BOG STANDARD COMPREHENSIVES? A parent’s examination of the academic (GCSE/IGCSE) achievements of the ’s Secondary Schools 2016-2018 In June 2014, Sir Michael Wilshaw (then HM Chief Inspector of Schools) addressed the Festival of Education and warned that hundreds of thousands of pupils were being let down by bog standard comprehensive schools. He pointed to an association between mixed ability teaching and the sins of “mediocrity, laxity and failure1.” The phrase “bog standard comprehensive” was conceived not by a Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Education or Head of Ofsted but by Tony Blair’s aide and the then Labour Party Director of Communications Alistair Campbell when, in 2001, he declared “the day of the bog standard comprehensive is over.” According to this 2009 Guardian article2 “the Blair government's analysis was that comprehensives failed to cater to individual abilities, and an election-friendly promise was made to offer choice to parents and a tailored education to children”. The Education Act 20013 states (Section 24) that it is the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school education to cause him to receive a “suitable education”. Suitable education is explicitly defined as “efficient full time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and any special education needs he may have.” Whilst of course the IOM is separate from the UK Sir Michael’s observations raises the question about standards in the Island’s comprehensive system. As with primary schools, parents on Island have (with a few exceptions) no choice as to which secondary school their children can attend. Can they expect uniform (or near uniform) standards or will some be required to accept what they may well deem to be second best or even third rate? Which academic Departments in schools are performing well and which have room for improvement? The author has, through a succession of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and analysis of responses to IOM parliamentary questions analysed the performance data in relation to the vast majority of GCSE/IGCSE examinations undertaken at the Island’s state secondary schools. This document contains key information, for parents, students and others regarding academic results including: A breakdown of the vast majority of GCSE/IGCSE results by subject and consequent ranking position for a rolling three-year period - 2016-18 inclusive (pages 40-69); An examination and analysis of the “value added” by the each of the Island’s Secondary schools. How much progress has been made by pupils from the beginning of Year 7 to the end of Year 11? (pages 20-25); Related to the value added performance measure, a look at whether Island schools are “gaming the system” by focussing on D/C borderline pupils in order to meet the DESCs key GCSE performance measure (pages 27-29); The “view” from King William’s College (KWC) with their “direct” comparison of KWC GCSE results with those of the Island’s state sector (pages 15-18);

1 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10914773/A-comprehensive-failure-in-state- education.html

2 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/dec/08/education-policy-schools-labour

3 https://www.gov.im/media/37969/educationact2001.pdf

1

Data relating to the comparative performance of KS4 pupils in Wales and Northern Ireland both of which use the same key performance metric as the IOM (the percentage of pupils gaining 5 GCSEs at A*-C, including English and maths (pages 11 & 14-15); Contextual data – variations in examination boards between schools, FSM, EAL and SEN populations etc (pages 19-20); A look at the decision to switch the GCSE maths exam board from 2019 with some frank extracts from e-mails and presentations regarding the impact on pupils and enlightening information on the varying extent of exam grade boundaries and the reading ages required to access certain GCSEs. This particular FOI response also shows that at least one Headteacher has ongoing “serious concerns about science, business studies and the whole exam set up” (pages 29-35). Given the Government’s desire to grow the economically active segment of the Island’s population the author hopes this article will be an informative, valuable and enlightening read for parents seeking possible relocation to the jurisdiction as well, of course, to Island residents. Guidance currently available for those exploring the possibility of moving to the Island as published by the Department of Education, Sport & Culture (DESC) is limited and in the author’s opinion, of minimal value.4 This is the third article the author has written on IOM school performance and the first to concentrate on the Island’s secondary schools. The first two articles focused on the performance of the Island’s 32 primary schools. The initial paper League Tables and Benchmarking Pupil Attainment5 was published on the Positive Action Group’s (PAG) website in March 2018 and examined comparisons (albeit with caveats) with England up to 2015 when both jurisdictions had a similar performance management regime together with detailed IOM KS2 L5(+) attainment for 2017. For the first time IOM primary school pupil performance data was put into the public domain, despite resistance from the DESC. It was followed (December 2018) by a second and more comprehensive paper The Great IoM Primary School League Table Postcode Lottery6 which addressed Year 6 KS2 academic attainment at Level 5(+) for each primary school over the period 2014-18, together with the EYFS (Reception Class) results for the last two years. Cumulatively, as at 5th May 2019, these two papers have had over 12,500 downloads and attracted press and other media coverage notably by the BBC regional programme North West tonight. Readers may be interested to note that the author personally e-mailed a link to a copy of his second (Primary School Postcode Lottery) article to each MHK, voting MLC and members of the Education Council listed on this website7 (except the individual due to retire at Christmas 2018 (Mr Cole) and the two Council members most recently appointed and not listed on the site at the time the author accessed it – Mr Downie and Mrs Simpson). To date brief courtesy acknowledgements have been received from the following MHKs and MLCs – Dr Allinson (Ramsey), Mr Baker ( & Michael), Mrs Caine (), Mr Cannan (Ayre & Michael), Mrs Edge (), Mrs Lord-Brennan (MLC), Mr Moorhouse ( Castletown &

4 https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/education-sport-and-culture/information-for-parents- relocating-to-the-island/

5 http://www.positiveactiongroup.org/index.php?option=com_attachments&task=download&id=214

6 http://www.positiveactiongroup.org/index.php?option=com_attachments&task=download&id=223

7 https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/education-sport-and-culture/education-council/

2

Malew), Mr Thomas (Douglas West), Mr Watterson () and two Education Council members. Unsurprisingly, no response was received from any political member of the DESC (Graham Creegen MHK, MHK, Anne Corlett MHK and Marleen Madora Maska MLC) neither has any DESC officer personally sought to engage with the author in this process despite there obviously being, at the very least judging by the download data and extensive feedback received, a passing interest from parents and other stakeholders. Of those MHKs/MLCs/Education Council Members only one has, in the author’s opinion, engaged in any meaningful way with him. Why GCSEs and why Grades A*-C? The Island’s Secondary schools offer students a variety of qualifications (GCSE, IGCSE, BTEC etc). This article is limited to GCSE/IGCSE – the dominant examination sat by Year 11 students. To maintain some form of brevity, results data from some GCSEs are omitted, for example, those only offered by one school (e.g. GCSE Manx). Data on these and other qualifications such as the BTEC is available from the responses posted on the FOI Disclosure Log8 should readers wish to analyse respective school performance regarding these. The analysis and tables which follow for the various GCSE subjects focus on attainment at grades A*-C – what is deemed a Level 2 qualification. GCSE Grades D-G are classed as Level 1 qualifications. Grades C and above are a pre-requisite for 6th form entry. For example, CRHS in their 2019 Key Stage 5 Options Booklet9 state that to join that school’s Sixth Form students need 5 or more GCSEs (or Level 2 equivalents) at A*-C including English language and mathematics and (importantly) the right skills and behaviour to success at post 16 study. (N.B. CRHS will allow 4 GCSEs at A*-C including English language or mathematics in what they deem to be exceptional circumstances). Notwithstanding the requirements for C grades to progress to A Level studies some subjects at this level have specific requirements. Again, CRHS cite that for A Level mathematics and French each require a B grade in the relevant GCSE, economics requires a B grade in maths, psychology a B grade in English language and for the sciences B grades are strongly recommended. Interestingly the GCSE requirements for entry to the IOM Civil Service (at Administrative Officer, Executive Officer, Secretary, Senior Secretary and Personal Secretary grades) have been downgraded (some may say dumbed down) from essential to desirable. One wonders what newly qualified and junior teachers make of that given the comparative salary ranges and the respective qualifications required between them and a newly appointed IOM Government Executive Officer whose starting salary is in excess of £32,000 per annum.10 Performance Measures in England & Northern Ireland England introduced a new secondary school accountability system in 2016 when the traditional 5 GCSEs at A*-C (including English and maths) performance measure was discontinued. This makes even broad comparisons of the IOM with that jurisdiction very difficult, but readers will note that the Island continues to use the 5GCSE A*-C (incl. E&M) performance metric and will form their own opinions as to just how robust and demanding it is as a measure compared to those used in England. Is it indicative of the world class education system the DESC seeks in

8 https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/search

9 https://crhs.sch.im/site/uploads/blog/97/_media/20190225_965754f4/KS5_Options_Booklet.pdf

10 https://hr.gov.im/media/1040/ntnsp-pay-assimilation-2019.pdf

3

its Vision11 or its it more reflective of a lower aspirational culture within the Island’s education system? Northern Ireland and Wales continue to use the 5 GCSE A*-C measure (including English and maths) so at least we can conduct a broad comparative study (albeit with caveats) with those areas of the UK. The key secondary school performance measures in England are Attainment 8 and Progress 8. They are based on pupils’ attainment in their eight best subjects at GCSE and the progress made since the end of Key Stage (KS) 2 (Year 6). They were introduced with the aim of encouraging schools to focus on improving the performance of all pupils - the Gs who might get an F, the Bs who might get an A – rather than those on the C/D borderline. The Attainment 8 score is calculated by adding a student’s highest scores across 8 approved qualifications – “English Baccalaureate” (EBacc) subjects and other government approved qualifications. According to The Good Schools Guide website12 “Progress 8 and Attainment 8 scores are useful for those parents who are researching secondary schools for their children. When weighing up one’s options, it is helpful to know whether one school is more able than others to help its pupils obtain higher GCSE grades than the expected norm for those of their ability, in addition to having comparative information about the attainment of pupils across eight rather than just five subjects.” The UK Government website13 describes the EBacc as “a set of subjects at GCSE that keeps young people’s options open for further study and future careers. It comprises English language & literature, maths, the sciences, geography or history and a language. To count towards the English part of the EBacc pupils need to take both English Literature and English Language examinations. For the science elements pupils need to take either GCSE Combined Science14 (2 GCSEs that cover the three main sciences – biology, chemistry and physics) or three single sciences at GCSE (with pupils choosing three subjects from biology, chemistry, physics and computer science). Taking any ancient or modern foreign language GCSE counts towards the languages part of the EBacc. To count towards the EBacc measure qualifications must be included in an approved list.” Secondary schools are measured on the number of pupils that take GCSEs in these core subjects as well as on how well their pupils do in these subjects. The website also highlights that “the EBacc is made up of the subjects which the Russell Group says, at A Level, open more doors to more degrees.” The English Department for Education have a stated ambition of 75% of students studying the EBacc subject combination at GCSE by 2022 and 90% by 2025. On Island the EBacc is not used as a performance measure although its relevance is recognised. For example in their latest iteration (2019) of the Year 9 Options Booklet draws attention to the EBacc and highlights: “It should be noted that, for competitive courses such as law and medicine at Russell Group universities, it is expected that students should possess a good GCSE grade in a Modern Language and the ability to synthesise information as demonstrated in written subjects such as History and Geography.

11 https://www.gov.im/media/156940/department-of-education-and-children-service-delivery-plan-2016-2021.pdf

12 https://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/curricula-and-exams/progress-8-attainment-8

13 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-baccalaureate-ebacc/english-baccalaureate-ebacc

14 Note this is not the same as the Cambridge IGCSE Combined Science which is a single award. Cambridge Assessment’s Co-ordinated Science is that examination board’s double award.

4

We would, therefore, strongly advise students who might be considering such universities in the future to select a modern language and at least one of either History or Geography.15 It is important to note that the EBacc is not a qualification – rather it is a performance measure (albeit perhaps in the shadow of Attainment 8 and Progress 8). It has been criticised for focusing on a narrow range of academic subjects – ignoring such areas as music, art, drama and other performing arts. This in turn has led to a downturn in the number of students being able to study these subjects as some schools have in effect marginalised them.16 The DESC have stated how they wish to teach a broad curriculum and presumably they would not sanction the marginalisation of certain subjects or restricting their offering of them. The author has some sympathy with that position but would strongly advocate a dynamic response from the Department by the introduction of a new gold standard a “Manx Baccalaureate” where the EBacc subjects are covered, but in addition arts-based subjects are also included. That would be indicative of a broad curriculum and negate arguments re narrowing of the secondary curriculum. IOM Secondary School KS4 GCSE Results Following the publication of the 2018 GCSE/IGCSE results the DESC produced a press release.17 This states, in part: The provisional level 2 (L2) results for Island pupils in the DESC’s five secondary schools are strong and represent a high standard of attainment in IGCEs, GCSEs, BTECs etc, and other applied qualifications. The pass rates at L2 for both English and maths remain high for Manx pupils. Headlines: The percentage of pupils attaining five or more L2 passes including English and maths is up on last year, and the second highest to date; Nearly 65% of Isle of Man pupils achieved both English and maths at L2 or above; 67.4% of all grades were awarded were at L2; 98.1% of all passes were at L1 or L2, this is in line with previous years”. Other “headlines” and supporting comment from the data that could have been included are: The percentage of IOM pupils attaining 5(+) GCSEs (including English and maths) is up 1.5% on last year to 58.3%. For a third year in succession the IOM has outperformed Wales for this particular measure (by 3.2%) although comparing the same metric with Northern Ireland (NI) shows that NI outperformed the Island by 13.5% - in achieving a figure of 71.8%. (NB. Wales is ranked lowest in the UK according to the latest (2015) OECD

15 https://rgs.sch.im/site/uploads/pages/7/_media/20190319_6b6e5563/Year_9_Options_2019_Word_Version_of_Booklet. pdf

16 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/creative-arts-gcse-subjects-ebacc-drama-music- design-technology-school-funding-a8473211.html

17 https://www.gov.im/news/2018/aug/23/rise-in-overall-attainment-for-isle-of-man-pupils-and-schools-in-spite-of- changing-examinations/

5

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings for reading, maths and science which tested 15-year olds in 72 participating countries).18 The percentage of IoM pupils attaining 5(+) GCSEs at grades A*-C was 64.3% (up 2.2% on 2017) but behind the results for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The corresponding figure in Northern Ireland was 86%. 98.1% of all passes were at L1 or L2, this is in line with previous years. In incorporating Level 1 qualifications (GCSE Grades D-G) and defining this as a “pass” this metric in effect includes pupils leaving the Island’s secondary school with GCSE grades broadly equivalent to a National Curriculum level of between 3-5. These are levels that many pupils achieve in Year 2 (NC Level 3) and Year 6 (NC Level 5) of primary school – that is 7 year olds (Year 2) and 11 year olds (Year 6). To secure a Grade C in the Summer 2018 WJEC19 Maths (Higher) GCSE exam pupils need to score 21% (a B required 37%, A 51% and A* 66%). In the Edexcel Maths IGCSE Higher (June 2017 exam) 6% (yes six per cent) would secure an E grade.

The DESC targets English & maths as “critical to a sound education.”20 For 2018 the IOM A*-C pass rate for maths was 68.2% of examination entrants (557/817 pupils). The corresponding figure for Wales was 60%. For Northern Ireland the results show that within the Grammar school sector the percentage attaining A*-C was 95.3% and in the non-grammar schools 52.9%. The NI school sectors combined give an overall percentage of 71.2% (grammar schools had 9,613 entrants, non- grammar 12,553 entrants thus not as elitist as some may have thought). Regarding English Language, the GCSE A*-C pass rate for the IOM was 76.1%. Wales recorded a figure of 64% for 2018 (for Welsh it was 74%). For Northern Ireland the results show that within the Grammar school sector the percentage attaining A*-C was 97% and in the non-grammar schools 68%. The NI school sectors combined give an overall percentage of 81% (grammar schools had 9443 entrants, non- grammar 11396 entrants). Each year the DESC produce a paper “KS4 Attainment in Level 1 & 2 Qualifications 20xx” which is published online. The 2018 iteration was incorporated into a Paper21 “Isle of Man Schools’ Attainment Level 2017-18” laid before the January sitting of . The analysis conducted by the Department includes a series of graphs and tables highlighting various aspects of the academic performance of the Island’s Year 11 students over each of the last 5 academic years. Three of these are replicated in the pages that follow namely: The percentage of Level 1 and Level 2 passes (Table 1); The percentage of Year 11 gaining 5+ Level 2 passes (Table 3); and Percentage of Year 11 gaining 5+ Level 2 passes including English & Maths (Table 5). N.B. The author has used also included in the tables data for 2013 and 2012. The 2018 KS4 analysis document refers to Level 2 passes whereas the documentation for earlier years refers to GCSEs at particular grades. Nonetheless this is a direct copy from the DESC’s own data.

