$tskgspa1.docx

Rutland County Council Education Performance Board

Report on Education Performance Summer 2016

Date of report: November 2016

1 $tskgspa1.docx

INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared at the request of the Education Performance Board. The Board’s role is “to ensure that effective improvement has been achieved to meet agreed service and education performance standards, performance targets, and operational practice”.

In this document we report on standards achieved, including comparisons with previous years (where this is possible) indicating where change has taken place. We also report on OFSTED inspection judgements of schools and the analyses conducted by the School Improvement Service.

This report should be read in conjunction with the document, “RCC School Performance Summary v1 270916”.

This report relates to the Council’s strategic objective of “Creating a brighter future for all” and the Education Strategic Plan 2015-18.

Colour coding in the report means: RED: area of concern - moderate to high risk; AMBER: area of concern - low risk; GREEN: securely good performance.

2 $tskgspa1.docx 1 BACKGROUND AND MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

1.1 Availability of Data and Impact on Reporting

Data for KS4/5 are unvalidated at the point of writing this report. The validated data when finally published are more reliable and detailed. These may require amendments to be made to the conclusions of this report. We shall review the results when they are validated - in line with the calendar below.

In the meantime, we include headlines for each of the key stages.

The new assessment arrangements for 2016 at KS 1 & 2 mean that comparisons with previous years are not possible. Some early comparisons with national averages and other authorities may help to identify patterns.

1.2 Reports and Calendar of Meetings

The calendar for reports to the Education Performance Board is governed by the timetable for the release of validated data from national organisations. For this reason, the pattern of EPB meetings will be as follows:

 Autumn 2016: initial analysis (headlines) of available, unvalidated 2016 results in KS4 and KS5; more detailed analysis of KS1 & KS2.

 Spring 2017: full analysis of 2016 validated data (early years and KS4 & KS5).

 Summer 2017: full analysis of all 2016 results and intelligence, identifying further issues for the Education Strategic Plan (ESP).

2 ANALYSIS OF EARLY YEARS PERFORMANCE

2.1 Background

This is the fourth year of operation of the revised Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (2016).

All schools have now received an external EYFS moderation visit and the data are consequently more reliable than in previous years.

2.2 Operation of the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile 2016

The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) was completed for a total of 431 children (244 boys and 187 girls):

 109 children from six maintained primary schools;

 293 children from 11 academies;

 26 children from one independent school;

 Three children from a special school. 3 $tskgspa1.docx  Of these, 68 children are from services families.

2.3 Headlines of Performance

2.3.1 Good level of development (GLD)

The first 12 Early Learning Goals are combined to create the measure of ‘Good level of development’.

 72.1% of children achieved GLD.

 A decrease 2.7% is seen compared with 2015.

 This was slightly higher for Local Authority maintained schools (75%) than for academy schools (71%).

 21 (4.9%) have been identified as having English as an additional language of whom 12 (57.1%) have achieved GLD.

 24 (5.6%) have Special Educational Needs and Disabilities of whom 5 (21.7%) have achieved a GLD, one child has an Education, Health and Care Plan, two children have a statement.

 19 (4.4%) are disadvantaged, of whom 7 (36.8%) achieved GLD.

 39 (9%) are from Ethnic Minority Groups of whom 28 (71.8%) achieved GLD.

 182 (42.2%) were summer born, of whom 111 (61%) achieved GLD.

2.3.2 Average Points Score

(See tables 1 and 2, below.)

 The average points score for all 17 Early Learning Goals (ELGs) in 2016 is 35.6.

 This is down slightly on the previous years (36.8 in 2015 and 37.1 in 2014) but above the national comparator for LAs (34.5).

 There has been a decrease in ‘expected’ or ‘exceeding’ levels across almost all of the 17 ELGs (with the exception of Maths (numbers)). This suggests that the fall in the average point score is not driven by a large decrease in one or two areas but rather a smaller decrease across all areas.

The table below shows the comparison between 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 for children achieving ‘expected’ or ‘exceeding’ outcomes across the 17 Early Learning Goals.

