups in Suffolk

This analysis is based on 2005 National Curriculum data.

Table 12 Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above at Number Key Stage 2 (age 11) of pupils Eng 4+ Ma 4+ White 7220 77.8 71.9 Indian 17 94.1 76.5 Bangladeshi 26 57.7 50.0 African 11 45.5 54.5 Mixed White and Black Caribbean / Black Caribbean 94 69.1 59.6 Chinese 18 88.9 83.3

95. The small numbers of pupils in each cohort make year on year results vulnerable to fluctuation. Chinese and Indian pupils exceeded 2005 estimates in English, while Bangladeshi scores reflect the prior attainment profile of this year's cohort. Raising the attainment of African-Caribbean pupils is a priority, and Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets have been negotiated with the DfES. Maths remains a priority for all groups, and joint work between the Minority Ethnic and Traveller Achievement Team and the Suffolk Advisory Service in supporting schools is progressing well.

Table 13 5+ GCSE Number Points passes of 5 + A*-C per GCSE performance in 2005 inc En & pupils student Ma White 7415 58.5% 92% 363 Indian 12 75% 92% 368 Bangladeshi 26 42% 77% 300 African 11 36% 64% 195 Mixed White and Black Caribbean / Black Caribbean 78 29% 74% 250 Chinese 20 65% 85% 369

96. The small number of students in these groups makes it difficult to make reliable year on year comparisons. The performance of Chinese and Indian students exceeded our projections. The Bangladeshi cohort was not expected to sustain the exceptional results of 2004 but exceeded the estimates we made for this group, based on prior attainment. African-Caribbean achievement continues to be a priority, and Local Area Agreement targets are being negotiated with the DfES.

Traveller children

97. Results are low compared to other ethnic groups. The numbers of pupils involved are very low so analysis is unreliable – less than 20 children in Suffolk were assessed in 2005. Compared with results for the 14 Traveller Education Services in the Eastern and East Midlands regions for 2004- 2005 we do well at Key Stage 2. We are in 1st position for English, 5th for mathematics and 2nd for Science.

47 11/12/2006 Educational performance of children with a statement of special educational needs

98. The Fischer Family Trust 3 year value added summary (2004 to 2006) from Key Stage 1 to 2 (age 7 to 11) suggests that the 857 pupils with statements performed significantly higher than expected at Level 4 and above in English, mathematics and science. Pupils recorded on School Action (2567) showed lower performance than expected and School Action Plus (1689) were in line with expectations.

99. 2005 saw an increase in achievement at Key Stage 2 for children with a statement of Special Educational Need. Children with a statement for difficulties with behaviour, emotional and social development (EBD) showed significant increases of 9% in English and 11% in mathematics when compared to the previous year. There was a similar picture for pupils with statements for disorders that are part of the Autistic Spectrum (AUT), where a 3% increase was seen in both subjects.

100. At age 16 the Fischer Family Trust 3 year value added summary (2003 to 2005) from Key Stage 2 to 4 (age 7 to 11) shows that the 871 students with statements of special needs were in line with expectations for 5 or more A* to C grades. For 5 passes at A* to G we were below expectations but with an improving trend relative to local authorities nationally. Progress for students on School Action and School Action plus was encouraging and for all measures was in line with expectations or significantly higher.

Educational performance of looked after children

Chart 57 Key Stage 2 (age 11) Key Stage 2 looked after children reaching level 4 and over 101. 2005 saw a significant improvement in performance at 60 Level 4 and above for looked 50 after children. This is the best 40 Eng performance for 5 years, with 30 Maths 46% gaining Level 4+ in English, 20 Science 33% in mathematics and 46% in percentage 10 science. The cohort is very 0 small (39 pupils were identified 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 and 11 did not take the test) and there are always fluctuations 39 pupils were identified and 11 did not take the test. year on year.

Chart 58 Key Stage 4 (age 16) Key Stage 4 looked after children GCSE achievement 102. Of the cohort of 50 students, 20% achieved at least 5 GCSE grades at 80 70 A* to C – a 10% improvement from 60 2004. This compares well with the 50 1 A*-G national figure of 11%. 40 5 A*-G 30 5 A*-C percentage 20 66% gained at least one GCSE 10 0 grade and although this has fallen 2003 2004 2005 by 5% from 2004 it compares well with the national figure of 60%. 50 looked after students were identified in 2005

48 11/12/2006 SECTION 11: Primary school size

Key Stage 1 and 2 outcomes were analysed from 2002 to 2005 and reported in Annex 19 of the Part 1 report on Pupil Performance.

Chart 58

Aggregated Total Population in Smaller 103. Schools with a roll of less than 120 were counted as small (<=120 pupils on roll) and Larger Schools schools for this analysis. The majority of Suffolk pupils are 30000 taught in large schools at Key Stage 1 (about 80%). 24462 25000

20000 This analysis is an aggregate of results over a four year period from 2002 to 2005. 15000 10000 At Key Stage 1, small schools generally outperform 5742 5000 large schools. However, the socioeconomic factors in the two groups are not controlled so direct comparison is not 0 Small Large appropriate.

KS1 aggregated performance in Smaller (<=120 pupils on roll) and Larger Schools

100 94 94 92 91 89 88 90 86 85 80 80 76 76 70 68 70 63 60

50

40 34 33 29 31 29 30 25 18 20 16

10

0 Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large

Re2+ Re2B+ Re3+ Wr2+ Wr2B+ Wr3+ Ma2+ Ma2B+ Ma3+ Sc2+ Sc3+ Chart 59

Aggregated Total Population in Smaller (<=120 104. At Key Stage 2 an even smaller proportion of pupils attend pupils on roll) and Larger Schools

small schools (about 6%). Small schools perform well 35000 29533 compared to larger schools but socioeconomic contexts are 30000

not similar so direct comparison is difficult. 25000 20000 Because so few pupils are assessed at the end of Key 15000 Stage 2 their influence on Local Authority data and progress 10000 5000 towards targets is small. Bigger schools have a much more 1948 0 proportionate effect and 55% of pupils are in middle schools. Small Large En4+

Chart 60

KS2 aggregated performance in Smaller (<=120 pupils on roll) and Larger Schools

100 93 89 90 86 84 82 80 80 76 69 70 70 60 60 51 48 50 39 39 40 35 33 30 26 26 21 20 15

10

0 Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large

En4+ En5+ Re4+ Re5+ Wr4+ Wr5+ Ma4+ Ma5+ Sc4+ Sc5+ Chart 61

49 11/12/2006 105. A detailed analysis was carried out for the Suffolk Education Development Plan 2002 to 2007. This concluded: “Small schools in Suffolk – defined here as those with fewer than 21 pupils in a year group – attain significantly higher standards at KS1 than primary schools as a whole. In 2001, results in small schools at Level 2B or above in reading, writing and mathematics exceeded those in all Suffolk primary schools by between 3% and 6%. At KS2 the difference was even greater, with scores in English, mathematics and science at Level 4 or above between 4% and 10% higher than primary and middle schools generally.”