18 http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-United-Kingdom.pdf

19 WJEC – Welsh Joint Education Committee – Wales’s GCSE Examination Board 20 https://www.gov.im/media/156940/department-of-education-and-children-service-delivery-plan-2016-2021.pdf

21 http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2019-PP-0002.pdf

6

Table 1: IOM Secondary Schools – Percentage of Level 1 and 2 Passes 2012-18 This table shows the exams in which at least a Grade G (broadly equivalent to National Curriculum Level 3 well below the Year 6 expectation of Level 4b) was achieved.

BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS IOM 2012 98.6 99.0 99.6 99.1 99.4 99.1 2013 99.2 99.3 99.6 98.8 99.5 99.3 2014 99.6 99.1 99.8 98.2 99.3 99.2 2015 99.2 99.3 99.5 98.7 98.7 98.9 2016 98.7 99.5 99.8 99.7 97.5 98.8 2017 98.8 98.3 99.4 99.4 98.3 98.8 2018 97.3 98.0 99.4 97.2 98.2 98.0

Figure 1: IOM Secondary Schools – Percentage of Level 1 and 2 Passes 2014-18

The author is bemused as to exactly why the DESC choose to publish this measure or indeed the value in it. It is the author’s opinion that the figures reported are meaningless when the context is considered. A Level 1 qualification in relation to a GCSE examination means any grade from D-G inclusive. Grades of A*-C inclusive are a Level 2 award. In “old money” A*-C was regarded as a “pass” and D-G a “fail” (it is the A*-C grades that are required for progression to Level 3 qualifications (A Levels)). Now all are regarded as passes. Is this indicative of a “everybody has won, and all must have prizes culture?” Of course, for some students, personal circumstances will mean that a Level 1 pass represents considerable achievement and effort. The table at the end of this document (Table 53 pages 70-71) shows in simple terms, using maths as an example, how National Curriculum levels awarded to students in KS2 & KS3 translate to GCSE grades. Reference to this shows that a National Curriculum Level 3 broadly equates to a G grade at GCSE. Many pupils reach National Curriculum Level 3 by the end of Key Stage 1 (Year 2, age 7) so achieving a Level 1 GCSE qualification (any grade between D- G) 9 years later is perhaps to be expected! For example, reference to five of the feeder schools for each of the Island’s Secondaries reveals the following KS1 data for July 2018.

7

Table 2: Percentage of KS1 (Year 2) pupils attaining Level 3(+) in July 2018

Primary School (Receiving ENGLISH MATHS SCIENCE Secondary School) S&L Reading Writing Arbory (CRHS) 18.5% 51.9% 29.6% 37% 22.2% Ballacottier (BHS) 46% 37% 22% 34% 29% Bunscoill Rhumsaa (RGS) 17.6% 25% 14.7% 10.2% 25% Cronk y Berry (SNHS) 13.6% 47.7% 18.2% 18.2% 40.9% (QEII) 83% 100% 66% 66% 100%

Table 3: Percentage of Year 11 gaining 5+ Level 2 passes 2012-18

This table shows the includes students achieving at least 5 GCSE passes at grades A*-C irrespective of subject

BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS IOM 2012 65.3 71.5 65.0 58.0 58.5 62.5 2013 65.3 66.7 64.1 59.7 63.8 63.9 2014 67.6 70.5 68.1 64.0 67.0 67.4 2015 72.8 69.5 72.7 67.9 62.4 69.2 2016 68.8 67.3 69.2 72.5 69.0 69.4 2017 60.8 63.1 66.7 70.3 53.0 62.1 2018 62.0 60.0 76.0 61.7 64.0 64.3

Figure 2: Percentage of Year 11 gaining 5+ Level 2 passes 2014-18

Whilst the Department are at pains to point out they do not produce league tables the data published by them in their KS4 Attainment in Level 1 & 2 Qualifications 2018 document is, to all intents and purposes, a series of league tables for varying performance metrics. It allows parents and others to rank the five secondary schools - a simple process of ordering five numbers. The author has, through a FOI request, sought subject GCSE examination attainment data and these subject tables are produced at pages 45- 69. Ranking and context data for each school is also given where available. One interesting point to come from an analysis of the DESC FOI responses is that of when do they include a pupil for statistical purposes? Is there some form of “paperwork off rolling” taking 8

place? If we look at the Departmental response to two FOI questions (one specifically asking for the number of pupils completing KS4 (Year 11) in 2018 at each secondary school and one asking for the number of Year 11 pupils gaining 5 GCSEs (including English & Maths) at each school (where the DESC also gave the numbers completing KS4) and put these results in a table we note a significant difference in the number (75) of pupils completing that key stage as reported by the DESC in the two responses viz: Table 4: Variations in DESC reporting of pupils completing KS4 in 2018

School Number of pupils completing No. of pupils gaining 5 GCSE A*-C (inc. KS 4 (2018) E&M)/No. of pupils completing KS4 (2018) BHS 214 114/196 (58%) CRHS 136 68/125 (54.4%) QEII 134 82/121 (67.8%) RGS 163 83/149 (55.7%) SNHS 244 129/225 (57.3) Total Reported No. of 891 816 Pupils Competing KS4 FOI Reference 610268 (Submitted 17.10.18) 648865 (Submitted 07.11.18)

The author understands a review was submitted to the Department seeking clarification of why there was such a discrepancy in the numbers completing KS4 in the two answers and the response given was: “The cohort size for Year 11 for examination results reporting purposes is different to the actual number off pupils in a year group. Reasons why pupils may not be included in Island aggregate reporting are:

Out of age;

Higher Learning Needs (HLN) with a significantly modified timetable (at least 1/3 of their timetable was modified over KS4) and attendance in a special unit or at the Education Support Centre;

Higher Learning Needs with social, emotional, behavioural difficulties, (HLN SEBD);

Full time attendance at University College Isle of Man (UCM); Directed to the school by DESC; Total non-attenders in the autumn term prior to the end of KS4 by age; Attendance of less than 40% in KS4 and involvement of other agencies”. Taking these factors into account leads to a difference in the overall group size as reported [in the two FOI responses]…” Perfectly understandable but perhaps something for readers to bear in mind if the DESC state that their data is all inclusive or if they selectively highlight that other jurisdictions exclude certain categories of student from their data. From other FOI responses we know that for 2018 there were 807 entries for English language GCSE Island wide. Of these 614 achieved A*-C grading. Thus, of those pupils completing 9

Year 11 in 2018, 277 failed to achieve what many regard as a traditional pass - 31% of the Island Year 11 total cohort. The pass rate for those who were entered for the examination was 76.1% Regarding GCSE maths in 2018 there were 817 entries of which 557 achieved A*-C grading. Thus, of those pupils completing Year 11 in 2018, 334 failed to achieve what many regard as a traditional pass - 37.4% of the Island Year 11 total cohort. The pass rate for those who were entered for the examination was 68.2% Table 5: Percentage of Year 11 gaining 5+ Level 2 passes including English & Maths 2012-18 This metric (5 A*-C grades including English and maths) is what Professor Barr (CEO of the DESC) described, in the December 2017 edition of “Destination Isle of Man” as the “key measure.” Earlier I highlighted how it was still used in Wales & Northern Ireland, but that England had discontinued it in favour of what some will see as a more challenging set of measures which encompass both attainment and progress through secondary school. BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS IOM 2012 43.1% 63.5% 62.2% 40.2% 41.1% 48.1% 2013 53.0% 59.8% 54.2% 48.0% 43.5% 50.8% 2014 60.5% 59.8% 51.1% 45.0% 52.4% 54.2% 2015 62.6% 55.3% 61.7% 55.2% 50.5% 57.4% 2016 63.4% 64.4% 65.4% 66.0% 52.8% 61.7% 2017 57.5% 56.9% 60.7% 57.9% 52.0% 56.8% 2018 58.0% 54.4% 67.8% 55.7% 57.3% 58.3%

Figure 3: Percentage of Year 11 gaining 5+ Level 2 passes including English & Maths 2014-18

The figures for the 5 GCSE (including English & Maths) metric are, in the author’s opinion disappointing. Only once in the last 5 years has a school (QEII in 2018) managed to achieve more than 2/3 of its examination entrants (note this is not the same as the number of pupils completing KS4 – the end of their compulsory education) achieving this target. Other facts stand out: SNHS has been bottom for 4 of the last 7 years – never surpassing 60% and mainly in the lower 50s/40s – albeit the trend has generally been upwards; the IOM average has only once exceeded 60% (2016 – when all schools apart 10

from SNHS (52.8%) managed to do so); RGS has only exceeded 60% once in the last 7 years as opposed to 5/7 for QEII. Certainly, the comparison between SNHS and RGS provides food for thought for the parents of school pupils who can opt between these 2 schools for their secondary education as it does regarding comparison between QEII and RGS which share a feeder school. At least those parents are not as restricted by postcode as many others. Of course, factors other than academic results may influence school choice decisions. Looking at the key measure (the percentage of pupils gaining 5 GCSE at A*-C incl. English & maths – in Wales the English element can be substituted for Welsh) we can consider the annual results from the Island and those other areas that still use that measure (Wales & Northern Ireland. The results for the preceding 7 years (2012-2018) are recorded in Table 6 below, together with the difference (in green or red) compared with IOM performance. Table 6: % of Year 11 (NI Year 12) pupils attaining 5GCSEs at A*-C (including English & maths)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

IOM 48.1% 50.8 54.2 57.4 61.7 56.8 58.3

WALES 51.1% 52.7% 55.4% 57.9% 60.3% 54.6% 55.1% (+3%) (+1.9%) (+1.2%) (+0.5%) (-1.4%) (-2.2%) (-3.2%)

N.I. 60.1% 60.9% 65.2% 67.0% 67.9% 70.3% 71.8% (+12%) (+10.1%) (+11%) (+9.6%) (+6.2%) (+13.5%) (+13.5%) Sources: IOM Data from DESC annual KS4 attainment in GCSE documentation: Wales – see footnote22; Northern Ireland see footnote23

The comparison between the IOM and Northern Ireland is striking. The author has included a section on GCSE performance in Northern Ireland (pages 14-15) looking in more detail at key statistics for the last two years. On face value, a broad comparison with Wales shows, at least the IOM has “overtaken” the Principality. However, the standards of secondary education in Wales have long been a source of concern and have provided plenty of material for printed and other media. The most recent report (December 2018) from Estyn (the Office of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales whose purpose is to inspect quality and standards in education and training) contains some disturbing information. The report highlights that standards are good or better in only half of secondary schools (the same as for 2017). Teaching and learning experiences are good or excellent in only half of Wales’ 195 secondary schools, four in ten are adequate and need improvement and just under 10% are unsatisfactory and require urgent improvement. The document, based on findings from inspections and reports in 2017-18, including 27 inspections of secondary schools, adds that in half of them there are shortcomings in teaching and assessment. It says, “assessment is the weakest aspect of teaching” and only around three in ten secondaries have an overall culture of high expectations.24 Noting again that Wales has the lowest PISA rankings of the UK countries where the PISA reading and mathematics scores are significantly lower than the

22 https://statswales.gov.wales/Catalogue/Education-and-Skills/Schools-and-Teachers/Examinations-and- Assessments/Key-Stage-4/examinationachievementsofpupilsaged15-by-year

23 https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/articles/school-performance

24 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/estyn-worrying-verdict-wales-schools-15498127

11

rest of the UK25 should we, when comparing with that country, accept that the bar is not particularly high? GCSE/iGCSEs in the Isle of Man At the July 2014 sitting of Tynwald the then Education Minister, Tim Crookall MHK, announced changes to 14-16 qualifications and the adoption of a new examination system.26 In September of that year the five secondary schools began preparations for a move away from the English GCSE system towards the widespread adoption of the International GCSE (IGCSE), as set by Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), the international examination board of the University of Cambridge. The intention was for the IGCSE to be “the principal examination used in a core group of subjects, including English (language and literature), maths, science, geography, history, art music and PE.27 In a Departmental press release it was also highlighted that: “It is not offered for all subjects currently taught at GCSE on the Isle of Man but, where the IGCSE is not available, or not suitable, for certain subjects, the five schools will be asked to use a single examination board. This will enable schools to collaborate and will ensure pupils who change schools during Key Stage 4 (14 to 16) will not be adversely affected. In addition, schools will ensure that if the IGCSE is not used, an examination is taken that is graded using the same A*-G scale, so that parents/carers and employers are able to fully understand what the qualifications mean.” The use of the same examination is interesting. Reference to the tables at pages 45-69 shows the results (A*-C) for the vast majority of GCSE/IGCSE subjects studied at KS4 in the Island’s state secondary schools. For example, reference to the 2016 results for GCSE history (page 55) show four different examination boards (Edexcel, OCR, AQA and CIE) being utilised by five schools. The A*-C pass rate varies considerably ranging from 72.5% at QEII ( where pupils sat the AQA exam) to 41% at SNHS (Edexcel board). Move forward two years to the 2018 history examinations and readers will note that all schools undertook the CIE IGCSE. Again, there is variation ranging from 71.4% (QEII) to 42.7% (SNHS) but this time we are comparing the same examination. The debate about easier examination boards has gone on for years. An interesting article published in The Guardian, dating from 2009 can be found here28 where an experienced history teacher claimed that the OCR questions were “at least 40% easier” than that from a rival (AQA) examination board. Recalling his experiences “the teacher reported how his pupils' grades improved dramatically after opting for OCR, with the pass rate more than doubling in the years between 2005 and 2008. He said the coursework requirements were less exacting for OCR, and that less ground had to be covered in the teaching. But he added: "I hate the fact that we have to shop around and play the system and find the easiest exam board/paper. Wouldn't it be better if everyone was playing on a level playing field?" Surely there should be no reason why on Island GCSE/IGCSE examinations should be limited to those that award an A*-G grading? To imply that parents and employers would not, in effect

25 https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/27969/1/161206-pisa-2015-en.pdf

26 https://www.gov.im/media/1239035/minister_s_statement_on_14-16_qualification_reform.pdf

27 https://www.gov.im/news/2014/jul/16/minister-announces-switch-to-igcse/

28 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/aug/25/teachers-choosing-exam-boards-gcse

12

be able to understand what the qualifications means is somewhat patronising and discourteous. Perhaps the Minister, DESC CEO or Director of Education could explain exactly what is so difficult or problematic about using a comparison chart such as the graphic below published by the exam regulator Ofqual29 where it can be seen that a grade 9 is the highest available (and is equivalent to a high A*).

Certainly, with the publication of the author’s GCSE/IGCSE attainment by subject tables (where exam boards, exam cohort data etc are listed) we are at the very least, moving to a situation where parents, pupils and others can make more informed comparison of academic results from each of the Island’s Secondary schools. However, should this have required a parent utilising the provisions of the FOI Act to compile such data? At least one school30 publishes external examination results by grade in detail but this practice is not as far as the author understands, a requirement. No doubt the DESC and the schools themselves have comprehensive data sets that would enable the author’s performance tables to be refined and improved upon but is such comparison between the academic performance Island’s schools in their interest? The Island’s secondary schools cannot control their intake but neither can most parents choose which school. The author genuinely believes some parents find such information beneficial. Perhaps the Department would consider publishing “A Good Schools Guide to the Isle of Man” where they give detailed information on a range of issues, including but not limited to purely academic results? Such a guide could encompass both the primary and secondary sectors.

Furthermore, it would be helpful if the DESC themselves explained to parents the reasons for some of the wide variations in performance between the Island’s Secondary schools (and of course the vast difference at primary school level) and the corresponding plans of their well- staffed Education Improvement Service to address such. Given the secondary school catchment regime, do second best or even third-rate schooling options remain (as with primary schools), the only choice for some pupils? Certainly the “One Island – One School” terminology used for the primary-secondary transition phase does not always appear to translate to academic performance at the end of KS4 even if it does make a good soundbite.