4 $tskgspa1.docx Area of Learning 2015-16 Number and aspect of Early Learning Goal 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year-on- (ELG) year change. Communication and Language 81 87 87 83 -4

1 Listening and Attention 88 90 91 88 -3 2 Understanding 89 91 92 88 -4 3 Speaking 87 91 91 86 -5 Physical Development 94 93 94 90 -4 Prime 4 Moving and Handling 94 93 97 91 -6 Areas of 5 Health and Self-care 96 97 96 95 -1 Learning Personal, Social and Emotional 85 87 90 85 -5 Development 6 Self- Confidence and 90 94 95 91 -4 Self-Awareness 7 Managing Feelings and 89 90 93 89 -4 Behaviour 8 Making Relationships 92 92 94 90 -4 Prime areas of learning (all areas 74 81 84 79 -5 above) Literacy 73 69 78 76 -2 9 Reading 81 78 83 83 0 10 Writing 73 69 79 76 -3 Mathematics 74 76 83 86 3 11 Numbers 75 77 83 84 1 12 Shape, Space and 85 87 89 87 -2 Measures Understanding the World 90 91 92 84 -8 Specific 13 People and 94 93 94 87 -7 Areas of Communities Learning 14 The World 93 92 94 87 -7 15 Technology 96 97 98 97 -1 Expressive Arts and Design 90 92 93 88 -5 16 Exploring and Using 94 95 94 90 -4 Media and Materials 17 Being Imaginative 91 94 94 89 -5 Specific Areas of Learning (all 64 65 76 70 -6 areas of above) Table 1 - Children achieving ‘expected’ or ‘exceeding’ outcomes across the 17 Early Learning Goals

Specific areas of learning were down by 6 percentage points compared to the previous year and ‘prime’ areas of learning down 5 percentage points.

 One of the seven areas of learning showed an increase – Maths, up by 3 percentage points.

 The other six areas of learning showed a decrease from last year, the largest of which was for ‘Understanding of the world’ – down 8 percentage points.

5 $tskgspa1.docx

The next table shows the average point score for groups of children according to different characteristics.

Comparison Average point to average Characteristic (number of pupils in group) score for group for all pupils (out of 51) (35.6)

School type Local Authority Maintained (109) 38.2 +2.6 Independent (26) 38.1 +2.5 Academy (294) 34.8 -0.8 Special (3) 17.0 -18.6 Gender Girls (187) 37.2 +1.6 Boys (244) 34.5 -1.1 Ethnicity Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Groups (39) 35.6 0.0 White British (367) 35.5 -0.1 Special Educational Needs Support Plan (21) 27.2 -8.4 Statement or Education Care and Health Plan (3) 18.0 -17.6 Other Summer Born (182) 33.8 -1.8 Service children (68) 32.5 -3.1 Eligible for FSM (19) 31.2 -4.4 English Not First Language (21) 29.7 -5.9

Table 2 - the average point score for groups of children

 Those in Local Authority maintained schools scored the highest, closely followed by independent school (both above the average).

 Girls performed higher than boys and were slightly above the overall average.

The following table shows the percentage and number of children achieving a ‘good level of development’ in EYFS, by school (2016).

Average point score (APS) and cohort size is also provided.

6 $tskgspa1.docx The table is ranked by the percentage scored (high to low).

Cohort APS Good level of development Schools Size % Number

Great Casterton CofE Primary School 13 39.2 100.0 ||||||||||||| Empingham CofE Primary School 9 37.4 88.9 |||||||| Whissendine CofE Primary School 27 35.7 81.5 |||||||||||||||||||||| St Nicholas CofE Primary School 21 37.1 81.0 ||||||||||||||||| Ketton CofE Primary School 30 36.5 80.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||| CofE Primary School 34 38.5 79.4 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| St Mary & St John CofE Primary School 24 42.8 79.2 ||||||||||||||||||| Brooke Hill Academy 45 35.2 77.8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Catmose Primary 30 35.0 73.3 |||||||||||||||||||||| Ryhall CofE Primary School 23 34.3 72.7 ||||||||||||||||| Langham CofE Primary School 29 36.2 72.4 ||||||||||||||||||||| English Martyrs Catholic Primary School 21 36.2 71.4 ||||||||||||||| Uppingham CofE Primary School 20 34.3 70.0 |||||||||||||| Brooke Priory Primary School 26 38.2 69.2 |||||||||||||||||| Edith Weston Primary School 12 38.7 66.7 |||||||| Leighfield Primary School 19 33.3 52.6 |||||||||| Cottesmore Primary School 36 29.4 50.0 |||||||||||||||||| Exton and Greetham CofE Primary School 9 31.0 33.3 ||| The Parks 3 17.0 0.0 Rutland LA Maintained Schools 112 37.5 75.0 Rutland Academy Schools 293 34.9 71.0 Rutland LA 2016 431 35.9 72.1 Emerging National – 2016 669151 34.5 69.3

Table 3: children achieving a ‘good level of development’ in EYFS shown by school.