106. Over a five year period, small schools have performed well in Suffolk and in general have outperformed larger schools. However a direct comparison without taking socioeconomic factors into account should be made with care. There is no evidence that small schools as a group are underperforming and it is likely that a detailed research project into value added progress in small Suffolk schools would confirm that they outperform larger schools.

Other research evidence

107. There are few studies on the relationship between primary school size and performance.

108. A recent British EPPI systematic review of research into secondary school size (2004) concludes that there is no overall consistent relationship between school size and outcomes. This review highlights research by Spielhofer (2002) for NFER which suggested no significant effect of school size on KS2 outcomes in English, mathematics or science. No equivalent systematic review for primary schools has been located. EPPI http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=320

109. In the United States there is a growing small schools advocacy which has high media and political profile. The most recent paper found describes an analysis of 8 South Carolina studies (2006) and concludes that the size of a school to optimise learning and teaching while striving for cost efficiency in operation has yet to be found. The report suggests that finding the ideal school size is at least elusive and possibly so complex that an absolute ideal does not exist. NCEF http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/size.cfm

110. Alspaugh 2003 suggests that in a sample of Missouri schools with socioeconomic status held constant small schools appear to have an academic advantage. Other researchers (Bickel and Howley 2000 and Abbott et al 2002) have suggested links with poverty and suggested that small schools have a greater benefit in disadvantaged areas but less effect in more affluent districts. However, statistical correlations are not convincing.

111. US research evidence about attainment in elementary schools is inconclusive but draws attention to other benefits of small schools, nurture, a sense of belonging and community, engaging active pupil involvement through a positive, humane and caring atmosphere. There continues to be a debate about cost effectiveness and about the manageability for principals of teaching and leading small schools. (National Association of Elementary School Principals – Research Roundup 1999).

112. There is no clear evidence that primary school size is related to outcomes for pupils or that there is an optimum size for pupil performance. However there is some evidence, particularly in the United States, that small schools may have the edge – particularly where there is social disadvantage.

50 11/12/2006 Ofsted outcomes for Suffolk small primary schools under the current framework

113. The current inspection framework has been in place for over a year and during this time 56 Suffolk primary schools have been inspected. This analysis does not include middle schools as they are deemed secondary.

114. 56 schools were inspected and half had fewer than 120 pupils on roll at the PLASC return in January 2006. Smaller schools outperformed larger schools on all aspects of the five broad headings used by Ofsted to judge schools. No small schools were deemed inadequate with the exception of attendance for one school.

115. In this time one primary school was placed in special measures and there were no notices to improve.

116. Overall effectiveness

68% of large primary schools were good or outstanding 82% of small primary schools were good or outstanding

117. Achievements and Standards

68% of large primary schools were good and none outstanding 86% of small primary schools were good and of these 25% were outstanding

118. Personal Development and Well Being

86% of large primary schools were good or outstanding 96% of small primary schools were good or outstanding

119. Quality of Provision

68% of large primary schools were good or outstanding 82% of small primary schools were good or outstanding

120. Leadership and Management

71% of large primary schools were good or outstanding 82% of small primary schools were good or outstanding

121. Small schools seem to have the edge over larger schools in all Ofsted judgements and the difference in judgements on achievement and standards supports evidence from national assessments collected in Suffolk over time. There is no reason to expect that a different pattern would emerge if inspections under the previous framework were analysed in a similar way.

51 11/12/2006 SECTION 12: Secondary school size

A 2004 systematic review of research available on secondary school size was carried out on behalf of the EPPI Centre. Extracts from this extensive review are summarised below.

Secondary School Size: A Systematic Review. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Garrett Z, Newman M, Elbourne D, Bradley S, Noden P, Taylor J, West A (2004) http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=320

Background

122. The question of the optimum size of school has received considerable attention in recent years. In England, the introduction of quasi-market conditions in English secondary education theoretically allows schools to expand or contract in size in accordance with parental preference. In the USA, there is a growing 'small schools advocacy' movement which has a high media and political profile. Whilst the research evidence base appears to be quite large, it is disorganised, often partial and characterised by conceptual, practical and methodological differences.

Main findings

Relationship between school size and achievement without prior attainment

123. Of the 15 studies that do not take into account prior attainment when considering the 'effects' of school size on achievement, approximately half show a positive relationship and half show a negative relationship with school size.

124. The only English study in this category found that achievement increases as school size increases up to approximately 1,200 (for 11-16 schools) or 1,500 (for 11-18 schools) students. After this point, achievement decreases as size increases.

125. The majority of these studies do not report any statistically significant association between school size and achievement.

Student achievement whilst controlling for prior attainment

126. Four studies in this section found that student achievement increases as school size increases up to a particular point (or range). After this point, student achievement decreases as school size increases.

127. The point estimate or range of school size at which achievement is maximised varied within and between studies. The optimum school size estimate ranged from 600 to 2155 and the optimal year group size ranged from 150 to 225.

Student behaviour and attitudes

128. One study with a high / medium weight of evidence found that overall absence was lower in schools with up to approximately 1,400 students. After this point, overall absence appeared to increase as school size increased.

129. Studies with a lower weight of evidence tended to find a negative association with school size: that is, an increase in the dropout rate and a reduction in attendance as schools get larger.

52 11/12/2006 130. All the studies considered found a negative association between students’ feelings of engagement, connectedness and participation, and increased school size.

131. Studies investigating the relationship between school size and violent student behaviour had somewhat contradictory findings. Some types of violent behaviour increased as school size increased, whereas other types of violent behaviour decreased as school size increased.

132. The results suggest many of these relationships are comparatively weak, and are difficult to quantify and conceptualise.

Teacher perceptions of school climate and organisation

133. Comparatively few studies included in the in-depth review included measures of the impact of school size on teachers.

134. Results suggest that teachers in smaller schools tend to have more positive perceptions of school climate, of their abilities to influence school policies and control their classrooms, of school norms; teachers also perceive greater co-operation and more resource availability.

School organisation and structure

135. Comparatively few studies in the in-depth review included measures of the impact of school size on elements of school structure and organisation. The two studies that did include such outcomes used very different measures and are not comparable.

136. One study found that, as school size increases, so too does the construct of class size based on average class size, student teacher ratios and teachers’ perceptions of satisfaction with their class size.

137. The second study found that students in smaller schools may be more likely to be entered into higher tiers for mathematics, but not for science, and that some students in smaller schools may be less likely to be entered for some GCSE subjects. However, this pattern was not consistent across different subject areas.