29 https://www.my-gcsescience.com/9-1-gsce-science-a-guide-for-parents/

30 https://snhs.sch.im/pages/index/view/id/33/Exam%20Results

13

GCSE Performance in Northern Ireland (NI)

Despite the issues with cross jurisdictional comparisons which readers are probably well aware of, some may find even a broad limited comparator of interest. This website31 provides a brief overview of the Northern Ireland’s education system which although based on the English system has some important differences – for example, in common with the IOM it does not utilise national curriculum tests (commonly known as Sats). Moreover, religion still plays a key part with pupils of catholic and protestant faiths largely educated separately especially in the non-selective schools. Entry to grammar schools is by 11+ transfer test. The curriculum, examinations and assessment come under the remit of the Council for Curriculum Examinations and Assessment (CCEA)32 a non-departmental public body of the Department of Education (Northern Ireland). It has an advisory and reviewing role and also conducts and moderates examinations and assessments ensuring that standards are recognised as equivalent to exam and assessment standards conducted by other bodies or authorities exercising similar functions in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Looking at GCSE attainment data for NI Year 12 students (in NI Year 12 is equivalent to the IOM and England/Wales Year 11) for the last academic year (2017-18) the results, taken at face value, stand out from those achieved in the Isle of Man.33 Of course, there are differences in the two educational systems but readers can form their own view on differences in the NI results compared with those on Island. Is it the system delivering the results, the quality of teaching, the pedagogical approaches, a high aspirational culture, the attitude of the students, a combination of these etc?

Key points from the Department of Education (Northern Ireland)’s Statistical Bulletin 8/2018 are:

There were 19,940 year 12 pupils eligible for GCSE examination returns in 2017/18. Of these 9,300 (46.6%) and 10,640 (53.3%) in non-grammar schools. The number of pupils completing KS4 at the Island’s five state secondary schools for examination purposes in 2017-18 was 816.

In 2017/18, 86.0% of year 12 achieved 5 or more GCSEs (including equivalents) at grades A*-C. This is an increase from 84.6% in 2016/17. The equivalent IOM figure for 2017/18 is 64.3% and for 2016/17 the percentage of IOM Year 11 pupils meeting that performance measure was 62.1%

In 2017/18, 71.8% of year 12 pupils achieved 5 or more GCSEs (including equivalents) at grades A*-C including GCSE English and maths. This is an increase from 70.3% in 2016/17. The equivalent IOM figure for 2017/18 is 58.3% and for 2016/17 the percentage of IOM Year 11 pupils meeting that performance measure was 56.8%

The DESC quite rightly highlight the limitations and problems in comparing jurisdictions with different systems, policies etc - as I have done in my two previous articles on IOM primary school attainment. I believe readers are eminently capable of taking such factors into consideration, such as low student numbers in a given year group where one pupil can

31 https://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/choosing-a-school/northern-ireland-education-system

32 http://ccea.org.uk/about_us/what_we_do

33 https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/education/year-12-and-year-14-examination-post- primary-schools-in-northern-ireland.pdf

14

represent a large percentage of a particular cohort. Perhaps it suits the Department to focus the debate on problems with cross jurisdictional benchmarking (the like for like argument) rather than debate what some would, I suggest, deem to be under performance in some of their schools? One aspect the Department talk about is off rolling (removing pupils from the register/statistics to bolster performance results). Earlier (page 9) I highlighted how not all IOM pupils in Year 11 are counted for examination reporting purposes – a fact that only came to light following inconsistent answers from the DESC in relation to a couple of FOI requests. The Department of Education (Northern Ireland) are transparent in stating just which pupils are included in their data. Schools there can consider a pupil to be ineligible for inclusion in the Year 12 (IOM Year 11 equivalent) performance statistics if:

A pupil has died;

A pupil either through serious illness (including mental health issues) or pregnancy was unable to sit any examinations. If a pupil has taken 1 or more examinations in the summer examination series they must be included;

A pupil has transferred to another school or has emigrated;

A pupil is in a special unit approved by the Department;

A pupil has a statement of special educational needs;

A pupil has serious welfare issues that have culminated in the inability to sit any examinations. If a pupil has taken 1 or more examinations in the summer examination series, they must be included.

Readers may wish to compare these indicators with those used on Island (as discussed on page x).

The View from King William’s College (KWC) In a letter dated 28th January 2019 and addressed to “all parents of pupils at King William’s College and The Buchan” the College Principal Mr. Joss Buchanan draws parents’ attention to the difference in attainment between the Island’s five state Secondary Schools and KWC at both GCSE and A Level. A level results are not within the scope of my article. The author has had sight of Mr Buchannan’s letter and would like to comment on the same here. Mr Buchannan acknowledges that KWC has historically published its own data both on their website and in the press, noting that the College features in many league tables. He draws parents’ attention to the Attainment Data Paper (Isle of Man School Attainment 2018)34 presented by Daphne Caine MHK to Tynwald at the January 2019 sitting of that Court. He suggests that it is the first time that we [the College?] have seen such comprehensive data and it is the first time we [again presumably the College] can make, what he specifically describes as “direct comparisons,” between student performance at KWC and at the five Island secondary schools. The author would highlight that the Department have, on an annual basis, published GCSE and A level attainment data for a number of years notwithstanding Mrs Caine’s request for the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office to collate and publish all Island Schools attainment Data for 2018. For

34 http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2019-PP-0002.pdf

15

example, 2017 results for KS4 and KS5 are found online here35 36 whilst the 2018 results were published here.37 38 Latterly primary schools have been required to publish Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), KS1 and KS2 results. Additionally, as previously highlighted, the author has written two articles on primary school (KS2) attainment as published on the PAG website; the latter article (“The Great IOM Primary School League Table Postcode Lottery” covers the last 5 years for KS2 (2 years for EYFS) and is far more comprehensive than the 2017-18 performance data laid before Tynwald in that it shows year on year trends against the IOM averages together with ranking positions by core subjects – Literacy, Maths and Science. Furthermore, since the Department became subject to the provisions of the FOIA (January 2017) numerous requests have been submitted and the results published. Parents can find detailed information on examination and teacher assessed attainment from KS1- KS5, pupil suspension and exclusion data, headteachers annual reports to their respective Governing Bodies, Out of Catchment Area Requests, Religious Education, SEN, EAL & FSM data for each school, setting and achievement at KS3, school governance etc. Hence there has been plenty of information, including school results, available for some time. The use of the term “direct” in relation to a comparison of the Island’s private and state schools is interesting, and one wonders if the DESC would regard the tables produced by the College Principal as giving what he has termed a “direct comparison.” Perhaps we will get some clarification on this from the Department CEO who has a relationship with KWC through his role as a Council Member of Bishop Barrow’s Foundation?39 In my previous articles on Isle of Man primary school attainment (specifically L5(+)) at the end of Key Stage 2 I have always endeavoured to draw readers’ attention to contextual factors which can potentially influence a school’s academic results e.g. cohort size, the proportion of students with SEN, EAL or in receipt of FSM, degree of parental support and engagement, whether a pupil receives additional private tuition etc. These and other issues impact Secondary schools. For example, are we comparing the same GCSE examination? One of the author’s recent FOI requests revealed some most enlightening data on grade boundaries for maths IGCSE between the Edexcel and CIE examination boards or the reading age required to access the GCSE maths offered by WJEC and CIE boards. Furthermore, do schools have a specific policy when it comes to examination entries or subject availability such that they seek to achieve those results that will best reflect their position in a league table? For his “direct comparisons” the Principal produced three tables of data – taking tables from the DESC KS4 attainment publication and adding extra columns for the “UK” and KWC viz:

35 https://www.gov.im/media/1359887/attainment-ks4-2017.pdf

36 https://www.gov.im/media/1359888/attainment-ks5-2017.pdf

37 https://www.gov.im/media/1350181/ks4-attainment-2018.pdf

38 https://www.gov.im/media/1350182/ks5-attainment-2018.pdf

39 https://www.kwc.im/governors-king-williams-college-buchan-school

16

Table 7: Percentage of IGCSE/GCSE entries graded A*-C or 9-4 BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS IOM UK KWC 2014 73.4 71.3 67.6 63.7 69.6 69.6 69.8 86.2 2015 81.2 68.4 73.6 70.1 68.4 73.2 70.6 92.6 2016 70.1 75.2 72.9 76.7 67.3 71.7 69.2 94.5 2017 70.5 67.6 71.2 74.8 61.9 69.1 68.7 82.0 2018 68.9 67.3 74.0 65.0 64.1 67.4 69.2 87.1

Table 8: Percentage of IGCSE/GCSE entries graded A*-A or 9-7 BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS IOM UK KWC 2014 17.1 19.9 17.5 19.6 15.8 17.7 22.0 37.5 2015 20.8 19.9 21.6 20.4 14.1 19.0 22.1 44.8 2016 16.2 25.7 19.4 24.2 16.5 19.6 21.5 47.7 2017 16.1 17.4 18.4 22.5 15.8 17.8 20.9 32.1 2018 15.7 16.1 15.9 14.7 14.6 15.3 21.4 35.8

Table 9: Percentage of Year 11 pupils gaining 5 or more IGCSE/GCSEs at A*C or 9-4 BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS IOM KWC 2014 67.6 70.5 68.1 64.0 67.0 67.4 86.6 2015 72.8 69.5 72.7 67.9 62.4 69.2 93.8 2016 68.8 67.3 69.2 72.5 69.0 69.4 93.3 2017 60.8 63.1 66.7 70.3 53.0 62.1 79.0 2018 62.0 60.0 76.0 61.7 64.0 64.3 88.3

The Principal does not indicate his source for the “UK” percentage data but a quick reference to this website40 shows that for tables 7 and 8 above the figures are identical to “GCSE Outcomes in England.” Of course, England is not the UK in itself and other areas have their own examination regulatory bodies for example the Council for Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA) in Northern Ireland. This is important because, as previously highlighted, the performance of pupils in terms of GCSE attainment in that particular jurisdiction is striking in comparison to other areas e.g. Wales and the Isle of Man. Readers may recall that the percentage of Northern Ireland Year 12 pupils (Year 11 equivalent in the IOM or the Upper Fifth at KWC) achieving 5 or more GCSE at A*-C was 86.0% - just 2.3% below the same figure for the same measure recorded by the College – but of course with the NI examination cohort close to 20,000 pupils. The College Principal does not, in his letter to parents, include comparative data for the 5 GCSEs including English Language & Maths metric but presumably KWC results will indicate a similar pattern? The 2017/18 comparative performance of Northern Ireland’s grammar schools which have control over their admissions (based on academic ability) is most interesting. 96% of grammar school pupils in Northern Ireland achieved 5 GCSEs at A*-C. This compares with a KWC figure of 88.3%, the non-grammar sector in Northern Ireland 77.3% (NI average 86%) and the IOM average of 64.3% (highest secondary school

40 https://analytics.ofqual.gov.uk/apps/2018/GCSE/Outcomes/

17

on IOM for this metric was QEII – 76%; lowest performing IOM secondary school was CRHS – 60%). Of course, these are only the percentage statistics for one academic year. In relation to overall school pupil numbers, SEN and EAL data the Independent Schools Inspectorate Report (ISI) in March 201841 lists KWC as having 266 “Seniors” (presumably Years 7-11) as other numerical breakdowns are given for EYFS, Juniors and the Sixth Form). According to the College website42 the average class size is 15. In the Background Information section of the Report the ISI state that: “Nationally standardised data indicate that the profile of the pupils in both sections of the school [The Buchan & KWC] is above average. Most of the local pupils come from professional backgrounds, and around one-sixth have a parent who attended the school. The school [presumably both Buchan and KWC with a combined roll of 534 pupils] has identified 102 pupils as having special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) including dyslexia, dyspraxia and other behavioural and learning difficulties, of whom 54 receive additional support. There are 61 pupils who have EAL, of whom 16 receive additional support.” No data is given for the proportion of children in receipt of free school meals. According to the College website the annual fees payable are £16,800 (Years 7-9) and £19,560 (Years 10-11) although scholarships (20%) and means tested bursaries (generally up to 30%) are available. Reductions also apply for siblings. Whilst such attainment data as published by the College is most certainly helpful for parents considering on Island secondary schooling options (especially given the postcode allocation that exists) the author suggests the term “direct comparison” should be treated with caution. Indeed, in the final paragraph of his letter the Principal writes: “The College is a small, well-resourced school with control over its admissions and would be expected to out-perform the local state schools. What is surprising, however, is the extent of the difference and these statistics show a very marked variation in performance.” The College Principal has, as highlighted above, drawn attention to and compared KWC results with those of the Island’s five state secondary schools. In relation to the results achieved by the College the ISI report (page 12) states: “Results in GCSE examinations have been consistently above the UK national average, although in results in 2017 this was clearly less marked. The proportion of grades achieved at A and A* has been significantly above the UK national average. The level of attainment at GCSE and standardised measures of progress that are available indicate that pupils make appropriate progress in relation to the average for pupils of similar abilities.” Moving away from KWC the tables which follow on pages 40-44 (those indicating IOM state secondary school Year 11 GCSE/iGCSE A*-C grade results broken by subject) make interesting reading and the author hopes they will provide some points for parents to ponder. Unsurprisingly there are areas where results from certain Departments are, to say the least, extremely disappointing but other faculties within the different establishments shine. Parents and others will no doubt form their own opinion – this article seeks to put some of the results (hitherto unavailable) into one accessible place within the public domain – an important issue when one considers that, for those parents for whom a private education is not a realistic proposition, the choice of secondary school is limited by geographical (postcode) factors.

41 https://www.kwc.im/uploads/isi-inspection-report-march-2018.pdf

42 https://www.kwc.im/key-points

18

Contextual Factors In his letter to KWC parents the Principal highlighted that the College has “control over its own admissions.” This is a luxury not afforded to the state secondary schools. They have designated primary feeder schools as detailed in the Schools Catchment Areas order 2017.43 Some pupils have the choice of attending two schools (e.g. Primary pupils can opt for RGS or SNHS, Ballaugh can choose between QEII and RGS etc). Schools can also be required to take a student by the Department. Furthermore Section 10 of the Education Act 200144 states that the article of government of a school “Shall not permit any authority other than the Department to expel a person from a school.” This has obvious implications for the management and sanctions available in the case of pupils who present persistently disruptive/aggressive behaviour. Such behaviour has been highlighted by the Island’s media and of course in an age where social media platforms are immensely popular, discussed on line.45 46 Pupil behaviour and the management of such is but one contextual factor that can impact on learning. Other contextual factors are the subject of measurement. Many studies have been conducted on the attainment of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN), those who are in receipt of frees school meals (FSM) and those who have English as an additional language (EAL). A Freedom of Information request (Reference 449048 submitted 30 April 2018) sought GCSE attainment data for pupils with such characteristics. To give readers a sample indication of how the FSM context can impact on results I have replicated the Summer 2017 data below which shows considerable variation in achievement across the 5 secondary schools. Less than a quarter of CRHS FSM pupils meet the key performance measure whereas at BHS almost two thirds of FSM pupils do. Obviously, this is only one year’s worth of data and the author hopes greater analysis will be undertaken to refine this and give more explicit detail e.g. the equivalent achievements by non-FSM pupils. Table 10: 5 GCSEs A*-C (including E&M) attainment for pupils in receipt of FSM 2017 School SUMMER 2017 % of Year 11 on FSM attaining 5+ A*-C incl. English and Maths (% of Year 11 (irrespective of pupil characteristic) attaining 5+ A*-C incl. English and Maths) BHS 63.8 (58.0) CRHS 23.1 (54.4) QEII 62.5 (67.8) RGS 44.4 (55.7) SNHS 23.5 (57.3) Island 34.6 (58.3) For a broad comparison the 2017 data for Northern Ireland shows that 71.8% of FSM pupils achieved 5 GCSEs at A*-C including English and Maths. In Wales the figure was 28.5%

43 https://www.gov.im/media/185996/school-catchment-areas-order-2017.pdf

44 https://www.gov.im/media/37969/educationact2001.pdf

45 https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/alleged-bullying-sparks-debate-on-facebook/

46 https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/bullying-response-from-ballakermeen-head/

19

Table 11: Percentage of School Roll with EAL by academic year SCHOOL 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

BHS 7.1% 9.7% 10.3% 13.5% 12.1% 9.1% CRHS 0.0% 1.6% 0.6% 1.2% 1.5% 1.4% QEII 0.0% 2.7% 2.0% 3.1% 2.8% 3.1% RGS 1.0% 2.4% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% SNHS 5.0% 5.3% 4.9% 5.8% 6.9% 5.8%

Table 12: Percentage of School Roll with SEN by academic year SCHOOL 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

BHS 19.7% 22.3% 23.3% 27.0% 24.6% 22.2% CRHS 22.1% 23.5% 23.2% 25.2% 24.3% 23.2% QEII 17.4% 20.3% 16.6% 18.4% 19.6% 20.7% RGS 19.9% 23.3% 23.8% 27.6% 27.4% 30.0% SNHS 22.2% 23.1% 21.1% 18.1% 19.9% 17.2%