3 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AT KEY STAGE 1

3.1 Phonics (year one)

3.1.1 Key findings

See table 4.

 Phonic outcomes have risen by 4% compared with 2015.

 This mirrors the national increase of 4%.

7 $tskgspa1.docx  There is a three-year rising trend in the percentage of pupils who achieved the phonic screening check.

 Performance has been above the national average for the last two years.

 Three of our schools in 2016 were well below the national average and eight schools were well above.

Y1 Phonics 2014 2015 2016 National 75% 77% 81% Rutland 73% 82% 86%

Table 4: phonic scores 2014-2016.

3.2 KS1 Assessment

See Table 5.

Outcomes at the end of KS1 cannot be compared directly with previous results due to changes in assessment methods.

 Historically, performance has been well above the national picture.

 Early indication suggests that outcomes in 2016 are also well above national averages.

 12 schools are above national averages in all three subjects, and a number of these well above.

 Two of our schools are below national performance in all three subjects.

 The reliability of the assessment of writing has been questioned by schools.

KS1 Outcomes Reading Writing Maths RWM National 74% 66% 73% 60% Rutland 80% 70% 79% 65%

Table 5: KS1 outcomes

4 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AT KEY STAGE 2

4.1 Key stage 2 outcomes

See Table 6.

 Rutland remains broadly average compared to national at the end of KS2.

 Outcomes were above national averages in: reading; grammar, punctuation & spelling (GPS).

 Maths and writing were slightly below national averages. 8 $tskgspa1.docx  Greater variation was seen between schools in writing and mathematics, e.g., 7/17 primary schools attained well above the national average for writing whilst 7/17 schools are below or well below.

 Less variation is seen in reading, with only two schools attaining well below national average.

 Mathematics remains weakest.

 As at KS1 the reliability of writing assessment has been questioned by schools.

KS2 Reading Writing GPS Maths RWM Pupils: 375 *EXS+ *ASS EXS+ *GD EXS+ ASS EXS+ ASS EXS+ National 65.7% 102.6 74.1% 15.0% 72.5% 104 70% 103 53.2% Rutland 71% 103.6 73% 14.9% 76% 104.1 68.0% 102.8 53%

*ASS – (Average Scaled Score) *EXS (At the expected standard or above) *GD Greater Depth

Table 6: KS2 outcomes

 The combined score for reading, writing and maths combined (RWM) is at national average.

 Only 4 primary schools were at or above the floor figure of 65% for RWM.

 11 schools were above the national average of 53% for RWM.

 Reduced number of schools below floor; two primary schools are at risk of being below floor in 2016 compared to 3 schools in 2015 and 4 in 2014.

4.2 Progress from KS1-KS2

4.2.1 KS1-2 Progress: a new measure

The levels which a child achieved at KS1 for Reading, Writing and Maths are converted into an average points score. To look at progress, an individual’s KS2 test score is compared to that of a group of children with the same points score at KS1. The difference between the two figures is then expressed as a progress score, for example +1.5 or -2.3. It is likely that any positive score will be seen as ‘sufficient’ progress. This process is repeated for all pupils at a school and an overall figure is produced for progress.

Data from the National Consortium for Examination Results (NCER) provide the information below. Appendix 1 provides further information along with a breakdown for each school.

See Table 7.

 Progress from KS1-KS2 is below average, after high scores at KS1.

9 $tskgspa1.docx  Rutland was below the national progress score in all subjects

 Schools are significantly below the Writing and Maths national averages.

 The average progress score for Reading is slightly below the national average but this is not significant.

 Reading: one school is significantly above the national average (St Mary and St John CofE) and one school is significantly below it.

 Writing: one school is significantly above the national average (Brooke Hill Academy) and 6 schools are significantly below it.

 Due to the very low outcomes in writing in a small number of schools, Rutland’s progress score in writing is particularly low.

 Maths: 3 schools are significantly below the national average (none is significantly above it).

Reading Writing Maths Score -0.2 -1.3 -0.7

Table 7: Progress indicator for Rutland from KS1 to KS2

Number of schools: Reading Writing Maths At or above progress score of 0 8 6 8 Well above progress score of 0 1 1 0 Below progress score of 0 9 11 9 Well below progress score of 0 1 6 3

Table 8: Rutland schools performing above and below average progress scores in each subject

4.2.2 Comparison with other local authority areas

 At phonics and assessments at KS1 and KS2 Rutland performed better than its statistical neighbours.