Economic outcomes

138. The studies in this category show a consistent negative relationship between average secondary school size and costs defined as direct public expenditure on schools.

139. One study, despite finding the same negative relationship with average secondary school size, found that the relationship between size and costs was different between schools of different types. Relationships based on ‘average’ cost figures for all schools may not apply to particular types of school.

140. The size of the relationship between average secondary school size and costs differs slightly between studies. An increase in school size of 10% is estimated to reduce costs per student by between 1% and 4%, depending on the definition of cost used.

141. Studies of economic outcomes have considered only a limited range of costs (direct public expenditure on schools per student) and a limited range of outputs or benefits (cost per graduate, inefficiency).

53 11/12/2006 Conclusions

142. The review question is concerned with the overall relationship between secondary school size and outcomes. At this macro- or global level, the review findings suggest that there is no overall consistent relationship between secondary school size and outcomes. However, at the level of the individual outcomes, the pattern of findings which emerged suggests that we can be reasonably confident that exam attainment is maximised and absence is minimised at a certain point in the range of secondary school size. Further, in the limited terms of expenditure per student, costs decline as schools get larger. However, they also suggest that teacher and student perceptions of school climate decline and some kinds of violent behaviour may increase. The design of the studies included in this review cannot definitively establish causal relationships and thus the direction of causal relationships is a problem for all the outcomes reported. Does the number of students determine cost or does cost determine the number of students? Does school size determine attainment or does attainment determine school size?

143. There are three key issues which remain more unclear than the directions of 'effects' results suggest. Firstly, even if the interpretation given above is accepted, to be of practical use we would need to know at what size attainment was maximised and / or absence minimised. The studies here do not provide a clear answer to this as the range reported is quite wide, especially in relation to the actual size of secondary schools in England.

144. Secondly, does the 'average' direction of 'effect' apply to all school / student types? There is some suggestion from the studies in the review that it may not, although there may be differences between the USA and England on this point.

145. Thirdly, we would want to know the 'effect' of planned or unplanned changes in the size of an individual school. Such an analysis would need to include not only the 'effects' on the school that had changed size, but also 'effects' in neighbouring schools.

146. This review would seem to refute some of the more prevalent myths regarding the advantages and disadvantages of smaller and larger schools. For example, that student achievement is universally higher in smaller schools and that student behaviour is universally worse in larger schools have been shown to be inconsistent with the current evidence. The relationship appears to be much more complex than such simple arguments suggest.

Implications

147. This review does not provide evidence to support policy initiatives that solely aim either to increase or to decrease the size of schools and / or to close or change the structure of schools below or above a certain size. Where policy options could have an impact on school size (e.g. through the expansion or retraction of school size through the option of parental choice), it would seem reasonable to make all stakeholders aware that, at some point, the characteristics which make a school appear desirable may be lost if the school's size changes dramatically. Further research on the relationship between school size and a broad range of educational outcomes is required, using both quantitative and more in-depth qualitative analyses. It is important that future research builds on existing research both substantively and methodologically.

148. Schools-within-schools may have the potential to offer the benefits of both small and large schools by maintaining several 'small' schools within the same school site. However, there appear to be few rigorous evaluations of such initiatives. Future schools-within-schools initiatives should be accompanied by rigorous evaluation.

54 11/12/2006 Conclusions from research paper “Should Secondary Schools in Wales be Smaller?”

James Foreman-Peck and Lorraine Foreman-Peck Welsh Institute for Research in Economics and Development Cardiff Business School

149. Contrary to recent estimates for England, there is no reason to suppose that educationally efficient schools should be larger than the present average size for Wales. Rather, the opposite is the case. Reducing very large schools to around 600 pupils could produce significant gains in GCSE performance, both directly and through improved attendance. Smaller class sizes also would produce better results.

150. There is some tendency for schools to expand in response to good GCSE performance, and conversely. This may have contributed to the impression that large schools deliver better results. On the other hand there was no evidence of an increasing social segregation effect, as measured by the impact of free school meals eligibility on changing school size in Wales. The present analysis is consistent with a Welsh education authorities’ policy of raising school sizes; there is stronger expansion in response to good results than contraction in the face of poor performance.

151. The results of this paper confirm that sixth forms in Wales are not the unambiguous education advantage that is sometimes assumed. When the characteristics of their intake are taken into consideration, schools with sixth forms add less value to those below the sixth than schools without. This is consistent with schools starving GCSE pupils of resources in order to ‘nourish’ sixth formers. Schools with sixth forms also need to be smaller than those without to generate optimum educational results.

152. The measure of optimum school size has not taken into account the greater pupil travel costs imposed by larger schools (for example O’Shaughnessy 2000) which would strengthen the case for smaller schools. The point of most concern perhaps to local education authorities has not been addressed in this paper, namely the costs of delivering the extra educational benefits of smaller schools and smaller classes. Visual inspection of data on Scottish cost per pupil by school size suggests most of the cost reduction is achieved by a level of 600 pupils. Hence the extra financial costs of smaller schools should not be significant.

' Should Schools be Smaller? The Size-Performance Relationship for Welsh Schools' Economics of Education Review 25, 2, 157-71 April 2006 James Foreman-Peck and Lorraine Foreman-Peck

55 11/12/2006 SECTION 13: The impact of sixth form size on effectiveness

153. This document seeks to review the available research and literature related to the impact of size of sixth form on outcomes for young people. The School Organisation Review PDP and Stakeholder Group have already received information that analyses the curriculum offered in different sized sixth forms and the outcomes in Suffolk sixth forms by size. This report provides a summary of findings from the wider national perspective in relation to all A and AS level provision in all providers (i.e. school sixth forms, sixth form colleges and further education colleges).

154. The effectiveness of a sixth form can be evaluated by considering the curriculum it is able to offer, the outcomes that it achieves and its financial viability. This paper reviews the link between size and effectiveness in these three aspects.

Curriculum Offer

155. Ofsted record the number of GCE A-levels taught in school sixth forms from 5 to over 30 depending on the size of sixth form. They say that a minimum of 12 A-level subjects are needed if students are to be offered a reasonable choice which would require a minimum of 80 students at the levels of funding when Ofsted (June 1998) published this document. Since this time massive curriculum changes have occurred with the introduction of Curriculum 2000 and larger numbers of students taking more AS and A-levels. Owen and Fletcher (2005) classifies a small sixth form as one offering 18 A/AS courses, a medium sixth form as one offering 24 A/AS courses and a large sixth form as one offering 40 A/AS level courses. Size Matters by Owen, Fletcher and Lester (due to be published in mid September) evaluates the economies of scale in schools and colleges uses case studies of the A/AS level courses offered at different sized schools and colleges to estimate a typical curriculum provision and how this changes with size of institution. From their findings it can be seen that the smallest institutions offered the lowest number of programmes (17 at the lowest, with most offering around 20) and that subject choice widened as size increased. However, the rate of increase slowed rapidly beyond about 1000 ‘qualifications pursued’, corresponding to about 250 students at either AS or A2 or to an institutional student body of about 500.