Table 13: Percentage of School Roll in receipt of FSM by academic year SCHOOL 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

BHS 16.6% 17.20% 16.49% 16.06% 17% CRHS 17.5% 18.22% 19.49% 19.43% 20% QEII 9.58% 10.18% 9.31% 10.79% 11% RGS 15.78% 16.45% 17.58% 15.84% 12% SNHS 12.11% 14.15% 13.66% 14.33% 13% The author is not in receipt of Secondary School FSM data for 2017

Value Added Performance One of the key measurements of a school’s performance is that of value added i.e. the progress a student makes from the end of Key Stage 2 (Year 6) to the end of compulsory schooling (Key Stage 4 – Year 11). Island secondary schools measure this by reference to the whole number of national curriculum levels progressed between the end of Key Stages 2 and 4. Previously the Department for Education in England defined 3 whole levels of progress (i.e. 4c – 7c, 4a – 7a, etc) as the “expected progress” and this is the position on the Isle of Man. In essence three levels of progress means a student attaining a Level 5 at 11 (Year 6) would achieve a B at GCSE, a Level 4 student a C and a Level 3 student a D. England have since moved on to a more sophisticated value-added performance metric “Progress 8” which aims to capture a school’s performance in terms of pupil progress from the end of KS2 to end of KS4 across eight subjects. Reference to the DESC Service Delivery Plan 2016-2147 (specifically the “Corporate Strategy Map Key Processes/Initiatives” section – page 16) highlights, as an action to be undertaken by

47 https://www.gov.im/media/156940/department-of-education-and-children-service-delivery-plan-2016-2021.pdf 20

December 2017, “Introduce KS2-4 progress measures to raise aspirations.” The Departmental Officer responsible for this action is listed as the Director of Education. Further to this the author submitted a Freedom of Information request (Reference IM122572 dated 7 March 2018) seeking information as to what the said KS2-4 progress measures were. The DESC response indicated that the following measures were extant: % of Year 11 pupils making 3 (or more) levels of progress (e.g. NC Level 4 – GCSE C) in English Language since Year 6 % of Year 11 pupils making 4 (or more) levels of progress (e.g. NC Level 4 – GCSE B) in English Language since Year 6 % of Year 11 pupils making 3 (or more) levels of progress (e.g. NC Level 4 – GCSE C) in Maths since Year 6 % of Year 11 pupils making 4 (or more) levels of progress (e.g. NC Level 4 – GCSE B) in Maths since Year 6 Average levels of progress of Year 11 pupils in English Language since Year 6 Average levels of progress of Year 11 pupils in Maths since Year 6 The natural consequence of the DESC response was to seek the data so as parents and others could have sight of how each Island secondary school performs in terms of value added in the two subjects (English and maths) the DESC are targeting as critical to a sound education. This information (including for the most recent academic year 2017-18) is replicated in Tables 14 - 19. Note there is no data for 2015 – apparently this is due to a switch in data systems that year. Previously I highlighted the DESC vision which includes (but is not limited to) a “world class education system for all” and “high expectations of learners and staff”. Readers will form their own opinion on just whether 3 levels of progress (moving from a Level 4 (L4) to a Grade C at GCSE) is indicative of a “world class education system”, if it is indicative of “high expectations” as opposed to a perhaps an expectation for those who attain L4 at the end of Year 6. The author understands the English DfE to have historically regarded L4 as the minimum level required to access the secondary curriculum. Does such a performance measure raise aspirations or is it more indicative of a “bog standard” approach? The author is confused as to whether the specific action “introduce KS2-KS4 progress measures” was achieved given that it appears to have been used as far back as 2013 before the publication of the extant Departmental Service Delivery Plan 2016-2021. As far as the results for English Language are concerned readers will be able to analyse the data for themselves but may well note the Island as a whole has never managed to exceed 75% achieving 3 or more levels over the last 6 years - indeed only a couple of schools (BHS (2018) and QEII (2017 & 2018) have achieved this. The picture with maths is more disappointing where the Island has never managed to achieve an average of 2/3 (66.7%) achieving 3 or more levels of progress. The 2018 maths results where a number of schools saw performance decline dramatically was no doubt influenced by the change in examination board to the Cambridge IGCSE. Of course, this raises further issues and was itself the subject of a FOI request, the response to which makes for most interesting reading highlighting the relationship between the Secondary schools and the DESC. This is discussed further on in this article (pages 29-35).

21

Table 14: Percentage of Year 11 Pupils making 3 (or more) whole levels of progress (9 sub levels e.g. NC4 – GCSE C) in English Language since Year 6 English 3LP IOM BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS 2013 45.3% 44.7% 54.3% 45.6% 42.9% 39.0% 2014 54.7% 58.4% 60.0% 52.0% 46.1% 55.3% 2016 65.1% 60.7% 71.0% 73.2% 66.2% 61.7% 2017 69.3% 69.4% 71.2% 76.9% 60.8% 71.3% 2018 72.8% 78.8% 71% 78.2% 66.9% 69.5%

Table 15: Percentage of Year 11 Pupils making 4 (or more) whole levels of progress (9 sub levels e.g. NC4 – GCSE B) in English Language since Year 6 English 4LP IOM BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS 2013 16.3% 15.4% 17.1% 10.6% 17.1% 15.8% 2014 19.9% 18.1% 25.8% 18.9% 20.6% 18.4% 2016 28.2% 22.9% 46.0% 37.5% 18.9% 20.0% 2017 31.2% 28.9% 31.5% 30.6% 27.7% 35.9% 2018 33.8% 28.6% 34.7% 35.5% 27.2% 40.5%

Table 16: Percentage of Year 11 Pupils making 3 (or more) whole levels of progress (9 sub levels e.g. NC4 – GCSE C) in Maths since Year 6 Maths 3LP IOM BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS 2013 55.5% 54.1% 71.3% 56.3% 53.5% 46.9% 2014 65.5% 66.1% 70.9% 71.2% 56.0% 68.6% 2016 65.3% 62.4% 69.9% 73.2% 71.5% 57.7% 2017 66.1% 63.8% 68.8% 80.6% 69.7% 54.2% 2018 58.0% 60.6% 53.7% 67.4% 53.8% 55.7%

Table 17: Percentage of Year 11 Pupils making 4 (or more) whole levels of progress (9 sub levels e.g. NC4 – GCSE B) in Maths since Year 6 Maths 4LP IOM BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS 2013 23.0% 22.9% 33.3% 26.3% 20.2% 20.2% 2014 26.7% 31.7% 34.2% 28.1% 21.3% 19.1% 2016 27.5% 19.3% 37.6% 39.3% 37.1% 18.2% 2017 28.3% 27.1% 31.2% 28.7% 35.6% 22.6% 2018 24.0% 25.0% 20.3% 33.3% 20.5% 22.4%

22

Looking at the average levels of progress for students completing KS4 we get: Table 18: Average levels of progress of Year 11 pupils in English Language since Year 6 IOM Average Levels of Progress (English) 2013-18 English IOM BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS ALP 2013 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.4 2014 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.6 2016 2.8 2.5 3.1 3.1 2.6 2.8 2017 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.9 2018 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.9 5 Year 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 Rolling Average

Table 19: Average levels of progress of Year 11 pupils in Maths since Year 6 IOM Average Levels of Progress (Maths) 2013-18 Maths IOM BHS CRHS QEII RGS SNHS ALP 2013 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.7 2014 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.7 2016 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.3 2017 2.7 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.5 2018 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.3 5 Year 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.5 Rolling Average

Referring to Tables 18 and 19 detailing the average levels of progress both Island wide and by individual school we can see that the IOM as a whole has never managed to achieve the expectation of 3 levels of progress from KS2-KS4 in either English or maths. Indeed, for English Language only one secondary school (QEII) has achieved 3 levels of progress - and this only once in the five-year period under measurement (2013). For maths, two schools (CRHS and QEII) have managed to record an average three levels of progress (CRHS in 2013 and 2014) and QEII (2017). The Department highlight that for this achievement data ALL pupils are included in the data, inclusive of pupils in special units, and those discounted from attainment data for whatever reason. Presumably these include students with the most complex and extreme special needs to pupils with persistent behavioural and/or attendance issues who, because of the inclusive nature of the schooling system, are accommodated in mainstream schooling. Disruptive behaviour and the related departmental/school policy on such raise questions on the potential impact on other students. An intriguing take on inclusion and its impact on pupils is to be found here.48 Of course, there are varying degrees of SEND – from those which range from issues that can readily be accommodated in a mainstream schooling environment to others which are most complex and

48 https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/may/23/secret-teacher-support-inclusion-but-not-at-any-cost

23

challenging. CRHS for example, recognises this in its SEND & Inclusion Policy49 (in the section on adaptations to the curriculum and learning environment) where it recognises a range of strategies from differentiation, the use of recommended aids such as visual overlays and the refreshingly honest acknowledgement that “there may be occasions where a child will be better served elsewhere.” Notwithstanding that, 3 levels of progress is the expectation set by the Department and of course there will be pupils who make 4 and 5 levels of progress at the other end of the scale. Brief details of the value-added performance measure used in England (Progress 8) were highlighted above (page 4). The Island persists in using an archaic measure in this area (3 levels of progress), as was previously used in England. Indeed, it was shown earlier that the IOM’s key attainment measure - the percentage of pupils attaining 5 GCSEs at Grades A*-C including English and maths – has been superseded across by a more demanding academic measure. An obvious critique of the 3 levels of progress measure is to be found here.50 51 The author of those articles, Henry Stewart, by reference to 2012 data showed that although 3 levels of progress may on the face of it sound fair and equitable (being based on individual value added and expecting the same of all standards) it was not. An analysis of 2012 data showed, not surprisingly that the level of progress to be expected depends on the starting point of the child. For those achieving NC level 5a in Maths, 99% made 3 levels of progress. But for those starting with a 3c only 16% made 3 levels of progress. The figures reported for levels 3c-5a are:52 Table 20: Across England percentage of pupils making 3 levels of progress by SAT level (Average of English, Maths & Science) SAT ENGLISH MATHS 3C 33% 16% 3B 49% 26% 3A 66% 45% 4C 45% 44% 4B 64% 68% 4A 82% 87% 5C 66% 68% 5B 88% 92% 5A 98% 99%

In his blog education commentator Henry Stewart argues that three levels of progress “…is a dangerous measure. If the message from the DfE is that “expected progress” for all students is 3 levels then a level 5 student is only expected to get a B at GCSE. When I’ve pointed this out, the response from otherwise sensible education professionals has been “Ah, but we are increasingly setting 4 levels of progress as the target for all students.” This response misses the point that progress differs with the starting point. In reality a 5a student should have a target

49 https://crhs.sch.im/site/uploads/pages/279/_media/20181106_fbb6f852/SEND_Inclusion_Oct_2018.pdf

50 https://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/why-3-levels-of-progress-is-a-very-silly-measure

51 https://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/how-to-use-data-badly-levels-of-progress

52 https://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/why-3-levels-of-progress-is-a-very-silly-measure

24

of 5 levels of progress (to an A*), while 3 levels is a real stretch for a student starting with 3c.

Let me emphasise this: Setting an across the board 3 levels or 4 levels of progress target is posed as setting high expectations. But it actually means that those we now call the “more able” are not being asked to stretch themselves.” Readers may recall the DESC Vision, as articulated in the Department’s Service Delivery Plan is “high expectations of learners and staff” and the definition of suitable education in the Education Act 2001 as being “suitable to [a pupil’s] age, ability and aptitude and any special education needs [they] may have.” Food for thought? Former Chief Inspector of Schools in England and Head of Ofsted from 2012-16, Sir Michael Wilshaw, published a most interesting article on the education of higher attaining pupils in the state Secondary school system.53 He highlighted that some Ofsted studies had found that thousands of pupils who achieved well at primary school, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, were failing to reach their full potential after the age of eleven. The reasons for this were: Poor transition arrangements with feeder primary schools that left many academically gifted pupils treading water in their first few years of secondary school, rather than building on the gains made at key stage 2;

A culture of low expectations and a failure to nurture high ambition and scholastic excellence;

Few checks being made on whether the teaching of mixed ability groups was challenging the brightest children sufficiently;

Disproportionate effort being spent in many schools on getting pupils over the GCSE D/C borderline rather than supporting the most able to secure the top A/A* grades.

The comment about pupils treading water and the issue of teaching in mixed ability groups in early KS3 may have particular resonance with some Island parents and pupils. The author has submitted two FOI requests to seek information on the setting (streaming) policy in Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) at each of the Island’s state Secondary schools. Readers can view these on the FOI Disclosure Log together with information on the general spread of pupil ability (by NC level) for each class by subject, where pupils are taught in ability sets. How many levels should a child be expected to progress in an academic year? Certainly, at primary school level the expectation is for a full level every 2 years so a child attaining 3b at the end of year 4 would be expected to reach 4b by the end of key stage 2 in Year 6. Three levels of progress over 5 years is the expectation at secondary school (1.8 sub levels per year). However, to give a snapshot indication I have tabulated some data to show the range of ability in classes in two of the secondary schools (BHS and CRHS) for KS3. Parents should refer to the full FOI answer for more details of each class within a year group for a given school. Note the spread of levels in differing sets and where the greater spread of ability is. It is worth highlighting the key measure for schools and the DESC is 5 GCSEs at A*-C including English and maths. C is the minimum benchmark – reference to Table 53 on pages 70-71 (using maths as an example) shows that a C is broadly equivalent to a national curriculum level 7 (hence the three levels of progress minimum from end KS2 expectation – a level 4b). Each level consists of three sub levels c, b

53 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016

25

and a. Hence progression is 5c – 5b – 5a – 6c – 6b – 6a and so on. There is, on the face of it in some sets, a wide range of ability – in others there are close groupings. A challenge indeed for teachers and schools who are required to ensure that pupils are given an education appropriate to a student’s ability, the expected levels of progress to be made and a student’s starting point.

BALLAKERMEEN HIGH SCHOOL KS3 SETTING & ATTAINMENT EXAMPLE (Mar 2019)

BALLAKERMEEN HIGH SCHOOL KS3 SETTING & ATTAINMENT EXAMPLE (Mar 2019) Maths English Science Year 7 Set 7B1 (33 pupils) 6c-4a Not Set until Year 8 Set 7A1 (26 pupils) 6c-4a Set 7B3 (25 pupils) 4b-4c Set 7B4 (20 pupils) 4b-3c Year 8 Set 8C1 (32 pupils) 7c-5a Set 8A1 (24 pupils) 6b-5c Set 8B1 (30 pupils) 7c-5b Set 8B3 (25 pupils) 5a-4b Set 8C3 (24 pupils) 5b-3a Set 8B3 (28 pupils) 5b-4c Year 9 Set 9B2 (23 pupils) 6c-5c Set 9B1 (25 pupils) 7a-6c Set 9A1 (30 pupils) 7c-5b Set 9A3 (21 pupils) 5c-4c) Set 9B2 (28 pupils) 6b-5a Set 9B3 (15 pupils) 5a-4b Notes: Throughout KS3 BHS students are taught in mixed ability groups for; Art, Drama, Music, ICT, RE, PE & Design Technology. Students are streamed in groupings based on a defined ability range in the following subjects. English (Year 8 & 9 only), Maths, Science, History (Year 9 only), Geography, Modern Foreign Languages.

CASTLE RUSHEN HIGH SCHOOL KS3 SETTING & ATTAINMENT EXAMPLE (Mar 2019) CASTLE RUSHEN HIGH SCHOOL KS3 SETTING & ATTAINMENT EXAMPLE (Mar 2019) Maths English Science Year 7 Set 1 (30 pupils) 7B-5C Set 1 (30 pupils) 6A-5C Random Mixed Ability Set 4 (25 pupils) 5A-4C Set 4 (28 pupils) 5C-4B Groupings Year 8 Set 1 (30 pupils) 8C-6C Set 1 (30 pupils) 7B-5A Random Mixed Ability Set 4 (20 pupils) 5C-4C Set 4 (22 pupils) 6A-3A Groupings Year 9 Set 1 (29 pupils) 8A-6A Set 2 (27 pupils) 7B-5B Random Mixed Ability Set 4 (26 pupils) 6A-4A Set 4 (22 pupils) 6B-4C Groupings Notes: In KS3 students are set for the following subjects: English, Maths, ICT, History, Geography, Spanish, French and RE – the last five of these reflect setting for English, and ICT reflects setting for maths.