 At KS2, outcomes exceeded those of all its statistical neighbours (with exception of maths). See appendices 2 &3.

Analysis of national maximum and minimum scores

Analysis of the maximum and minimum scores in individual subjects allows a degree of comparison.

% reaching the expected standard in: Minimum Rutland Maximum

RWM 39% 53% 67%

Reading 52% 71% 81%

GPS 62% 76% 86%

10 $tskgspa1.docx Mathematics 58% 68% 83%

Writing teacher assessment 58% 73% 84%

Table 9: Rutland performance in relation to minimum and maximum scores

LA average scaled scores:

Subject: Minimum Rutland Maximum

Reading 100 104 107

GPS 102 104 108

Mathematics 101 103 106

Table 10: Rutland performance on LA averaged scale scores

4.2.3 Performance of Vulnerable Groups

See Tables 11 and 12.

Whilst caution has to be exercised in drawing conclusions about the performance of groups consisting of small numbers, gaps in performance are evident:

 A gap between pupils with FSM compared to non-FSM at KS21.

 A gap in performance of services pupils at KS1 and KS2.

 Boys continue to do less well than girls in English.

Boys Girls FSM Non Service Non FSM Children Service Children No of 191 217 12 365 pupils 54 354 Reading EXS 79 82 67 82 70 82 Writing EXS 62 76 75 70 56 72 Maths EXS 79 78 75 80 63 81

Table 11: Performance of pupil groups at key stage 1 2016

KS2 Boys Girls FSM Non Service Non FSM Children Service Children No of 191 184 31 344 45 330

1 Numbers at KS1 are too small for analysis purposes. 11 $tskgspa1.docx pupils Reading EXS 68 73 58 72 49 74 Writing EXS 68 78 71 73 60 75 Maths EXS 72 64 48 70 60 69 GPS EXS 69 83 61 77 67 77

Table 12: Performance of pupil groups at key stage 2 2016

4.3 Floor Levels

4.3.1 Floor Standards for Primary

The floor standard is the minimum standard for pupil attainment and/or progress that the government expects schools to meet.

In 2016, a school will be above the floor if:

• at least 65% of pupils meet the expected standard in English reading, English writing and mathematics; or

• the school achieves sufficient progress scores in all three subjects. At least -5 in English reading, -5 in mathematics and -7 in English writing.

Note: If the school has a progress score that is less than sufficient in one subject, it will only be below the floor if the progress score for that subject is significantly below average i.e. the upper band of its confidence interval is below zero.

DfE Guidance indicates that: “No school will be confirmed as being below the floor until December 2016 when schools’ performance tables are published.”

Initial data from NCER – see Appendix 2 – indicates that:

 only 2 of 14 schools met the attainment threshold of 65%; namely,

a) Ketton CofE; and,

b) St Nicholas CofE.

 12 out of 14 schools met the floor threshold for progress and therefore only two schools are below the floor standard:

a) Cottesmore; and,

b) St Mary & St John CofE.

5 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AT KEY STAGE FOUR

5.1 Information concerning data reliability.

The data for 2016 have been taken from the DfE SFR 37 first release. Data have not yet been validated. Nationally validated RAISEonline data is expected to be available around February 2017. For the above reasons, the judgements drawn are limited in scope and may change. 12 $tskgspa1.docx 5.1.1 5+A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and Maths2

See Table 13.

 An increase in the percentage of students gaining five or more A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent), including English and Maths, across all three colleges in Rutland.

 A substantial improvement in two of the three schools.

 The highest performance in all three colleges over the last four years including this year (2016).

 5.5% increase on last year.

 At least 10% increase in two years.

Rutland (18%); largest improvement over two years.

(10.8%); largest improvement from last year.

 The rise in attainment places Rutland 4th highest county in England.

Change Three year from last School 2014 2015 2016 figures year (2014-2016) (2015-2016) Casterton College Rutland 55 67 73 6.0 18.0 Catmose College 69 65 76 10.8 6.8 Uppingham Community College 64 69 69 0.2 5.2 Rutland Local Authority 62.7 67.2 72.7 5.5 10.0 England State-funded schools 56.6 57.1 n/a n/a n/a England and All Schools 53.4 53.8 n/a n/a n/a

Table 13 – Percentage of students gaining 5+ A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths over the last four years.

5.1.2 Achieving the English Baccalaureate3

See Table 14.