156. Appendix 3 of the PDP Briefing paper on 14-19 Issues gives typical curriculum offers for small, medium and large sixth forms in Suffolk assuming financially viable class sizes for the given student numbers. In practice this means that for sixth forms of 50 year 12 students 12 different AS subjects could be offered, for sixth forms of 150 year 12 students 35 groups are possible giving the option of more than one group in more popular subjects and an offer of 27 different subjects and for sixth forms of 275 year 12 students, 36 different AS subjects can be offered with multiple groups in many subjects. The ability to offer a subject in more than one timetabled option block allows students to make a wider combination of subject choices and is one of the most effective ways of widening student choice.

157. It should be noted that it is impossible to separate the link between curriculum offer and financial viability. Sixth forms with small student numbers could offer a large number of qualifications but would not be able to do this without subsidy from another funding source other than their LSC funding. Assuming that courses are self-funding it is possible to conclude that the larger the sixth form the wider the choice of A and AS levels that will be available to students.

Student Outcomes

158. A systematic review of research into secondary school size carried out by Lancaster University Management School in 2004 for the EPPI centre concluded that in English schools achievement increased as school size increased up to approximately 1,200 for 11-

56 11/12/2006 16 schools or 1,500 for 11-18 schools. After this point, achievement decreases as size increases. Two pieces of research contained within the review are worthy of note. Bradley and Taylor’s (1998) initial work made this conclusion and when repeated in 2003, using the relationship between school size and GCSE results and value added between KS3 and KS4, the findings were similar – performance increases with increased school size up to a certain point. Beyond this point, achievement decreases in a quadratic relationship to school size. The optimum year group size (Year 11) was found to range from 150 to 225 students by Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schangen and Schagen (2002).

159. Whilst these figures do not relate specifically to sixth form size they clearly set the context that a larger cohort is likely to result in better achievement rates. This was further illustrated in data published by Jacqui Smith (then schools minister) in response to a question by Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins in February 2006 that clearly shows the link between attainment at A-level and size of sixth form:

Table 14 Number of students aged 16-18 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 50 or fewer 164.9 179 169 51-100 196.2 203 202.1 101-150 222.6 226.8 229.1 151-200 255.9 261.4 256.8 201-250 282.3 282.8 290.9 250 + 291.9 298.5 301.6 Average points per candidate 266.8 273.6 277.6

160. Assuming a linear relationship within size bands the average figures would equate to school sixth forms of between 220 and 230 students over the last three years.

161. In perhaps the largest study of patterns of Post 16 provision carried out by NFER (2006) the size of a sixth form was found to be a significant positive predictor of Post 16 attainment. The larger the number of Year 12 students in the establishment the better it was found to be. The main other factor that influenced outcomes was the total prior attainment point score of the learners. In this research provision in an area was classified by the mix of school sixth forms, sixth form colleges, general FE colleges and tertiary FE colleges present. Five main types of provision were identified – Suffolk would fit into Type D (learners in broadly equal school and college proportions with no sixth form colleges). When outcomes were analysed by type of provision it is interesting to note that Type D provision has on average lower-attaining students doing markedly better than other area types and higher-attaining students performing markedly worse than in the other study area types (see figure 13 in the original document). Negative factors affecting attainment were found to be overall deprivation and population mobility.

162. This report also looked at the issue of participation and whether patterns of provision had any effect on this. They found that Year 11 schools having a sixth form had no effect on post-16 participation rates. Instead the main factors positively affecting post-16 participation were GCSE results, girls rather than boys, certain ethnic groups relative to white UK, staying in the same school for KS3 and KS4 and having English as an additional language. Interestingly in Type D provision it was found that the presence of a sixth form in a school was actually associated with a lower probability of staying in education post-16 (see figure 2 in the original document).

Financial Viability

163. Funding for 16-19 education in schools and colleges amounts to over £4000 million per annum nationally yet there are no recommendations for a minimum size of sixth form as the response from David Miliband (then the minister for schools) to a question from Mr Drew in December 2003 shows:

57 11/12/2006

‘We do not prescribe a minimum acceptable size of school sixth form. The issue is whether a sixth form provides high quality, broad curriculum for its students, rather than its size.’

164. In fact the most recent comment on the recommended size of a sixth form from a financial perspective comes from the Audit Commission report (1996) which states:

A 1985 DES report [Better schools] suggested that 150 was the minimum size for a sixth form to be able to offer a cost-effective and full range of course options (although the report recognised that smaller sixth forms might be viable where there were cooperative arrangements). And the diversification of post-16 course options (for example the introduction of GNVQs) has led some educationalists to argue that 250 is a more realistic minimum size for adequate provision of a full range of options, given current teaching methods. On the other hand, a 1996 Ofsted report [Effective sixth forms] indicates that a school sixth form may be educationally and financially viable with fewer than 150 pupils if it focuses on a narrow range of provision. An appropriate size of sixth form will therefore vary, depending on the range of courses offered. But Audit Commission research indicates that, in practice, it is around the Better Schools threshold that sixth forms become more likely to require subsidy from the rest of the schools budget. (p17)

165. The report presents data on 30 schools, showing that the seven school sixth forms in the sample with more than 160 students were all either in financial balance or making a net contribution to the school budget. Of the remaining 23 school sixth forms, all with fewer than 160 students, about two-thirds (15) required ‘subsidy from the rest of the school budget’. LSC guidance (2005c) indicates that new 16-19 provision should meet the following criteria:

‘Provision is recommended at not less than the average size of sixth forms inspected by Ofsted (173 students) and preferably over 200 students, which is the number at which Ofsted reports that a sixth form would, generally, be able to offer a range of 20 or more A- levels, with three or four Advanced Vocational Certificates of Education (AVCEs) or equivalent. Competitions for new 16–19 provision will be held where a need is identified for 200 or more new 16–19 places to meet basic need. Proposals for new 16–19 provision for fewer than 200 students will be invited at the discretion of the LSC.’

166. Owen, Fletcher and Lester (2006) analyse two types of cost efficiencies associated with the size of an institution. They call these Type 1 and Type 2 economies of scale. In Type 1 economies they take a standard curriculum of say 24 AS/A level subjects and look at what the costs will be associated with different sized organisations. In practice though institutions do not behave like this and smaller institutions offer a smaller range of subjects than larger organisations. Type 2 economies of scale judge those economies that can be made allowing for different curriculum provision in different sized organisations. The tables below show how these two economies of scale are affected by changing size of institution. They are based on the assumptions that students are evenly split between Year 12 and Year 13, all chose 3.5 A-levels and that classes are capped at 24 for non-practical subjects and 20 for practical subjects such as Chemistry.