Details of setting policy for BHS and CRHS are given in the respective tables above. For the other three schools the situation is as follows: QEII – Set for maths and English based on academic ability for year 7-9. For science, students have not initially been set by ability in year 7 but placed in mixed ability groups for the first half of the year. Once a “good amount of quality data” is available students are set in year 7. RGS – Indicated that “whether to set at Key Stage 3 is a decision made by the Subject Team leader in discussion with the Leadership Group. The majority of subjects within Key Stage 3 are taught in mixed ability groups.” From the data submitted it appears that those subjects that are currently set at KS3 are: English (Years 8 and 9), Maths (Years 8 & 9) and Science (Year 9). The school also indicated that “There are many factors that affect setting as well as pure attainment. [For groups that are] set by ability this will not always mean students are put in rank order and placed into sets accordingly. The level of students within each set will change from year to year.” SNHS – Students set for maths and English in Year 7. All other subjects are taught in mixed ability groups. In Year 8 students are set for English, maths, French and Spanish. In Year 9 26

students are set for the same subjects as Year 8 with the addition of science. Interestingly the SNHS approach to sets is that these “are not created based on upper and lower levels of achievement, rather on performance within a subject. Those able to access the more demanding aspects of a subject are generally grouped in the “higher sets” (1,2). Other factors, such as the number of students in a band, number of male and female, relationships, behavioural issues, specific needs, additional needs etc are also taken into consideration.” I have so far drawn attention to the expectation of making three levels of progress in secondary education and the key performance measure which requires 5 GCSEs at A*-C (including English and maths). The Department have previously indicated their disdain for league tables (despite producing de facto ones for the Island’s secondary schools as shown earlier). They criticise other jurisdictions for the practice of schools manipulating their league table position by such techniques as off rolling pupils etc. But are the Island’s schools guilty of their own form of manipulation such that they strive achieve the best possible statistic for the “magical” 5GCSE A*-C (including English and maths) performance measure? Is a consequence of this a disproportionate focus on C/D borderline pupils at the expense of other students? Gaming the System? In a 2016 article54 on the introduction of the Progress 8 value added measure The Guardian highlighted what it referred to as schools “gaming the system.” The article stated: “Out goes the old measure, which ranked secondary schools on the proportion of pupils gaining C grades or higher in five GCSE subjects including English and maths. It has been replaced by a new value-added metric known as Progress 8 – applauded by many as a big improvement but which has problems of its own. The end of the old measure means schools can finally be rid of the dreaded C/D borderline. Because only grades C and above counted towards passing the Government’s floor target of 40%, pupils expected to get Ds received more attention in an effort to haul them up to Cs, especially in the compulsory maths and English subjects. Gaming the system abounded until the Department for Education blocked the tactic, schools would enter pupils early and often for exams to get the sought after C. More able students also suffered. Since the old measure gave no reward to schools that improved their pupils from C grades to Bs or As, schools had little incentive to support any student once they were likely to get a C. The same logic applied to those likely to get E grades and below.” Do schools in the Isle of Man “game the system”? No doubt some parents may have a view and the author puts some information into the public domain that may further inform them on this issue. The overall IOM 2016-18 figures for GCSE Maths and English Language attainment (detailed in Tables 21-22) are thought provoking especially in light of The Guardian’s comments above about schools “gaming the system.” In 2016 the number of pupils achieving a C grade in maths was one higher than those attaining A*-B combined (303 vs 302). In 2017 the number of pupils achieving a C in maths was one lower than those achieving A*-B combined (269 vs 270)

54 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/23/progress-8-gcse-results-pupils-results-schools

27

whereas in 2018 (bearing in mind the issues with change of the summer examination board to CIE) the number of pupils achieving a C in maths was 29 more than achieved A*-B combined. However, with regards to English Language the combined number of pupils achieving A*-B easily exceeds the C grade attainers in each of the last three years. What is noticeable though is the high number of students achieving a D grade (a Level 1 pass). Is this an indication that the maths departments in particular “game the system” to enable their respective school to gain as high a percentage of their pupils as possible making the A*-C grades in this subject? Readers interested in school specific data for this topic can refer the individual GCSE/IGCSE Subject Tables (Tables 29-51, pages 45-67). Table 21: Breakdown of A*-G Grades for GCSE/IGCSE Maths 2016-18

MATHS GCSE 2016 Entry A* A B C D E F G U 800 59 89 154 303 92 36 39 13 12 Cumulative 7.4 18.5 37.8 75.6 87.1 91.6 96.5 98.1 99.6 Percentage

MATHS GCSE 2017 Entry A* A B C D E F G U 740 53 82 135 269 83 56 42 20 0 Cumulative 7.2 18.2 36.5 72.8 84.1 91.6 97.3 100.0 100.0 Percentage

MATHS GCSE/iGCSE 2018 Entry A* A B C D E F G U 817 34 93 137 293 94 71 44 40 11 Cumulative 4.2 15.5 32.3 68.2 79.7 88.4 93.8 98.7 100.0 Percentage

Table 22: Breakdown of A*-G Grades for GCSE/IGCSE English Language 2016-18

ENGLISH LANGUAGE GCSE/iGCSE 2016 Entry A* A B C D E F G U 801 29 97 188 272 149 47 14 2 1 Cumulative 3.6 15.7 39.2 73.2 91.8 97.6 99.4 99.6 99.8 Percentage

ENGLISH LANGUAGE iGCSE 2017 Entry A* A B C D E F G U 740 24 94 187 245 134 34 5 5 11 Cumulative 3.2 15.9 41.2 74.3 92.4 97.0 97.7 98.4 99.9 Percentage

ENGLISH LANGUAGE iGCSE 2018 Entry A* A B C D E F G U 807 30 120 200 264 124 52 12 2 3 Cumulative 3.7 18.6 43.4 76.1 91.4 97.9 99.4 99.6 100.0 Percentage

28

Children completing KS4 in year 2017 and 2018 would have completed KS2 (Year 6) in 2012 and 2013 respectively. An analysis of the NC levels attained by the Year 6 classes of 2012 and 2013 shows the following: Table 23: Nos. of Pupils Completing Year 6 Gaining Given NC Level 2012 & 2013 NC LEVEL 2012 2013 English Maths English Maths

2c 3 0 1 0 2b 1 2 2 3 2a 7 5 10 3 3c 12 8 12 21 3b 20 37 36 36 3a 61 76 62 63 4c 126 120 115 146 4b 182 141 185 180 4a 181 178 182 160 5c 144 165 190 176 5b 62 64 80 88 5a 19 19 11 12 6c 1 2 2 1 6b 0 0 0 0 6a 0 1 1 0 Total 819 818 889 889 % Achieving 715/819 = 690/818 = 766/889 = 763/889 = Level 4 87.3% 84.3% 86.1% 85.8%

The author would be interested to see an analysis of IOM student progress such that parents can have an indication of how Year 6 assessment finally translates to GCSE grades for a given cohort. How many of the Level 3 and 4 pupils at end of KS2 in the table above who completed their secondary education on Island went on to achieve 5 GCSEs at A*-C (incl E&M)? A host of other factors come into play. How robust are the actual levels recorded by the primary schools? They are required to report level attainment data to the Department. Could this possibly drive dysfunctional behaviour with a pressure to meet Departmental expectations such that some levels are artificially high? I assume parents would hope not. How much external moderation has been undertaken by the Department in each school, and in each year to ensure uniform standard of assessment levels across the Island? What parents should be able to see is a KS2-KS4 transformation matrix which shows how each Island primary school Year 6 NC levels have translated to GCSE grades 5 years later. Which GCSE? – The 2018 Change of Maths Examination Board Earlier (pages 12-13) I highlighted the background to the adoption of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), now renamed Cambridge Assessment (CA), as the exam board of choice for the vast majority of GCSE subjects taught in the Island’s secondary schools. Parents of pupils due to sit their GCSE maths exam in summer 2019 will be aware of a decision (made in December 2018) regarding the mathematics exam board. Those siting this exam in 2019 will have the opportunity of sitting the WJEC GCSE Mathematics Exam or the CA IGCSE. This

29

change was brought about following desperate pleas from the schools to the Department. The author sought information on this whole process via a FOI request which was initially refused by the DESC (citing formation of policy and the hindering of giving free and frank advice as reasons). The request was refused on Departmental review so an independent review from the Island’s Information Commissioner was sought (he has, previously, directed the DESC to release school performance information – a decision which enabled the publication of full performance data and subject league tables for the primary schools). Prior to the Commissioner’s determination on the legitimacy of the Department’s reasons for refusing to release the information requested the DESC unilaterally released all the information sought (e- mails, letters, presentations made by the respective schools etc). Some of that is replicated below (including representative samples from some schools). The author believes a number of readers may be interested in the process and the light it shows on the relationship between Secondary School Headteachers and the Centre. Some will, no doubt be surprised at some of the facts behind the decision e.g. the vast difference in grade boundaries between different exam boards, the pupil reading age required for interpretation of the papers etc. The information also highlights the importance of the C/D borderline and gives information for one school’s (BHS) admitted underachieving performance in relation to the levels of progress made by their students in maths. The crux of the issue was set out in a joint letter (presumably from the Secondary School Heads) sent to the Department of 23rd October 2018. The letter states: “Since the decision was made requiring our Maths departments to follow the CIE syllabus exclusively for Key Stage 4 students, you will be aware that repeated concerns have been raised. … we feel compelled to express the escalation of our concerns in light of the comparative analysis of the results of Year 11 students who last year [academic year 2017-18] sat both CIE IGCSE in Maths and the Edexcel IGCSE. The results of four of our secondary schools (SNHS/QEII/RGS/CRHS) are summarised below:

School No of students who No. of students who No of students who performed better on performed the same performed worse on CIE than Edexcel in both exams CIE (May 2018) (taken in Jan 2018) RGS 6 15 30 CRHS 4 3 45 QEII 7 10 28 SNHS 12 35 79 TOTAL 29 63 182

Out of 274 students from the four schools who were entered last year for both Edexcel and CIE 66% performed worse in the CIE exam taken 4 months after the Edexcel exam. As I am sure you are aware, one would normally assume that students would improve by at least one grade between January and May. Ballakermeen followed a different pattern of entry but their results tell the same story. BHS students took Edexcel at the end of Year 10, again in January of Year 11 and then students who did not have a C grade took CIE. Of those students 20.5% had the same results, 8.4% had a higher result with CIE and 71% had a lower results with CIE. Clearly if these results are replicated in the summer [of 2019] a considerable number of students will fail to meet the 5 A*-C + English and Maths benchmark.” 30

In a discussion paper the secondary school Heads of Maths highlighted further information. In reference to the table above showing a comparison of the better/worse performance between the two exam boards they write: “The majority of these students are from or lower sets, many of this group we would define as being on the C/D borderline. This is historically an area where we have put great emphasis in order to support the best outcome for students.” They also state: “The view of the Heads of Maths is that Manx students are being measured against independent, mostly selective schools, relatively few of whom will have students with defined Special Educational Needs. We believe that this is one factor in many of our students receiving lower mathematics grades than those they received with other boards . This together with a brief test of Foundation (Core ) papers showed CIE IGCSE requires a reading age of 13.7 years whereas Edexcel IGCSE requires a reading age of 11.3 years putting students at the C/D borderline and below at a further disadvantage”. “The international PISA rankings for mathematics in 2018 lists the United Kingdom in 27th (out of 70) place worldwide so Manx students are already disadvantaged when CIE grades are awarded, irrespective of where the examination is taken. The grades awarded by CIE regulators in England must tally exactly with those awarded in Singapore (Ranked 1st), Canada (10th) and Ireland (17th). “… the current GCSE cohort [Year 11 in 2018-19] is placed at considerable disadvantage owing to the limitations and tiering of the CIE examination In addition to the critical 5 A*-C including English and Maths criterion, students often need B grades in Mathematics to access level 3 [A Level] courses in Engineering and Psychology and many Business degrees (e.g. University of Manchester) also require grade B in GCSE mathematics. One hopes the decision taken to allow that cohort the opportunity of sitting WJEC was made in sufficient time. Despite the concerns raised by the Headteachers and the Heads of their respective mathematics departments Professor Barr (DESC CEO) wrote to the latter group following a meeting (25th October 2018) and stated: “The arguments you present (reading age, comparison with independent schools’ lack of training etc) seem to be based primarily on a comparison between the Cambridge and the Edexcel specifications. As you will be aware, the decision was taken, in 2014, to retain an assessment framework based on A*-G (rather than the new 9-1 system). The adoption of a “mixed economy” of qualifications was, of course, considered and rejected by secondary headteachers in 2013 as unworkable and confusing and other jurisdictions’ subsequent use of such a system has not done anything to encourage a review of this. As Edexcel does not offer A*-G grading, the only alternative offered to the Cambridge exam would be WJEC. There would be, in my opinion, other issues with adopting the WJEC maths exam but most compellingly there is no evidence that students on the Isle of Man would achieve any greater success with the WJEC specification than the Cambridge one. In short, the Department’s position remains that the use of the Cambridge specification does not constitute a “considerable disadvantage” to Manx students and I take this opportunity to

31

reaffirm that it is the specification offered by Cambridge that is to be used by all five schools for exam entries in the current academic year and into the future.” Despite the CEO’s position that “the use of the Cambridge specification does not constitute a “considerable disadvantage” to Manx students” and “…most compellingly there is no evidence that students on the Isle of Man would achieve any greater success with the WJEC specification than the Cambridge one” further discussion was initiated between school representatives and the political members and officers of the Department. It is the author’s understanding that the upshot of this was a decision that all five schools would move to a mix of Cambridge and WJEC (foundation, intermediate and higher – the various papers represent differing levels of ability and the grades that can be awarded) during 2018-19 and all five schools would move to WJEC for the 3 following academic years. Some of the evidence and allied comments presented by the Secondary schools is replicated below. Readers will no doubt determine for themselves the relevance and strength of the evidence and just whether some pupils were let down by the system – in particular the Department. Ballakermeen High School (BHS) BHS produced a presentation highlighting “Summer 2018 Attainment Results” viz:

Grade No. of Students Percentage Cumulative % A* 5 2.3% 2.3% A 5 2.3% 4.5% B 16 7.2% 11.7% C 76 34.2% 45.9% D 31 14.0% 59.9% E 22 9.9% 69.8% F 15 6.8% 76.6% G 19 8.6% 85.1% U 23 10.4% 95.5% X 10 4.5% 100.0%

This slide was accompanied by the quote “… on the face of it, they look relatively positive… but the reality is less so” and a further table showing levels of progress made by the students followed by the two quotes in bold.

GCSE Levels of No. of Students Percentage Cumulative % Progress 5 7 3.2% 3.2% 4 7 3.2% 6.3% 3 53 23.9% 30.2% 2 49 22.1% 52.3% 1 29 13.1% 65.3% 0 27 12.2% 77.5% N/A 49 22.1% 99.5% -1 -1 0.0% 99.5% -2 -2 0.5% 100.0%

“Up to 70% of our students are underachieving” “Ultimately, our students are underachieving” 32

Amongst the “Key Messages” BHS were keen to highlight were: “The jump from the core paper [maximum attainable Grade = C] to the extended paper is simply too large. Even our hardest working, most able mathematicians are failing to make expected progress.” “We need an alternative for those that aren’t going to be successful at iGCSE.” Not achieving a higher grade pass in Maths will hinder our students in the future.” Castle Rushen High School (CRHS) CRHS produced three interesting slides for their presentation viz:

The CRHS situation so far

2014-2017 2016/17 & November January 2018 June 2018 November 2017/18 2017 2018 Edexcel First teaching Based on Final entry First students 60 students iGCSE is of CA iGCSE year 10 available for entered for sat CA Core taught and course. mocks some Edexcel CA iGCSE. 5 Maths. consistently students from IGCSE with out of 51 Awaiting returns Set 1 & 2 A*-G grading. students results. results of opted to sit 60% A*-C, achieve a C 74%+ A*-C Core. 12/19 17% A*-A grade. 19 get got a C U grades.