 The percentage of students has dropped across all three colleges and for Rutland as a whole (down by 3.6 percentage points).

 The three year trend also shows a decrease across all three colleges.

2 Figures for 2016 are self-reported by schools and unvalidated. The change from last year and the three year trend (2014 to 2016) are expressed as the change in percentage points. Data for national comparators (England and ‘similar Local Authorities) are not yet available. 3 See note 2. 13 $tskgspa1.docx Change Three year from last School 2014 2015 2016 trend year (2014-2016) (2015-2016) Casterton College Rutland 23 25 21 -4.0 -2.0 Catmose College 30 28 24.8 -3.2 -5.2 Uppingham Community 32 33 31 -2.0 -1.0 College Rutland Local Authority 28.9 29.2 25.6 -3.6 -3.3 England State-funded 24.2 24.3 n/a n/a n/a schools England and All Schools 22.9 22.9 n/a n/a n/a

Table 14 – Percentage of students achieving the English Baccalaureate.

6 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF POST 16

As indicated above, the data for post 16 are still subject to validation. Further analysis will be undertaken once validated results are published.

Just below 20% of Y13 students go to . The remaining 80% have historically gone to other learning providers outside the County.

Initial analysis of results at Rutland County College 2016 show:

 Average points score per A level entry has dropped: 213.4 to 211.02 – below national 2015. As a grade, this remains at C.

 Average points score per student has risen substantially from 709 in 2015 to 776 in 2016. This places it near the average.

 Those achieving at least 3 A levels (any grade) has fallen from 91% to 88.5%.

 Those achieving at least 2 A levels remains about the same as last year.

 Grades AAB in 2 subjects has fallen from 5% to 3.1%.

 The value added comparison has improved significantly (from 0.03 to 0.11). This shows that these students have made better progress since GCSE than the average student.

 Vocational qualifications were good. A smaller number of students (14) took with a rise in the average point score from 679 to 695 – about 2%.

 This point score equates to a Distinction plus grade.

 100% of students gained at least three substantial vocational qualifications.

7 ADULT LEARNING AND APPRENTICESHIPS

See tables 15-19

14 $tskgspa1.docx Rutland Adult Learning and Skills Service delivers its programmes in partnership with Peterborough Regional College (PRC).

Outcomes for learners show good and consistent success rates which are in the main significantly above national averages.

 Achievement rates for adults are 8.8% above national averages and have shown a major increase in numbers of people undertaking skills based actions.

 Overall apprenticeship success rates are 7% above national averages at 78.7%. This includes 16-18 which has been static in terms of success and is reflective of a small historical number of leavers.

 Timely success rates for apprenticeships are at 72.3% overall and are 13.4% above national averages.

 Community learning has also shown an increase in footfall from 492 to 776 whilst at the same time remaining at consistently high success rates.

Overall Provider Full Year Provisional Variance National (All Institutions) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 + or - 2014/15 National 16-18 Leavers 9 8 9 8 Achievement Rate 88.6% 62.5% 77.8% 100% +20.2% 79.8 Pass Rate 91.7% 100% 83.3% 100% +11.8% 88.2 Retention Rate 88.9% 75% 77.8% 100% +9.5% 90.5

19+ Leavers 464 283 203 1157 Achievement Rate 84.5% 80.2% 93.6% 92.1% +5.1% 87.0 Pass Rate 94.5% 88.6% 89.0% 95.1% +1.5% 93.6 Retention Rate 90.3% 90.8% 96.1% 96.5% +2.6% 92.9

Total Leavers 473 291 212 1165 Achievement Rate 84.6% 79.7% 93.0% 92.2% +8.8% 83.4 Pass Rate 93.7% 88.2% 97.5% 95.1% +4.2% 90.9 Retention Rate 90.2% 90.4% 95.3% 96.5% +4.8% 91.7 Table 15 – Classroom Learning/Education & Training 4 year trends

Overall Provider Full Year Provisional Provider National (All Group Institutions) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2014/15 2014/15 16-18 Leavers 5 14 19 18 Achievement Rate 60.0% 64.3% 78.9% 72.2% -0.7% 72.9 Pass Rate 92.9%

19-23 Leavers 7 16 16 21 Achievement Rate 57.1% 75.0% 81.3% 81.0% +8% 73.0 Pass Rate 89.5%