Table 15 Type 1 Economies of Scale: class sizes and costs by institutional size Number of Level 3 learners 100 200 300 500 800 1000 1500 2000 2500 Learner cohort 50 100 150 250 400 500 750 1000 1250 Enrolments per cohort (3.5 per learner) 175 350 525 875 1400 1750 2625 3500 4375 Number of subjects offered 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Number of classes 24 28 34 48 75 88 127 169 204 Overall average class size 7.3 12.5 15.4 18.2 18.7 19.9 20.7 20.7 21.4 Overall average cost per enrolment (£) 2040 1190 963 816 797 748 720 718 694

58 11/12/2006 167. From the information above the paper argues that the more students are present in an institution the lower the average cost per enrolment. However, these savings do begin to tail off once an institution gets larger than 1000 learners.

Table 16 Type 2 economies of scale: class sizes and costs by institutional size Number of Level 3 learners 100 200 300 500 800 1000 1500 2000 2500 Learner cohort 50 100 150 250 400 500 750 1000 1250 Enrolments per cohort (3.5 per learner) 175 350 525 875 1400 1750 2625 3500 4375 Number of subjects offered 18 18 18 24 24 24 40 40 40 Number of classes 18 22 28 48 75 88 148 195 233 Overall average class size 9.7 15.9 18.7 18.2 18.7 19.9 17.7 17.9 18.8 Overall average cost per enrolment (£) 1530 935 793 816 797 748 846 836 799

168. From the information above the paper argues that whilst in theory the unit costs of providing for 200 learners are 59% higher than providing for 1000 learners, in practice larger institutions offer a wider range of choices for learners and thus Type 2 economies of scale they estimate are exhausted when an institution reaches 300 learners.

169. In conclusion Owen, Fletcher and Lester (2006) suggest the following findings:

• Institutions with significantly fewer than 200 A-level students (a year cohort averaging 100) require substantial subsidy, even where they offer only a restricted choice of subjects. • Institutions with between 200 and 500 students can offer efficient provision but only by restricting choice. • Institutions with 500 students or more can offer wide subject choice and lower unit costs, though modest economies of scale persist up to 1000 students and perhaps even beyond that point. • Cost penalties can be very large: unit costs may be twice as high with 100 students as with 500, if comparable subject choice is offered.’

Conclusions

170. All the available national literature suggests that there is an optimum minimum size for a sixth form and it also suggests that on balance larger sixth forms provide greater benefits. Whilst there is no definitive agreement on an actual minimum number most studies indicate that sixth forms with fewer than 200 students can only become financially viable by reducing the range of courses offered. Or as Owen, Fletcher and Lester (2006) conclude:

‘Our final conclusion from the evidence is that institutions with fewer than 500 Level 3 learners face substantial diseconomies of scale. The diseconomies can largely – though not wholly – be accommodated by restricting student choice in institutions with 200–500 learners. With fewer learners still, the diseconomies cannot be accommodated: with 100 learners, for example, the cost per learner is roughly twice as high as it is with 500 learners.’

171. The quality of student outcomes is also linked to the size of institution in more than one analysis. This link was also made in the analysis carried out by Peter Feeney in Annex 25 of the PDP Briefing Paper and whilst there are clearly other factors that contribute to success than just size it is worth noting that all of the most successful Suffolk sixth forms have a large student number (over 200).

172. Whilst there seems to be agreement that the minimum number of students in a sixth form should be around 200 students it is not possible to analyse whether there is an upper limit that should be applied here. This is because many of the very large institutions in the

59 11/12/2006 research are not school sixth forms but sixth form colleges and so it would be unfair to draw any further conclusions about this.

173. Although there is a clear link between the size of an institution and its effectiveness it is important to note a number of local school sixth forms serving geographically isolated areas where students achieve high quality outcomes despite the small size of their sixth form. Whilst these students may not have had as wide a choice of curriculum as they would have had in a larger institution they have also not had the inconvenience of long journeys either. When considering the viability of sixth forms in Suffolk it is important to look at the local context and availability of alternative provision, as well as the size of the sixth form.

References:

AUDIT COMMISSION (1996) Trading places: the supply and allocation of school places, HMSO

BRADLEY S, TAYLOR J (1998) The effect of school size on exam performance in secondary schools, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 60: 291-324

BRADLEY S, TAYLOR J (2003) The economics of secondary schooling, In:Johnes G, Johnes J (eds) International Handbook of Education Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1985) Better schools, HMSO

EPPI, LSE AND LANCASTER UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT SCHOOL (October 2004) Secondary School size: a systematic review

HANSARD 6 Feb 2006: Column 997W

HANSARD 8 Dec 2003: Column 294W

OFSTED (June 1998) Secondary Education 1993-1997 A Review of Secondary Schools in England

OWEN G, FLETCHER M (2005) The Funding Gap: Funding in schools and colleges for full time students aged 16-18, LSDA

OWEN G, FLETCHER M, LESTER S (2006) Size Matters: Economies of scale in schools and colleges, LSN

SCHAGEN I, LOPES J, RUTT S, SAVORY C AND STYLES B (2006) Evaluating patterns of post- 16 provision, NFER

SPIELHOFER T, O’DONNELL L, BENTON T, SCHAGEN S, SCHAGEN I (2002) The impact of school size and single-sex education on Performance, Local Government Association Research Report 33, NFER

STANTON G, FLETCHER M (July 2006) 14-19 Institutional Arrangements In England – A Research Perspective On Collaboration, Competition and Patterns Of Post-16 Provision, paper prepared for the Nuffield Foundation

60 11/12/2006 SECTION 14: Pupil stability and movement between schools

174. Following the Part 1 research, feedback from Professor David Jesson suggested further investigation into the mobility of pupils into and between 2 and 3 tier schools.

175. A very high proportion of parents/ carers in Suffolk are offered a place for their child at their first preference school (98% for September 2006) with many parents taking advantage of the guarantee of a place for their child at their catchment area school. Feedback indicates a high level of parental satisfaction with the process.

176. The data below is based on the Year 11 cohort completing GCSE in 2005. In this year group 99% of pupils who stayed in Suffolk schools had assessments within the same system (2 or 3 tier) from Key Stage 2 to 3 (age 11 to 14) and from Key Stage 3 to 4 (age 14 to 16). This suggests high stability with a low level of movement between the systems in the secondary phase. In this group 21 pupils moved from the 2 tier to 3 tier system and 56 pupils moved from 3 tier to 2 tier schools.