Maths Grade Boundaries for exams sat by our [CRHS] students

A* A B C D E F G CIE Extended 91% 81% 65% 48% June 2018 CIE Core 65% 54% 44% 33% 22% June 2018 Old Edexcel 77% 60% 43% 27% 13% 6% IGCSE Higher June 2017

Maths Grade Boundaries for exams not sat by our [CRHS] students included for comparison

A* A B C D E F G CIE Extended 90% 79% 64% 50% June 2017 CIE Core 66% 56% 48% 39% 29% June 2017 WJEC Higher 66% 51% 37% 21% June 2018 WJEC 66% 50% 33% 20% Intermediate June 2018 WJEC 56% 43% 30% 17% Foundation June 2018 In narrative comment CRHS highlighted, inter alia, the following points:

33

“Cambridge Extended (Grades A*-C) is to be avoided as the maths is disproportionately challenging and the grade boundaries are “through the roof” (we feel this must be a strength of cohort issue).” “WJEC Higher has far more reasonable grade boundaries than Cambridge Extended and does not appear as challenging as that paper.” “The main concern should be about achievement and life chances of our students. Grade boundaries, especially for A*(c90%) and A (80%) are extremely high, and must reflect the quality of the cohort who take the extended exam with CA around the world, many under very different circumstances from our own.” QEII High School (QEII) QEII made some strong statements: “We have been voicing our concerns over this matter since 2013/14.” “Our students are not of the same make up as students across the world. Even KWC is taking Edexcel not Cambridge for Mathematics.” “Our results in 2017-18 were saved by the ability to enter students for the Edexcel examination.” QEII produced a table for the actual examination results in summer 2018 with some eye- catching figures showing the differing levels of pass between Edexcel and CIE.

SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5 SET 6 ED. CIE ED. CIE ED. CIE ED. CIE ED. CIE ED. CIE A* 10 A 18 8 B 5 10 C 3 9 1 10 3 13 1 3 D 1 3 7 3 3 3 6 E 2 5 4 3 4 2 1 F 1 3 3 3 2 G 1 1 1 2 3 5 U 1 1 4

The Last Word? Following acceptance of the schools’ concerns the CEO and Minster wrote to them (26th November 2018) with an invitation to propose an alternative option for the current and successive three years. This decision was communicated to pupils and parents of the current (2018-19) Year 11 in December. In his letter Professor Barr also stated: “Finally, it is noted that you did not have the same concerns for any of the other Cambridge IGCSEs, however, it would be prudent to have a wider review of the Department’s policy on all GCSE examination specifications and this will be planned after this initial three year period.” A most interesting e-mail was sent in response. The author believes this (judging by the wording within the e-mail) to have come from the Headteacher of RGS. It said: “I understand that the comment in your letter noting that “you did not have the same concerns for any of the other Cambridge IGCSEs” was meant for us Headteachers rather than the Maths Heads, and in that connection would like to clarify my view. In our RGS meeting with [name redacted] and the Minister I said that I saw no urgent reason to raise concerns at this stage about CIE English IGCSE per se since results were moving in the right direction, though I do

34

have doubts as to the suitability of this specification to our context on the wider educational front. However, I do have serious concerns about Science, Business Studies and the whole exam set up, including the lack of easily accessible subject specific training, the administration, cost and exam calendar that goes with the CIE package. These concerns are based on professional discussion with subject leaders, leadership team and with our exams officer. I therefore welcome your commitment to a wider review of the Department’s policy on all GCSE specifications in the near future.” The DESC CEO reply (28th November 2018: 0900): “…the politicians have been quite clear in our discussions that there will be no further move from iGCSEs and this decision should not be taken as any endorsement that there is any prospect over the next three years of moving away from Cambridge iGCSEs.” One wonders if the concerns expressed by the Headteacher above will prove to be a warning that should have been acted upon. Following an analysis of the 2019 results will an earlier review in relation to the appropriateness of the exam board to some subjects be needed? The Results Tables

Pages 45-69 contain the subject specific GCSE/IGCSE performance data for each school for the previous three years (2016-18). Tables 24-28 show tabulated results with a single page devoted to each secondary school. The focus is on A*-C grades for reasons already outlined and to give meaning to the percentage figure, cohort data is provided. Where obtained, the applicable examination board is indicated. For example, by referring to the BHS Table (page 40) for the IGCSE in Business Studies it can be seen that the Level 2 (A*-C) pass rate has successively dropped from 51.4% (19 out of 37 exam entrants) in 2016, to 44.4% (32 out of 72 entrants) in 2017 followed a year later (2018) by a pass rate of 37% (27 out of 73 entrants). In all three years candidates sat the same exam board. At KS4 students elect which subjects to study at GCSE (or BTEC or other qualification for some). However, certain subjects remain a compulsory part of the curriculum - maths, English, science and religious education. These subjects have been compulsory throughout a pupils’ schooling both at primary and secondary level from KS1-KS4. Looking at one of the compulsory subjects (science) at BHS readers will note for the tabulated results that for 2016 and 2017 pupils sat either the Edexcel Core Science or the Edexcel Additional Science. The author understands that Core Science counts as one GCSE, Additional Science as 2 GCSEs. The results for these show that for Core Science (the 1 GCSE option) the pass rate was 82.7% (167 out of 202 pupils) and 71.9% (146 from 203 entrants) in 2016 and 2017 respectively. In 2018 there was a change of exam board to the Cambridge IGCSE. Their single GCSE award is title “Combined Science” [not to be confused with other exam boards which offer a Combined Science option] and, last year 37% passed (A*-C) the exam (26 from 81 entrants). Drops in pass rates when changing exam boards or assessment regimes are not uncommon – a so-called saw tooth effect. There are other examples at BHS where a change of exam board has had little effect (geography where pass rates range from 65% – 69.9% between AQA and CIE Boards for the three years 2016-18) or even a positive one (the 2016 music GCSE (OCR) saw an 85.7% pass rate whereas in 2018, 100% of pupils passed the CIE exam). Cohort data can also give an indication of class size and consequently perhaps the intimacy of the teaching and attention that can be given to pupils of differing ability and aptitude – something perhaps more traditionally associated with independent schools judging by their “advertising” literature. Readers will note some excellent results in varying subjects at the different Island secondary schools and others where the results certainly invite explanation.

35

In addition to the five individual school tables there are a series of tables for readers who wish to examine the academic strength (at least in terms of results) of a given department within a school. Here readers can see which departments consistently deliver strong academic results and which have low pass rates, comparing these with the Island average for the subject under analysis. Reference to Table 38 (page 55) which gives details for the optional GCSE/IGCSE of history (itself an important subject in terms of the EBacc) shows a consistently lower level of attainment from SNHS (never more than a 42.7% pass rate) causing that school’s history department to rank 5/5 in each of the last three years. In addition to the percentage of pupils making the A*-C grade the table also shows an individual breakdown of these grades. For example, in 2018 SNHS with a pass rate of 42.7% (equating to 41 out of 96 entrants) the breakdown of passes shows 1 A*, 7As, 15 Bs and 18 Cs. At QEII which sat the same examination board (as is now the policy) the pass rate was 71.4% (40 out of 56) with 4A*s, 10As, 18Bs, and 10Cs. The DESC also analyse GCSE points per entrant. This points score system allocates a numerical value to each grade (A*= 58 points, A = 52 points, B= 46 points and so on with each grade decreasing by 6 points until G which equates to 16 points). From this the Department can determine the average points per entrant in each subject. For 2016 & 2017 these are replicated in the individual subject tables and again, looking at history as an example and comparing QEII and SNHS) in 2016 the average points per entrant for QEII was 43 – equivalent to a Grade C whilst for SNHS it was 33.12 equating to a Grade E.

Unsurprisingly there is a wide variation in achievement across subjects. Examples of these from the 2017-18 academic year for each school include:

BHS: Pass rates of 95% in Drama (19/20 pupils); 93.2% in English Literature (41/44 pupils); 50.7% in History (36/71 pupils); Combined Science 37% (26/81 pupils).

CRHS: Pass rates of 93.8% in Biology (30/32 pupils); 91.3% in Spanish (21/23 pupils); 50% in ICT (16/32); 10.9% Combined Science (2/19 pupils).

QEII Pass rates of 100% in Physics (12/12); 100% in Chemistry (12/12; 57.9% in (11/19 pupils); 38.1% D&T Electronics (8/21 pupils).

RGS: Pass rates of 100% in Drama (12/12 pupils); 86.7% in Geography (39/45 pupils); 51.2% in Fine Art (21/41 pupils); 50% in D&T Product Design (4/8 pupils); 29.5% in Combined Science (13/44 pupils).

SNHS: Pass rates of 96.9% in Biology (31/32 pupils); 95.2% in Chemistry (20/21 pupils); 57.4% in Spanish (35/61 pupils); 27% in Fine Art (10/37 pupils); 20% in D&T (Product Design) (4/20 pupils).

Of course, the figures above are selective (representing a wide range of pass rates) and only focus on one year a point no doubt noted by readers who, by reference to the tables, can make a three-year comparison with some important context including whole Island averages. Such tables give rise to a whole host of questions and debate about standards across the board. For example, noting that science is a compulsory subject for the six years of Key Stages 1 and 2 (primary level ages 6-11) and the expectation at the end of primary school is a Level 4b with 3 levels of progress at secondary school to achieve a Grade C, is the 24.7% Island pass rate for CIE Combined Science (equating to 61/247 students) acceptable when they are further taught it as a compulsory subject for the five years across Key Stages 3 and 4? Other allied issues are opportunities for all, teaching to a child’s ability and aptitude, progressive versus traditionalist pedagogies etc. Readers may recall from the earlier section regarding the debate

36

about the change of maths examination board the serious concerns articulated by RGS less than five months before the next round of summer GCSEs, about science (and business studies). Looking at the CIE results for Combined and Co-ordinated Science for that school in 2018 the aggregate number of A*-C passes in both subjects was 80 out of 141 entrants – equating to a pass rate of 56% (NB. CIE Co-ordinated Science is a double award).

The results also highlight potential problems with an exam board as previously illustrated by reference to the debate on the chosen exam board for maths and the corresponding fall in pass rates for that subject. That the levels recorded were achieved was due to ability to sit the (now defunct) Edexcel IGCSE A*-G graded paper. The data shows an obvious impact of changing to Cambridge examinations for Art & Design (Fine Art). In 2017 the IoM cumulative pass rate A*-C was 90.2%. Fast forward to 2018 where the CIE Fine Art IGCSE was the examination of choice (new to the IOM compared with previous years) the cumulative A*-C grading was 55.1% Of the 176 students who studied Art in the last academic year 97 achieved an A*-C grade – the vast majority at C grade (77).

Summary

As with my two previous articles published on the PAG website this work on the 2016-18 GCSE/IGCSE results for the Island's secondary schools gives readers ready access to school attainment data in a single document. The various statistics presented allow parents and others to do what the author suspects the DESC would rather they didn't - compare results of the respective schools in a manner of their choosing. Performance data for Northern Ireland, Wales and KWC is also included. It is the author's opinion that individuals reading such will see the limitations of comparing such with the IOM without the need for predictable comment from a Department seeking to deflect talk away from the relative performance of their schools (the same approach they adopted following publication of IOM primary school attainment data). It is disappointing that both the Department, some school Governing Bodies and the Education Council appear unwilling to challenge, or face up to, what the author genuinely believes are shortcomings in the academic performance of our education system as a whole - as indeed it seems are the majority of Tynwald members.

Previously (page 3) I highlighted the difference between Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications. Although the focus of this article has been on GCSE it is important to recognise the appropriateness of other qualifications (e.g. BTEC) for some students. Also there is no doubt that, for some pupils Level 1 attainment (Grades D-G) at GCSE represents a considerable achievement – there may well be strong factors that influence such results – particular SEN, domestic issues etc and once again, readers can make allowances for this in their own analysis and interpterion of the results. But are such grades really appropriate for the majority of students – grades which in many cases are equivalent to what Lower KS2 (and even end of KS1) children achieve. Interestingly, Katherine Birbalsingh55 one of Britain’s most outspoken and controversial secondary school teachers (who has regularly criticised standards of underperformance and progressive educational strategies in England’s education system)56 57 refers to D-G as a “bunch of failing grades.” Birbalsingh is the author of a book “To Miss with Love” a redacted version of her anonymised blog based on her teaching experiences at an inner London secondary. In this book she highlights: “…when one remembers that the national

55 https://edcentral.uk/edblog/beginner-guides/a-beginners-guide-to-katharine-birbalsingh

56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXtlS-6y5u4

57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXc46-NlOyw

37

expectation is that children should get five “C” grades at GCSE, it becomes clear that the national expectation is not something one would ever want for one’s child”. Thought provoking indeed. Ms Birbalsingh has gone on to establish the Michaela Community School58 one of the most talked about schools in Britain led by (in the author’s opinion) a most inspirational teacher.

Are these Level 1 (GCSE D-G) grades indicative of wholescale underachievement, poor teaching, low expectations, low starting points from the end of primary school etc? Some readers will no doubt feel that school GCSE results are at the very least satisfactory, but could they have been so much better if pupils commenced KS3 (Year 7) with higher levels? If this is indeed the case higher end of KS2 levels would increase opportunities for those completing the compulsory part of their secondary education. This raising of levels for those commencing KS3 is of course dependent on the primaries upping their game. Previous work on the academic standards of pupils completing their primary schooling (already highlighted and referenced via footnotes), shows some appalling attainment at some of our primary schools. In this respect the FOIA has unleashed the genie from the bottle much to the chagrin of the DESC who presumably cannot rely on off rolling or teaching to the test criteria to explain the performance of those island primaries that return consistently good results year after year when compared to their counterparts which return mediocre results. Is Level 4b really what we should be expecting of our children when so many more could no doubt achieve higher? Are we confident that pupils are genuinely taught according to their ability and aptitude, that they are stretched, or do the words of Sir Michael Wilshaw and the findings from Ofsted studies on failing to challenge brighter pupils ring true for many?

Value added performance has also been subject to some analysis and the need for further information on how many levels of progress one could expect from a pupil at a given starting point discussed. A child starting KS3 at level 3 is going to have to exceed the expectation of 3 levels of progress in order to reach a Level 2 grade. What strategies are the Island’s Education Improvement Service, in tandem with respective primary and secondary schools, deploting to address such a situation? Reference to the 2018 KS2 performance data for Manor Park Primary School shows the following Year 6 (cohort of only 15 pupils) attainment data59

Manor Park Primary School – 2017-18 Year 6 Attainment Data Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Speaking & Listening 40% 60% 0% Reading 26.7% 66.7% 6.7% Writing 73.3% 26.7% 0% Maths 33.3% 66.7% 0% Science 33.3% 66.7% 0%

Contextually Manor Park had 0% of the school population with EAL, 34.7% of the school population classed as having SEN and 51% of the population in receipt of Free School Meals (FSM) – the highest on Island. When looking at results to draw their own conclusions it is important that readers have sight of such factors. This applies to an examination of results such as those tabled above and of course, elsewhere for example when comparing a fee paying public school that has control over its own admissions with a state school that can also exercise such control (e.g. a grammar school in Northern Ireland noting such control is academically biased) or one which cannot e.g. an IOM state secondary school.

58 https://mcsbrent.co.uk/

59 https://manorpark.sch.im/pages/index/view/id/53/Data

38

Earlier (pages 19-20) I also highlighted some 2017 FSM data and its link to attainment with some vastly different results between Island schools (BHS 63.8% of FSM pupils achieved 5+ GCSE (A*-C incl. E&M) as opposed to 23.1% at CRHS) and the two jurisdictions of IOM and Northern Ireland (34.6% and 71.8% respectively). More research needs to be undertaken in this area but the large percentage differences in the figures above lead to additional questions. For example, is the relationship between child poverty and educational failure a broad correlation or a mark of certain destiny?

Finally, the author hopes this article provides some useful and stimulating information for those interested in aspects of the Island’s education system. Performance data and certain other information reported has been sourced from the Department, from school websites or where indicated in footnotes. Any errors in transcription are mine and unintentional. Where website references/quotes are used these were, of course, retrieved between certain dates (March - April 2019) and may have since been amended, updated or even removed. As with his previous articles the author anticipates a dismissive response from the Department – it is unlikely they will seek to engage directly with him and work, for example, to produce a “Good Schools Guide to the Isle of Man”. The fact that such IOM school performance and allied information has, thanks to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, been made available to whoever conducts a basic google search is, the author suspects, discomforting (even embarrassing?) for the Department, schools (and a number of their staff) and the teaching unions. However, the fundamental point is that citizens have both the right to know such information and ready access to it such that they can draw their own conclusions based on the criteria that matter to them.