24+ Leavers 25 55 19 8 15 $tskgspa1.docx

Achievement Rate 60.0% 58.2% 78.9% 87.5% +17.6% 69.9 Pass Rate 100%

Total Leavers 37 85 54 47 Achievement Rate 59.5% 62.4% 80% 78.7% +7% 71.7 Pass Rate 92.5%

Table 16 - Apprenticeship 4 Year Trends (Overall)

Overall Provider Full Year Provisional Provider National Group 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2014/15 2014/15 16-18 Leavers 5 14 19 18 Achievement Rate 60.0% 64.3% 78.9% 61.1 -1.4% 62.5 Pass Rate 93

19+ Leavers 9 16 16 21 Achievement Rate 44.4% 62.5% 75.0% 76% +15.4% 60.6 Pass Rate 89.5%

24+ Leavers 51 55 19 8 Achievement Rate 27.5% 41.5% 63.2% 87% +31.7% 55.3 Pass Rate 100

Total Leavers 37 85 54 47 Achievement Rate 32.3% 50.7% 72.2% 72.3% 13.4% 58.9 Pass Rate

Table 17 - Apprenticeship 4 Year Trends (Timely)

Starts Retention Achievement Success 2011/2 862 97% 93% 89% 2012/3 931 95% 90% 85% 2013/4 695 95% 99% 94% 2014/5 492 95% 98% 93% 2015/6 776 98% 94% 93% Table 5: Community Learning - 5 Year Success Rates

8 CONSULTATION

This paper is offered for consultation to the Education Performance Board. It will be amended in the light of comments and questions from the Board. It will then be taken to Children’s Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet.

9 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No options are proposed as this is a paper for information only.

10 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 16 $tskgspa1.docx There are no financial implications to this paper as it offers no suggestions for action.

11 LEGAL AND GOVERNANCE CONSIDERATIONS

No legal considerations arise from the report.

The paper will go through the normal governance route within the County, including SMT, Scrutiny and Cabinet.

The Local Authority will use the paper in order to review its strategy as expressed in the Education Strategic Plan 2016-18. It is not expected to trigger any substantial changes to the strategy.

All schools are invited to consider the implications of the report. In addition, all schools are requested to consider placing the report before the governing body in order to further discussions.

12 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has not been completed for the following reasons because there are no service, policy or organisational changes being proposed.”

13 HEALTH AND WELLBEING IMPLICATIONS

No expected impacts.

14 ORGANISATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

No implications are foreseen as no recommendations are made.

15 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS

None.

16 BACKGROUND PAPERS

There are no additional background papers to the report.

17 APPENDICES

There are four appendices.

17 $tskgspa1.docx Appendix 1 – KS1-2 Progress (National Consortium for Examination Results)

18 $tskgspa1.docx

19 $tskgspa1.docx Appendix 2 – KS2 Floor Targets (National Consortium for Examination Results)

20 $tskgspa1.docx Appendix 2: Interim information regarding rank order of LA areas

Key Stage 1

LA Reading Writing Maths

Rank % EXS+ Rank % EXS+ Rank % EXS+

Rutland 6 80% 21 70% 12 78%

Highest Ranking LA 1 81% 1 78% 1 82%

Lowest Ranking LA 150 64% 149 53% 150 62%

National (State funded) - 74% - 65% - 73%

Key Stage 2

LA Rank % pupils reaching expected standard

Rutland 63 53%

Kensington & Chelsea 1 67%

Peterborough 150 39%

National (state funded schools) - 52%

21 $tskgspa1.docx Appendix 3: KS 1 & 2 comparisons with statistical neighbours

22 $tskgspa1.docx Appendix 4: Ofsted status of schools and LA gradings

See Chart 1: Statutory inspection gradings of schools are as follows:

 Outstanding: 5; Good: 11; Requires improvement: 5; Inadequate: 0.

Please note that schools which have academised and have not been inspected since do not, technically, have an Ofsted grade. However, the schools’ most recent gradings are included here.

Chart 1: Ofsted gradings of schools

23 $tskgspa1.docx See Chart 2: Categorisation of schools using Rutland’s School Improvement Gradings:

 11 green; 8 amber; 3 red.

Chart 2: the movement of schools according to Rutland’s School Improvement Gradings.

A Large Print or Braille Version of this Report is available upon request – Contact 01572 722577. (18pt)

Document control: Version: RUTLAND EDUCATION PERFORMANCE REPORT general v3 161116 based on: RUTLAND EDUCATION PERFORMANCE REPORT 2016 to SMT v2B 141116 (with amendments). Owned by: Mark Fowler

24