177. In this cohort, there were a total of 394 pupils taken into schools after age 11 from outside Suffolk. Of these, 272 (7%) into the 3 tier system and 122 (3.8%) into the 2 tier system. Proportionately the 3 tier system has more pupils moving into school during Key Stage 3 and 4. These pupils can be grouped by the Fischer Family Trust prior attainment bands based on Key Stage 2 assessments. Proportionately there are more middle and lower ability pupils coming into 3 tier schools

Table 17 Lower Middle Upper Ability Ability Ability Total 2 Tier 32 46 44 122 3 Tier 103 104 65 272 Total 135 150 109 394

178. Based on the national database used by David Jesson 64 pupils came into 3 tier schools from London Boroughs, 37 from Essex, 33 from Norfolk, 18 from Cambridgeshire and 13 from Hertfordshire. The remainder did not have a primary school listed and may have come from the independent sector, service schools, other countries or have been educated at home.

179. ACORN socioeconomic profiles for pupils joining this cohort since age 11 (Key Stage2) compared to those staying in Suffolk over this 5 year period show that there are more wealthy achievers and comfortably off children joining the 2 tier system and more moderate means and hard pressed children joining the 3 tier system. There are differences between the groups of pupils moving into Suffolk in the 2 and 3 tier systems. As Jesson points out, mobility patterns in the 2 systems are different and may have a small effect on outcomes.

180. If GCSE outcomes for pupils Pupils in Suffolk schools at KS2 2000 and GCSE 2005 staying within Suffolk for Key Stages 3 and 4 are analysed for 65%

2005 there is a 2% difference 61%

between systems. The 2% gap 60% 59% between the systems is the same

as reported for all students for 5 55% passes at A* to C grades. However the figures for all students are lower 50% – 59% for 2 tier and 57% for 3 tier. 5+ A* to C 5+ A* to C It would appear that transitions of 2 tier 3 tier

any sort depress the outcomes for Chart 62 students.

61 11/12/2006 Pupils in Suffolk schools at KS2 in 2000 and GCSE 2005 181. Capped points are based on the best 7 subjects including English 450 375 and mathematics. There is little 400 362 350 difference between 2 and 3 tier 300 272 271 schools for this measure. 250 Students in 3 tier schools gain a 200 higher total points score than 150

100 those in 2 tier schools. This 50 reflects the better progress made 0 by lower ability pupils in 3 tier Total Points Total Points Capped Total Points Capped Total Points schools as reported in Part 1 2 tier 3 tier 2 tier 3 tier research and Section 1 of this Chart 63 document.

182. Destination data for this group of students after Year 11 was provided by Connexions. About 3% more students from 2 tier schools move on into structured learning of some kind but the proportions in each category are broadly similar.

Destinations of year 11 leavers 2005

100% 85% 90% 82% 80% 70% 60% 50% 2tier 50% 48% 3tier 40% 29% 28% 30%

20% 5% 6% 7% 1% 7% 2% 10% 5% 7% 1% 3% 0% FE NEET No NVQ2 Learning Employed Employed Structured NVQ2 Not Response Sixth Form Sixth GST Trainee GST

Chart 64 GST = Government Supported Training

62 11/12/2006 SECTION 15: Measures to address school improvement in Suffolk

What has been done to improve standards at Key Stage 2

183. We have provided high quality performance data to schools and supported school leaders in its use.

184. We have played an active part in target-setting at school level by the deployment of Link Advisers to every primary and middle school. We actively promote at these meetings, the use of FFT estimates and comparative performance data for schools, year groups, vulnerable groups and individual pupils. Similarly we ensure that school leaders are fully aware of performance issues when selecting priorities for their school development plans. We will continue to involve link advisers in target-setting in middle schools by involving them in the professional dialogues during the transition to School Improvement Partners, who, in accordance with the national scheme, are experienced in the secondary rather than primary phase.

185. Link advisers have worked with senior leadership teams to identify strengths and weaknesses in provision. Where Key Stage 2 attainment is a weakness it is identified as a key issue in school development plans.

186. All primary schools are urged to use optional tests for Year 4 pupils in order to provide information which commands greater confidence than that generated by teacher assessment alone. Schools have responded positively. This is particularly important in the 3 tier system to counteract the blame culture which had arisen.

187. Since September 2005, with few exceptions, the same Link Adviser has been deployed to a middle school and its feeder primary schools in order to promote awareness of common issues, continuity in provision, sharing of effective practice and liaison activities.

188. Every effort has been made to ‘join up’ National Strategy support in middle schools despite it being devised and offered as secondary and primary support at national and regional levels.

189. A governing body report in 2006 highlighted Key Stage 2 attainment as a priority area for improvement.

190. We have continued to raise awareness amongst teachers of:

• Suffolk’s KS2 performance record • the need to secure 2 levels of progress, as a minimum, between Key Stage 1 and 2, and enabling children who achieve at the lower end or just below the lower end of the expected level at the end of Key Stage 1, to make accelerated progress so that they achieve the expected level in tests for eleven year olds • the importance of good transfer of information about progress at points of transition • appropriate interventions for children at risk of underachieving • developing skills in ‘provision-mapping’ (planning provision across the school) and in the use of tried and tested intervention methods and materials

191. Where appropriate, we have used middle / primary clusters as an organisational unit for key programmes and projects, in order to highlight the importance of common policies and approaches to improve continuity in learning for pupils. For example, training on the revised literacy and numeracy frameworks.

192. We have encouraged professional development on a pyramid basis or cluster basis to encourage, facilitate and strengthen local networking.

63 11/12/2006 193. We continue to implement our 3 year project, this year working directly with teachers in middle schools to : identify children at risk of underachieving at the start of the school year; to devise appropriate teaching programmes to sustain and accelerate progress; to improve systems for tracking pupils’ progress; to improve the quality and timing of the transfer of information to the next teacher and to raise awareness of issues which can adversely affect pupils’ progress during periods of transition.

194. We are providing similar support to all teachers of Year 4 on a more modest scale, in 2006 and 2007.

195. We have monitored the take-up of professional development and training, particularly by staff from middle schools, resulting this year in revision of the presentation of the information to try to improve the take-up of primary phase courses and programmes.

196. We introduced a new project ‘Moving maths on’ in 2006-7, based on an effective project elsewhere in the region, aimed at improving the performance in mathematics by pupils who achieve a higher standard in English than in mathematics.

197. We have continued to provide a range of support and training for classroom assistants focused on literacy and numeracy across schools in Key Stage 2. This has been enhanced in 2006 with high priority given to schools where mathematics results are low.

198. We have drawn up plans for providing greater support for underperforming schools and subjects in both the 2 and 3 tier systems through use of grant funded programmes and resources and targeted deployment of LA advisory staff.