39

TABLE 24: BALLAKERMEEN HIGH SCHOOL (BHS) % STUDENTS ACHIEVING GCSE/IGCSE A*-C GRADES 2016-18 BY SUBJECT

2016 2017 2018 SUBJECT % Exam Entrants A*-C/ % Exam Entrants A*-C % Exam Entrants A*-C/ Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Additional Maths 88.1% (37/42) AQA Art & Design (2018 Fine 94.7% (18/19) Edexcel 87.5% (21/24) Edexcel 67.9% (19/28) CIE Art iGCSE) Business Studies 51.4% (19/37) CIE 44.4% (32/72) CIE 37% (27/73) CIE Combined Science 32.1% (26/81) CIE Computer Science 61.8% (21/34) CIE 69.7% (23/33) CIE 74.4% (32/43) CIE Co-ordinated Science 73.5% (83/113) CIE D&T Food 48% (12/25) AQA D&T Graphics 74.2% (23/31) WJEC 80.6% (25/31) WJEC 69% (20/29) WJEC D&T Product Design 67.7% (21/31) WJEC 66.7% (8/12) WJEC 45.5% (10/22) WJEC D&T Systems & Control 66.7% (4/6) D&T Textiles 92.9% (13/14) WJEC Dance 100% (9/9) AQA Drama 100%(18/18) OCR 84.3% (43/51) AQA 95% (19/20) WJEC Economics 47.4% (9/19) AQA 93.8% (15/16) CIE 81% (17/21) CIE English Language 75.7% (153/202) CIE 82.4% (168/204) CIE 79.1% (155/196) CIE English Literature 98.1% (53/54) CIE 87% (47/54) CIE 93.2% (41/44) CIE Film Studies 77.4% (41/53) WJEC French 84.6% (33/39) Edexcel 52.9% (18/34) Edexcel 80% (40/50) WJEC Further Maths 93.5% (29/31) AQA Geography 65% (52/80) AQA 69.9% (58/83) CIE 69.5% (57/82) CIE German 50% (6/12) Edexcel 91.7% (11/12) Edexcel 93.8% (15/16) WJEC History 52.3% (57/109) Edexcel 63.9% (46/72) Edexcel 50.7% (36/71) CIE Hosp & Catering 16.1% (9/56) ICT 28.6% (57/199) CIE/SQA 50% (81/162) CIE/SQA 75.7% (56/74) CIE Japanese 100% (1/1) Edexcel Mandarin Chinese 100% (1/1) Edexcel Manx 100% (2/2) Maths 82.7% (167/202) AQA 67.6% (138/204) 65.8% (129/196) CIE AQA/Edexcel +early Edexcel entries? Media Studies 72.1% (44/61) AQA 84.5% (49/58) AQA Music 85.7% (12/14) OCR 90.9% (10/11) OCR 100% (14/14) CIE Polish 100% (3/3) AQA Religious Studies 55.1% (87/158) Edexcel 79.1% (68/86) WJEC 98.2% (56/57) WJEC Science (Core) 82.7% (167/202) Edexcel 71.9% (146/203) Edexcel Science (Additional) 94.3% (133/141) Edexcel 84.7% (105/124) Edexcel Spanish 100% (1/1) Edexcel 77.8% (7/9) Edexcel Sport/PE Studies 74.4% (29/39) Edexcel 73% (27/37) Edexcel 85.4% (35/41) CIE Statistics 69.6% (55/79) AQA 61.9% (39/63) AQA 75% (57/76) AQA Notes: Examination results data for Tables 24-28 sourced from FOI Request Ref 708165 (submitted 17.01.19). Exam Board data for 2016 & 2017 sourced from FOI Request Ref IM122024I (submitted 21.02.18) and exam board data for 2018 from FOI Request Ref 610170 (submitted 19.10.18)

40

TABLE 25: CASTLE RUSHEN HIGH SCHOOL (CRHS) % STUDENTS ACHIEVING GCSE/IGCSE A*-C GRADES 2016-18 BY SUBJECT

2016 2017 2018 SUBJECT % Exam Entrants A*-C/ % Exam Entrants A*-C % Exam Entrants A*-C/ Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Art & Design (2018 Fine 87% (20/23) AQA 86.7% (26/30) AQA 70.8% (17/24) CIE Art iGCSE) Astronomy 85.7% (6/7) 54.5% (6/11) Biology 98% (49/50) OCR 86.8% (46/53) OCR 93.8% (30/32) CIE Business Studies 71% (22/31) CIE 64.2% (34/53) CIE 68.6% (35/51) CIE Catering Studies 83.3% (5/6) WJEC Chemistry 92% (46/50) OCR 78.4% (40/51) OCR 78.1% (25/32) CIE Combined Science 10.5% (2/19) CIE Computer Science 64.7% (11/17) AQA 63.2% (12/19) AQA 81.8% (9/11) CIE Co-ordinated Science 42.6% (23/54) CIE D&T Engineering 14.3% (1/7) WJEC Design D&T Graphics 66.7% (8/12) WJEC D&T Resistant Materials 57.1% (4/7) WJEC 50% (8/16) WJEC 50% (4/8) AQA D&T Textiles 54.5% (6/11) AQA 100% (7/7) WJEC 77.8% (7/9) AQA Drama 85% (17/20) WJEC 94.7% (18/19) WJEC 88.2% (15/17) WJEC Economics Engineering 42.3% (11/26) AQA 54.5% (18/33) AQA English Language 77.9% (81/104) AQA/CIE 71.5% (93/130) CIE 73.4% (91/124) CIE English Literature 82.1% (64/78) AQA 76.8% (63/82) CIE 69.9% (58/83) CIE French 66.7% (12/18) Edexcel 69.2% (9/13) Edexcel 100% (9/9) WJEC Further Maths Geography 53.6% (30/56) AQA 68.1% (47/69) CIE 73.2% (41/56) CIE Health & Social Care 68.4% (13/19) AQA 16.7% (3/18) AQA History 71.4% (40/56) OCR 69.1% (38/55) OCR 62.5% (40/64) CIE Hospitality & Catering 57.1% (4/7) ICT 66.7% (16/24) Edexcel 65.9% (29/44) Edexcel 50% (16/32) CIE Latin 0% (0/2) Maths 78.8% (82/104) Edexcel 72.9% (94/129) Edexcel 68.8% (86/125) CIE + early Edexcel entries? Music 55.6% (10/18) OCR 89.5% (17/19) OCR 86.7% (13/15) CIE Photography 40% (2/5) Physics 96.1% (49/51) OCR 82.4% (42/51) OCR 81.3% (26/32) CIE Religious Studies 82.4% (28/34) Edexcel 69% (49/71) WJEC 81.4% (57/70) WJEC Science (Core) 42.9% (12/28) OCR 21.6% (11/51) OCR Science (Additional) 50% (14/28) OCR 42% (21/50) OCR Spanish 25% (5/20) Edexcel 91.3% (21/23) WJEC Sport/PE 77.4% (24/31) AQA 91.7% (33/36) CIE 97% (32/33) CIE Studies/Physical Education Statistics 95.8% (23/24) 100% (7/7) Notes: Examination results data for Tables 24-28 sourced from FOI Request Ref 708165 (submitted 17.01.19). Exam Board data for 2016 & 2017 sourced from FOI Request Ref IM122024I (submitted 21.02.18) and exam board data for 2018 from FOI Request Ref 610170 (submitted 19.10.18)

41

TABLE 26: QUEEN ELIZABETH II HIGH SCHOOL (QEII) % STUDENTS ACHIEVING GCSE/IGCSE A*-C GRADES 2016-18 BY SUBJECT 2016 2017 2018 SUBJECT % Exam Entrants A*-C/ % Exam Entrants A*-C % Exam Entrants A*-C/ Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Additional Science 46.9% (23/49) WJEC Art & Design (2018 Fine 96.8% (30/31) AQA 93.9% (31/33) AQA 65.2% (30/46) CIE Art iGCSE) Art & Design (Graphic 93.3% (14/15) AQA 85.7% (12/14) AQA 75% (12/16) WJEC Communications Biology 100% (27/27) CIE 100% (29/29) CIE 91.7% (11/12) CIE Business Studies 60.7% (17/28) CIE Chemistry 74.1% (20/27) CIE 93.1% (27/29) CIE 100% (12/12) CIE Chinese 100% (1/1) (Combined) Science 11.1% (1/9) CIE 35% (21/60) WJEC 20% (2/10) CIE (Single GCSE award) Computer Science 84.6% (11/13) CIE Co-ordinated Science 74.6% (106/142) CIE 82.1% (46/56) CIE 67% (63/94) CIE (Double GCSE Award) D&T Electronics 55.6% (10/18) AQA 53.3% (8/15) AQA 38.1% (8/21) AQA D&T Food 63.6% (7/11) 27.8% (5/18) D&T Resistant Materials 55% (11/20) AQA 63.2% (12/19) AQA 47.1% (8/17) AQA D&T Textiles 72.2% (13/18) 55.6% (5/9) AQA Drama 92.3% (12/13) WJEC Economics 31.6% (6/19) AQA English Language 78.5% (84/107) CIE 73.5% (86/117) CIE 82.5% (99/120) CIE English Literature 76.8% (63/82) CIE 79% (64/81) CIE 81.2% (69/85) CIE Enterprise 68.4% (26/38) CIE Food & Nutrition 82.4% (14/17) WJEC French 67.3% (33/49) AQA 73.5% (50/68) AQA 74.4% (32/43) WJEC Geography 70.7% (41/58) AQA 75% (48/64) AQA 86.7% (65/75) CIE German 24.1% (7/29) AQA 41.7% (5/12) AQA 57.9% (11/19) WJEC History 72.5% (29/40) AQA 59.1% (26/44) AQA 71.4% (40/56) CIE Hosp & Catering 0% (0/5) Manx 100% (4/4) 100% (9/9) 100% (2/2) CCEA Maths 83.2% (89/107) Pearson 84.6% (99/117) Pearson 75.2% (91/121) ?/CIE (Lower Set WJEC) Music 66.7% (4/6) AQA 100% (5/5) CIE 100% (3/3) CIE Performing Arts 22% (2/9) AQA 53.3% (8/15) AQA Physics 92.6% (25/27) CIE 82.8% (24/29) CIE 100% (12/12) CIE Religious Studies 76.5% (26/34) AQA 100% (7/7) AQA 93.8% (15/16) WJEC Spanish 100% (1/1) Sport/Physical Ed. 65.2% (15/23) AQA 50% (21/42) AQA 88.6% (31/35) CIE There is some inconsistency in the various FOI responses given. Accordingly, the assumption has been made that what the Dept refer to as D&T Graphics for 2016 and 2017 is what is listed in the separate exam board FOI response as Art & Design (Graphic Communications) as no specific exam board is listed for “D&T Graphics”. Similarly, the DESC refer to “D&T Food” but no QEII exam board is listed for that although other answers highlight a QEII WJEC GCSE Home Economics exam for 2016 and 2017 and a WJEC Food & Nutrition GCSE for 2018 (the same examination viz: WJEC Home Economics – Food & Nutrition?). AQA Food Technology is taken at some schools and this may be another possibility? For science the Dept (in addition to the traditional single subjects) list, for 2016 & 2017 core and double science – the FOI response on QEII subject specific exam boards for each year shows in 2016 exam boards in Combined Science (CIE) and Co-ordinated Science (CIE). Thus for 2016 the “Core” result is reported as CIE Combined (a single IGCSE) and “Double” the CIE Co-ordinated Science IGCSE (2 IGCSEs). In 2017 Core, Additional and Double are reported. Thus, following the FOI response to 2017 exam boards the assumption has been that Core and Additional are WJEC and Double is the CIE Co-ordinated Science IGCSE. For further information refer to specific FOI responses highlighted in the notes section of Table 24.

42

TABLE 27: RAMSEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL (RGS) % STUDENTS ACHIEVING GCSE/IGCSE A*-C GRADES 2016-18 BY SUBJECT

2016 2017 2018 SUBJECT % Exam Entrants A*-C/ % Exam Entrants A*-C % Exam Entrants A*-C/ Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Agriculture 20% (4/20) Art & Design (2018 Fine 94.5% (52/55) AQA 98% (49/50) AQA 51.2% (21/41) Art iGCSE) Art & Design (Graphic 59.3% (16/27) WJEC Communications) Biology BTEC Engineering FC 100% (5/5) 83.3% (10/12) BTEC ICT FC Business Studies 80.9% (38/47) Edexcel 76.1% (35/46) Edexcel 59.2% (29/49) CIE Catering Studies 58.3% (7/12) Combined Science 29.5% (13/44) CIE Computer Science 39.4% (13/33) AQA 70% (14/20) AQA 78.3% (18/23) CIE Co-ordinated Science 69.1% (67/97) D&T Food 66.7% (8/12) AQA 37.5% (3/8) AQA 59.3% (16/27) WJEC D&T Graphics D&T Product Design 57.1% (4/7) WJEC 36.4% (4/11) 50% (4/8) WJEC D&T Systems & Control 45.5% (5/11) AQA 21.4% (3/14) AQA 43.8% (7/16) AQA Drama 89.7% (26/29) WJEC 80% (8/10) WJEC 100% (12/12) WJEC English Language 72.5% (111/153) CIE 64.8% (83/128) CIE 73.8% (104/141) CIE English Literature 96.3% (78/81) CIE 93.8% (60/64) CIE 78.5% (62/79) CIE Film Studies 87.5% (7/8) WJEC 64.3% (9/14) WJEC French 87.1% (27/31) Edexcel 81.8% (27/33) AQA 57.9% (11/19) WJEC Geography 66.7% (46/69) AQA 85.2% (52/61) CIE 86.7% (39/45) CIE History 56.8% (42/74) CIE 72.2% (39/54) CIE 50% (34/68) CIE Home Economics Child 84.6% (11/13) Development Hospitality & Catering 55.6% (5/9) ICT 40.9% (9/22) Edexcel 35.3% (12/34) Edexcel Leisure & Tourism 73.5% (25/34) WJEC 61.9% (13/21) WJEC 74.4% (29/39) Edexcel Maths 79.1% (121/153) 77.3% (99/128) 65.1% (97/149) CIE AQA/WJEC AQA/WJEC + early Edexcel entries? Media Studies 57.5% (23/40) AQA Music 80% (12/15) AQA 75% (9/12) AQA 57.9% (11/19) CIE Photography 0% (0/4) Psychology 92.6% (25/27) Religious Studies 91.5% (97/106) WJEC 67.6% (75/111) WJEC 84% (63/75) WJEC Science (Core) 83.1% (128/154) OCR 76.6% (98/128) OCR Science (Additional) 86.3% (107/124) OCR 78.7% (85/108) OCR Science (Environmental) 17.2% (5/29) OCR Spanish 91.5% (43/47) Edexcel 92.9% (26/28) Edexcel 68.8% (22/32) WJEC Sport//Physical Ed. 80% (28/35) AQA 82.9% (29/35) AQA 67.6% (23/34) CIE Notes: Examination results data for Tables 24-28 sourced from FOI Request Ref 708165 (submitted 17.01.19). Exam Board data for 2016 & 2017 sourced from FOI Request Ref IM122024I (submitted 21.02.18) and exam board data for 2018 from FOI Request Ref 610170 (submitted 19.10.18).