199. We continued the practice of revising deployment of Direct Support in English or mathematics in the light of the latest results. Priority is given to schools with results below the floor target for Key Stage 2 (65% Level 4).

200. We took up the opportunity to be involved in the Intensive Support Programme (ISP) in 2005-6 when additional grant funding was made available. In that year 4 schools from the 2 tier system and 6 from the 3 tier system participated. After one year the improvement in results for this group of school was significantly better than that in other schools, and better than the impact of this programme nationally. In addition to this continuing group, a further group of schools was brought into the programme during the summer term to facilitate rapid implementation at the start of the 06-07 school year.

201. We have promoting the use of tried and tested ISP tools widely amongst schools.

202. We reviewed and revised our Schools of Concern procedures to strengthen processes for identifying schools at risk and to provide focussed support where needed.

203. In order to ensure that our secondary School Improvement Partners (SIPs) have been well- prepared for their new role, we have provided significantly more training for colleagues in Suffolk who now make up a large part of our complement. We have developed robust procedures for monitoring their work which have been praised by our Regional Strategy SIP co-ordinator.

What needs to be done - for all schools with children in Key Stage 2

By means of specific measures such as those listed above the main objectives are to:

204. Raise expectations: pupils’ expectations of themselves; teachers expectations of the pupils they teach; and, parents’ expectations of what their children can achieve.

64 11/12/2006 205. Support and challenge school leaders and, as appropriate governing bodies, to make better use of the performance data that is already made available by the LA and that which is generated through assessments by teachers.

206. Provide the high quality advice, support and challenge necessary to enable schools to :

• develop curricular experiences that allow learners to make progress whilst also motivating and sustaining the interest of learners in Key Stage 2; • make better use of assessment for learning backed up by effective whole school systems for tracking learners’ progress; • provide learning opportunities tailored to take individuals and groups to the next stage of their learning; • use teaching approaches and materials adapted to suit learners including in particular, those with greater needs than the majority and those known to be at risk of underachieving.

207. Actively encourage the use of all the time that is available for learning during a school year for purposeful learning activities.

208. Promote collaboration and partnership between schools as a means of developing expertise through sharing good practice, and to ensure smooth transition in terms of learning and progress for pupils.

209. Minimise the changes which are known to interrupt rates of progress for learners at points of transition but particularly between schools.

What needs to be done – if the 3 tier system is retained

In addition to the objectives listed above, to:

210. Promote shared responsibility for the achievements of children in Key Stage 2 and minimise the changes which are known to interrupt rates of progress for learners when children change school.

211. Support middle schools in developing organisational and teaching approaches for children in Years 5 and 6 which are traditionally associated with teaching this age range in primary schools.

212. Monitor and evaluate the work of School Improvement Partners (SIPs) in middle schools to ensure that the learning needs of primary-aged children are given sufficient priority in discussions.

What needs to be done – if there is a change to all 2 tier schools

Whilst maintaining a sharp focus on the objectives listed above, to:

213. Develop opportunities for teachers trained in the secondary phase to become more skilled and confident in teaching a wider range of subjects using methods suited to the primary age range.

Capacity for school improvement and the impact of retaining the 3 tier system or moving to a 2 tier system.

214. Essentially there are 3 sources of funding for school improvement work; County Council funding, grant from central government and buy-back from schools. The capacity for school improvement, irrespective of school structure in Suffolk, needs to be set in the context of declining resources.

65 11/12/2006

• Against a background of widely publicised budget pressures, the County Council has set significant savings targets. The need to reduce expenditure will continue beyond next year. • The DfES has already indicated that the level of grant to Suffolk will be reduced next year and further reductions in subsequent years have been indicated.

• These 2 sources of funding provide for work to be undertaken which is not necessarily of schools’ choosing. Although the majority of schools are pleased to draw on additional support to help bring about improvements, in a minority of cases the offer of support at no additional cost is a significant factor in gaining acceptance. Intervention work in more serious cases of concern is not always welcomed.

• The third source of income, school buy-back, is subject to variation when school budgets come under pressure.

215. This establishment of the CYP Directorate and the introduction of School Improvement Partners has prompted the review of school improvement services and this work is now set in the context of declining resources. The aim is to develop an affordable service model in which the ability to meet statutory obligations must be the first priority. The resulting model would be in operation at the time of implementing any changes which might arise from this review of the school system.

216. If the decision was taken to change to a 2 tier system, a relatively modest saving would be made on the cost of Link Advisers. Assuming a similar number of primary and secondary schools as now, this would equate to 2 FTE posts given current allocations of schools per Link Adviser.

217. The same decision would also give rise to significant additional training needs for teachers, albeit phased over a long period. Although half of the pupils in middle schools at any one time are in the primary age range, they are taught by a predominance of teachers trained in the secondary phase. Those teaching Years 5 and 6 would be most affected by the decision. Assuming that some of them are primary trained it is reasonable to anticipate that less than half would need access to appropriate high quality in-service training to prepare them to work in primary schools. Some of those teaching pupils in Years 7 and 8 in middle schools may also need refresher training to work beyond Year 8 in secondary schools.

218. The biggest changes would face those moving to primary schools where the ability to teach a wide range of subjects is generally expected with more limited access to specialist support than routinely available in middle schools. Training would be essential to help individuals develop the confidence to work in a primary school setting and to command the confidence of primary headteachers recruiting staff on the ‘open market’. Current exploratory work suggests that a training programme of approximately 20 days would be needed per individual at a cost of about £150 per day to cover release time. The cost of trainers, venues and materials would be additional.

219. Quite apart from responsibilities to employees and for purely practical reasons it is vital that this pool of expertise is retained since the age profile of teachers in Suffolk already indicates recruitment issues in the near future. Some form of ‘ring-fenced’ funding may be the only option. Similarly, it is highly likely that some form of agreement will need to be reached with all schools to ensure that these teachers are given a degree of ‘preferential treatment’ when job opportunities arise.

66 11/12/2006 What has been done to improve standards post 16

220. In response to national policy developments for 14-19 education, and more locally, the findings of the Suffolk 14-19 Area Wide Inspection (March 2003) and the concurrent Post- 16 Strategic Area Review (StAR), the County Council, Suffolk Learning and Skills Council and Connexions established a 14-19 Strategy Group to oversee the development of 14-19 learning in Suffolk. Following wide consultation, the Suffolk 14-19 Strategy was launched in September 2004 offering a collective vision for the development of 14-19 education. The strategy identifies the following four priority areas for 14-19 education in Suffolk.

• Extending Breadth and Choice in the range of subjects young people can study

• Raising participation by encouraging more young people to continue in learning between 16 and 18 years

• Ensuring high quality learning

• Offering Value for Money by using the resources available to Suffolk for its young people in the most effective way

Detailed below is a comprehensive, although not necessarily exhaustive, set of initiatives that have been put in place within the county to deliver the 14-19 Strategy and improve standards in post 16 education.

Locality Delivery Partnerships

221. The 14-19 Strategy Group developed a series of minimum standards - the Suffolk 14-19 Thresholds – as indicators for the minimum acceptable level of education that Suffolk’s young people should expect to receive. This provided a basis for 12 local delivery partnerships to set their own development targets. Each group includes membership from high schools, further education, and training providers. Some groups include middle / primary school and special school / PRU representatives. All groups have had officers in attendance from Connexions, the Education Area Office and the 14-19 Strategy Team. Alongside the thresholds for 14-19 Education in Suffolk each group received a data toolkit, which provided a compendium of local information about the social economic context of the area, participation in education and training and performance data.

222. Groups submitted their initial analysis of local priorities and early ideas to the Suffolk 14-19 Strategy Group in May 2005. The Strategy group provided detailed feedback to each group to support the development of more detailed locality plans by November 2005. After this extended period of local discussion and consultation all groups submitted their locality plans; these have been evaluated by the 14-19 Strategy Group and form the basis of the county’s ongoing locality-based implementation plan, “Expanding Horizons 14-19”, published in June 2006. Implementation of local plans has already commenced across the county and groups are establishing self-sustaining arrangements for change and the establishment of local 14-19 partnerships.

14-19 Improvement Advisers

223. Two 14-19 Improvement Advisers, members of the 14-19 Strategy Team, work with school sixth forms to provide practical help to raise standards. They use a traffic light assessment system to flag up sixth forms where both raw measures and the value added data indicate unsatisfactory performance at Level 3, thereby allowing their work to be targeted where it is most needed. Since 2005 they have worked with heads of sixth form in a range of contexts, including:

67 11/12/2006 • helping them prepare self evaluation forms for sixth form provision, using the latest Ofsted criteria;

• training them and other key staff on interpreting relevant performance data and feeding that interpretation into reviews;

• developing the skills of their tutor teams to intervene more effectively with underachieving students;

• refining approaches to progress monitoring at both individual learner and cohort level;

• carrying out joint lesson observations to assist heads of 6th in improving skills in evaluating quality of teaching and learning;

They also run a post 16 improvement network, where heads of sixth forms have the opportunity to share best practice. There are a number of initiatives in development, including a coaching and mentoring project for new heads of sixth forms.

Broadening the 14-19 Curriculum

224. The national learning entitlement for 14-19 year olds requires all fourteen specialised diploma subjects to be available to all young people by 2013, with the numbers of lines increasing incrementally from 2006. All local delivery partnerships have committed to have in place at least two lines of learning accessible to all students at Key Stage 4 from September 2006 and plans are in place to achieve this.

225. The Increased Flexibility Programme has been extended to allow 900 young people across the county aged 14-16 to take a vocational course at a college of further education as part of their key stage 4 course.

226. The ESF funded GOALS has enabled the development of new models of collaborative working to open up vocational study in the specialised lines of learning to a further cohort of young people. Models established include delivery on employer premises for land-based studies; shared courses being established in engineering and hairdressing between partner schools; shared management of extended work experience placements between schools with NVQ accreditation provided by a range of training providers and the use of college staff to teach specialist subjects in schools. Currently over 500 young people are participating in accredited vocational programmes through GOALS.

227. 231. A Level 1 and 2 Working Group was set up to increase the range of provision in school sixth forms and 24 out of 30 schools now offer at least one Level 1 or 2 course based either on their site or accessible to their students via local partnerships.

228. The Suffolk Learning Entitlement (Second Edition) was published in 2006. It provides a clear framework regarding the quality and standards that each provider should be working to when providing education and training opportunities and incorporates the national 14-19 implementation plan and recent local developments. A range of good practice materials developed by the 14-19 Strategy Team – e.g. Tutorial pack, ILP good practice CD, supports this document.

229. The County 14-19 Adviser has led a development programme to support improved engagement with employers through the development of work related learning and the teaching of enterprise. This has led to the establishment of several new links with industry bodies and local businesses (e.g. Ports and Haven Gateway; CITB industry days, ITFC enterprise programme, Adnams, Arcadia Group)

68 11/12/2006 230. Several pilots have been established in Suffolk schools using a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). A VLE allows 24 hour access where there is an internet connection, thereby enabling students to access learning materials at any time. In some pilots in three tier areas VLEs have been used collaboratively between Middle and Upper schools. In this model the senior students e-mentor the younger ones, and there is also an interactive discussion board used by all pupils.

231. Two pilot transport studies have commenced to support improved access to planned new courses. County and local partners working together are undertaking this. This pilot study will inform the wider development of transport infrastructure in support of 14-19.

232. Work has started on a professional development strategy to enable teaching and support staff to develop the additional skills necessary to teach the new curriculum.

Information Advice and Guidance

233. To improve the impartiality and quality of IAG for all young people a set of local standards has been developed and consulted upon with local providers. These standards, which are aligned with emerging national guidance, are now moving into their pilot phase to enable the establishment of an IAG quality mark for Suffolk providers. The 14-19 Strategy is also supporting work with local delivery partnerships to explore how IAG services can be delivered in new ways across a partnership of providers. Pilot work with three local delivery partnerships will commence this autumn.

234. www.future4me.org.uk, the Suffolk online local prospectus, was launched in July 2005 following an extensive phase of development and consultation with providers, young people and other potential users. The website includes a wide range of searches by provider, subject, area and level and includes extensive information about each course as well as entry requirements and application process. The site also includes links to other general information such as travel and financial support.

235. Informing Choices Roadshows are delivered to teachers and parents by a multi agency team (SCC, Connexions, Aimhigher and LSC). The Roadshows include workpacks for all teacher participants, and have successfully raised awareness of workbased learning routes and progression routes into HE.

236. A new DVD has been developed collaboratively by the Training Provider Network to promote workbased learning. This has been distributed to all schools and other providers.

237. An ESF funded project called Informing Choices is enabling significant new developments in information provision for young people, their parents and advisers. An exciting aspect of this work is its linkage to the Sector Skills Councils for the six priority industry sectors for Suffolk.

Young People with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities

238. A framework for the provision of 14-19 learning for those with SEN has been developed in collaboration with providers and these standards are now being implemented.

239. Good support is provided to young people in transition and to their parents through the Moving On progression events held each year to provide a market place for advice/ signposting and through the three multi-agency drop in centres/cyber cafes opened to provide information/advice.

240. The Improving Choices project led by the LSC in eastern region has enabled young people with LLDD who formerly could not be catered for in Suffolk to continue their studies locally.

69 11/12/2006