43

TABLE 28: ST. NINIAN’S HIGH SCHOOL (SNHS) % STUDENTS ACHIEVING GCSE/IGCSE A*-C GRADES 2016-18 BY SUBJECT

2016 2017 2018 SUBJECT % Exam Entrants A*-C/ % Exam Entrants A*-C % Exam Entrants A*-C/ Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Cohort Data/Exam Board Art & Design (2018 Fine 70.5% (43/61) AQA 82.6% (38/46) AQA 27% (10/37) CIE Art iGCSE) Art & Design (Graphic Communications) Biology 90.3% (65/72) OCR 67.3% (35/52) CIE 96.9% (31/32) CIE BTEC Health & Social 77.8% (14/18) Care Business Studies 72.7% (56/77) CIE 56.8% (21/37) 60.8% (59/97) CIE Chemistry 86.1% (62/72) OCR 77.4% (41/53) CIE 95.2% (20/21) CIE Child Development 61.1% (11/18) AQA 69.2% (9/13) AQA CIDA Digital App Level 91.4% (53/58) 2 Combined Science 40.3% (48/119) CIE 19.4% (18/93) CIE Computer Science 37.5% (9/24) OCR 53.8% (14/26) OCR 78.9% (15/19) CIE Co-ordinated Science 74.2% (95/128) CIE D&T Product Design 71.4% (10/14) WJEC 33.3% (5/15) WJEC 20% (4/20) D&T Resistant Materials 25% (5/20) WJEC 24.3% (9/37) WJEC 23.1% (3/13) D&T Systems & Control 35.7% (10/28) WJEC 11.1% (2/18) WJEC 12.5% (1/8) AQA D&T Textiles 71.4% (5/7) WJEC 64.3% (9/14) WJEC 50% (4/8) Drama 83.3% (10/12) 73.3% (11/15) WJEC 69.6% (16/23) English Language 66.8% (157/235) CIE 74.5% (120/161) CIE 73% (165/226) CIE English Literature 68.8% (108/157) CIE World Literature 71.4% (15/21) CIE 87% (20/23) CIE French 76.5% (13/17) Edexcel 66.7% (8/12) WJEC 71.4% (10/14) WJEC Geography 70.7% (29/41) AQA 57.6% (19/33) CIE 60% (24/40) CIE Health & Social Care 27.8% (5/18) 100% (10/10) History 41% (43/105) Edexcel 43% (37/86) Edexcel 42.7% (41/96) CIE Home Economics (Food 46.2% (6/13) WJEC 39.1% (9/23) WJEC 41.4% (12/29) WJEC & Nutrition) ICT AIDA/CIDA/DIDA 69.3% (97/140) ICT 54.2% (32/59) WJEC 69% (78/113) CIE ICT AIDA 86% (37/43) ICT CIDA Level 2 91.4% (53/58) Japanese 100% (1/1) Edexcel/P’son Maths 62.4% (146/234) AQA 67.3% (109/162) 68.1% (154/226) CIE AQA/Edexcel + early Edexcel entries? Music 30.8% (4/13) OCR 30.8% (4/13) OCR 100% (27/27) CIE Physics 93.1% (67/92) OCR 75.5% (37/49) CIE 93.8% (15/16) CIE Polish 100% (1/1) Religious Studies 39.1% (27/69) AQA 97.1% (66/68) AQA 84.2%(139/165) WJEC Science (Core) 51.3% (82/160) OCR Science (Additional) 61.3% (92/150) OCR Spanish 85.7% (24/28) Edexcel 41.2% (14/34) WJEC 57.4% (35/61) WJEC Sport/Physical Ed. 62.7% (32/51) AQA 40.9% (18/44) AQA 45.6% (26/57) CIE Notes: Examination results data for Tables 24-28 sourced from FOI Request Ref 708165 (submitted 17.01.19). Exam Board data for 2016 & 2017 sourced from FOI Request Ref IM122024I (submitted 21.02.18) and exam board data for 2018 from FOI Request Ref 610170 (submitted 19.10.18).

44

TABLE 29: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 73.2%) (IOM 2017 Av. 74.3%) (IOM 2018 Av. 76.1%) BHS 3rd 75.7% (153/202) CIE 1st 82.4% (168/204) CIE 2nd 79.1% (155/96) CIE A*(3); A(17); B(51); C(82) A*(2); A(18); B(59); C(89) A*(2); A(18); B(47); C(88)

CRHS 2nd 77.9% (81/104) AQA/CIE 4th 71.5% (93/130) CIE 4th 73.4% (91/124) CIE A*(14); A(21): B(22); C(24) A*(5); A(13); B(41); C(34) A*(5); A24); B(33); C(29)

QEII 1st 78.5% (84/107) CIE 3rd 73.5% (86/117) CIE 1st 82.5% (99/120) CIE A*(3): A(15); B(30); C(36) A*(2); A(16); B(40); C(28) A*(5); A(23); B(32); C(39)

RGS 4th 72.5% (111/153) CIE 5th 64.8% (83/128) CIE 3rd 73.8% (104/141) CIE A*(2); A(15); B(37); C(57) A*(8); A(16): B(15); C(44) A*(4); A(14); B(31); C(55)

SNHS 5th 66.8% (157/235) CIE 2nd 74.5% (120/161) CIE 5th 73% (165/226) CIE A*(7): A(29); B(48); C(73) A*(7); A(31); B(32); C(50) A*(14); A(41); B(57); C(53)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 41.2 = C): CRHS (43.87 = C); QEII (42.47 = C); BHS (40.77 = C); RGS (40.44 = C); SNHS (40.22 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 41.1 = C): QEII (42.31 = C); CRHS (41.34 = C); SNHS (40.8 = C); BHS (40.73 = C); RGS (40.47 = C) 2018: (IOM Av = 41.76 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

45

TABLE 30: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 81%) (IOM 2017 Av. 83.3%) (IOM 2018 Av. 79%) BHS 1st 98.1% (53/54) CIE 2nd 87% (47/84) CIE 1st 93.2% (41/44) CIE A*(13); A(15); B(15); C(10) A*(4); A(13); B(15); C(15); A*(4); A(11); B(16); C(10)

CRHS 3rd 82.1% (64/78) AQA 4th 76.8% (63/82) CIE 4th 69.9% (58/83) CIE A*(3); A(14); B(26); C(21) A*(3); A(10); B(19); C(31) A*(0); A(7); B(22); C(29)

QEII 4th 76.8% (63/82) CIE 3rd 79% (64/81) CIE 2nd 81.2% (69/85) CIE A*(2); A(11); B(22); C(28) A*(4); A(19); B(22); C(19) A*(3); A(5); B(29); C(32)

RGS 2nd 96.3% (78/81) CIE 1st 93.8% (60/64) CIE 3rd 78.5% (62/79) CIE A*(10); A(31); B(20); C(17) A*(7); A(15); B(22); C(16) A*(3); A(9); B(19); C(31)

SNHS 5th 68.8% (108/157) CIE In 2017 & 2018 SNHS pupils entered for CIE World Literature iGCSE. A*(2): A(23); B(42); C(41) The 2017 A*-C pass rate was 71.4% (15/21 pupils), whilst the 2018 attainment data shows 87% at A*-C (20/23 pupils). Very low cohort sizes compared to year group size/iGCSE English Language entries. Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 43.2 = C): BHS (49.22 = B); RGS (47.65 = B); CRHS (43.54 = C); QEII (42.2 = C); SNHS (39.25 = D) 2017: (IOM Av = 43.3 = C): RGS (46.47 = B); BHS (44.48 = C); QEII (43.33 = C); CRHS (40.02 = C); 2018: (IOM Av = 41.89 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

46

TABLE 31: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE MATHEMATICS 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE MATHEMATICS

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 75.6%) (IOM 2017 Av. 72.8%) (IOM 2018 Av. 68.2%) BHS 2nd 82.7% 167/202) AQA 4th 67.6% (138/204) AQA/Edex 4th 65.8% (129/196) CIE A*(8); A(22); B(29); C(108) A*(1); A(17); B(45); C(75) A*(4); A(17); B(40); C(68)

CRHS 4th 78.8% (82/104) Edexcel 3rd 72.9% (94/129) Edexcel 2nd 68.8% (86/125) CIE A* (13); A(12); B(21); C(36) A*(16); A(16); B(15); C(47) A*(10); A(11); B(13); C(52)

QEII 1st 83.2% (89/107) Pearson 1st 84.6% (99/117) Pearson 1st 75.2 (91/121) CIE A*(9); A(19); B(23); C(38) A*(12); A(915); B(22); C(50) A*(10); A(26); B(15); C(40)

RGS 3rd 79.1% (121/153) AQA/WJEC 2nd 77.3% (99/128) AQA/WJEC 5th 65.1% (97/149) CIE A*(24); A(18); B(32); C(47) A*( 14); A(23); B(24); C(38) A*(6); A(19); B(21); C( 51)

SNHS 5th 62.4% (146/234) AQA 5th 67.3% (109/162) AQA/Edex 3rd 68.1% (154/226) CIE A*(5); A(18); B(49); C(74) A*(10); A(11); B(29); C(59) A*(4); A(20); B(48); C(82)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 40.6 = C): RGS (43.33 = C); QEII (43.14 = C); CRHS (42.25 = C); BHS (40.81 = C); SNHS (36.63 = D) 2017 (IOM Av = 40.5 = C): QEII (42.97 = C); RGS (42.77 = C); CRHS (40.93 = C); SNHS (39.19 = D); BHS (38.29 = D) 2018: (IOM Av = 38.7 = D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Significant issues with examination board for GCSE maths in 2017-18 academic year as previously highlighted. A number of January entries for the Edexcel exam (the last time pupils could sit an A*-G graded exam by that board – thereafter it was CIE). Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

47

TABLE 32: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE COMBINED SCIENCE 2016-18

CIE IGCSE COMBINED SCIENCE

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2018 Av. 24.7%) BHS 1st 32.1(26/81) CIE A*(0); A(1); B(3); C(22) CRHS 5th 10.5% (2/19) CIE A*(0); A(0); B(0); C(2) QEII 11.1% (1/9) CIE 3rd 20% (2/10) CIE A*(0); A(0); B(0); C(1) A*(0); A(0); B(0); C(2) RGS 2nd 29.5% (13/44) CIE A*(0); A(0); B(1); C12) SNHS 4th 19.4% (18/93) CIE A*(0); A(0); B(0); C(18) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2018: IOM Av = 27.7 = F): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Prior to 2018 a mixture of science exams (in FOI responses these are referred to as Core, Double and Additional by the Dept) have been sat by pupils in the secondary schools, with a variety of exam boards (OCR, WJEC, Edexcel etc). For pass rates regarding these readers should refer to the Tables 24-28 on pages 40-44 and for specific grade attainment the FOI Disclosure Log (FOI Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019 – “DESC GCSE Analysis by Subject”). Following the adoption of Cambridge Assessment as the preferred examination board for the majority of subjects 2018 was the first occasion Combined Science (a single GCSE award) was a common exam across all five schools. Some schools additionally offer the Co-ordinated Science (double award) and/or the single science Cambridge IGCSEs in Biology, Chemistry and Physics potentially resulting in 3 IGCSEs for students. The FOI response into 2016-17 examination boards indicated QEII sat Cambridge IGCSE Combined Science in 2016 hence these results are shown here.

48

TABLE 32: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE CO-ORDINATED SCIENCE 2016-18

CIE IGCSE CO-ORDINATED SCIENCE

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2018 Av. 68.1%) BHS 2nd 73.5% (83/113) CIE A*(7); A(14); B(33); C(29) CRHS 5th 42.6% (23/54) CIE A*(1); A(1); B(6); C(15) QEII 74.6% (106/142) CIE 82.1% (46/56) CIE 4th 67% (63/94) CIE A*(20; A(6); B(36); C(62) A*(0); A(0); B(18); C(28) A*(1); A(5); B(16); C(41)

RGS 3rd 69.1% (67/97) CIE A*(4)’ A(12); B(22); C(29) SNHS 1st 74.2% (95/128) CIE A*(0); A(13); B(26); C(56) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2018 IOM Av = 39.65 = D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Prior to 2018 a mixture of science exams (in FOI responses these are referred to as Core, Double and Additional by the Dept) have been sat by pupils in the secondary schools, with a variety of exam boards (OCR, WJEC, Edexcel etc). For pass rates regarding these readers should refer to the Tables 24-28 on pages 40-44 and for specific grade attainment the FOI Disclosure Log (FOI Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019 – “DESC GCSE Analysis by Subject”). Following the adoption of Cambridge Assessment as the preferred examination board for the majority of subjects 2018 was the first occasion Co-ordinated Science (a double award) was a common exam across all five schools. Some schools (CRHS, QEII & SNHS) additionally offer the single science Cambridge IGCSEs in Biology, Chemistry and Physics potentially resulting in 3 IGCSEs for students. The FOI response into 2016-17 examination boards indicate QEII sat CIE Co-ordinated Science in these years 2016 hence these results are shown here.

49

TABLE 33: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE BIOLOGY 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE BIOLOGY

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 94.6%) (IOM 2017 Av. 82.1%) (IOM 2018 Av. 94.7%) BHS N/A N/A N/A

CRHS 2nd 98% (49/50) OCR 2nd 86.8% (46/53) OCR 2nd 93.8% (30/32) CIE A*(4); A(15); B(20); C(10) A*( 4); A(9); B(16); C(17) A*(0); A(4); B(13); C(13)

QEII 1st 100% (27/27) CIE 1st 100% (29/29) CIE 3rd 91.7% (11/12) CIE (A*7); A(10); B(7); C(3) A*( 5); A(10); B(8); C(6) A*(0); A(2); B(6); C(3)

RGS N/A N/A N/A

SNHS 3rd 90.3% (65/72) OCR 3rd 67.3% (35/52) CIE 1st 96.9% (31/32) CIE A*(7); A(19); B(23); C16) A*( 9); A(5); B(9); C(12) A*( 1); A(3): B(15); C(12)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 47.4 = B): QEII (50.67 = B); CRHS (47.32 = B); SNHS (46.25 = B) 2017: (IOM Av = 44.4 = C): QEII (48.9 = B); CRHS (44.3 = C); SNHS (42.08 = C) 2018: (IOM Av 44.02 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

50

TABLE 34: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE PHYSICS 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE PHYSICS

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 94%) (IOM 2017 Av. 79.8%) (IOM 2018 Av. 88.3%) BHS N/A N/A N/A

CRHS 1st 96.1% (49/51) OCR 2nd 82.4% 42/51) OCR 3rd 81.3% (26/32) CIE A*(6); A(19); B(19); C(5) A*(5); A(9); B(18); C(10) A*(1); A(9); B(7); C(9)

QEII 3rd 92.6% (25/27) CIE 1st 82.8% (24/29) CIE 1st 100% (12/12) CIE A*(3); A(4); B(9); C(9) A*(4); A(4); B(8); C(8) A(1); A(2); B(6); C(3)

RGS N/A N/A N/A

SNHS 2nd 93.1% (67/72) OCR 3rd 75.5% (37/49) CIE 2nd 93.8% (15/16) CIE A*(9); A(18); B(25); C(15) A*(8); A(1); B(9); C(19) A*(2); A(1); B(7); C(5)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 47.1 = B): CRHS (48.59 = B); SNHS (46.92 = B); QEII (44.89 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 43.7 = C): CRHS (44.71 = C); QEII (43.44 = C); SNHS (42.33 = C) 2018: (IOM Av = 43.93 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

51

TABLE 35: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE CHEMISTRY 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE CHEMISTRY

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 85.9%) (IOM 2017 Av. 81.2) (IOM 2018 Av. 87.7%) BHS N/A N/A N/A

CRHS 1st 92% (46/50) OCR 2nd 78.4% (40/51) OCR 3rd 78.1% (25/32) CIE A*(5); A(14); B(21); C(6) A*(4); A(8); B(11); C(17) A*(0); A(0); B(11); C(14)

QEII 3rd 74.1% (20/27) CIE 1st 93.1% (27/29) CIE 1st 100% (12/12) CIE A*(2); A(1); B(5); C(12) A*(3); A(7); B(10); C(7) A*(0); A(3); B(6); C(3)

RGS N/A N/A N/A

SNHS 2nd 86.1% (62/72) OCR 3rd 77.4% (41/53) CIE 2nd 95.2% (20/21) CIE A*4); A(18); B(16); C(24) A(4); A(7); B(11); C(19) A*(0); A(3); B(6); C(11)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 44.6 = C): CRHS (47.2 = B); SNHS (44.33 = C); QEII 40.67 =C) 2017: (IOM Av = 43.2 = C): QEII (46 = B): CRHS ( 42.94 = C); SNHS (41.92 = C) 2018: (IOM Av = 42.03 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

52

TABLE 36: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE COMPUTER SCIENCE 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE COMPUTER SCIENCE

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 50%) (IOM 2017 Av.64.3%) (IOM 2018 Av. 78%) BHS 2nd 61.8% (21/34) CIE 2nd 69.7% (23/33) CIE 5th 74.4 (32/43) CIE A*(1); A(4); B(10) C(6) A*(3); A(2); B(10; C(8) A*(4); A(12); B(7); C(9)

CRHS 1st 64.7% (11/17) AQA 3rd 63.2% (12/19) AQA 2nd 81.8% (9/11) CIE A*(0); A(6); B(4); C(1) A*(1); A(3); B(4); C(4) A*(1); A(4); B(4); C(2)

QEII N/A N/A 1st 84.6% (11/13) CIE A*(1); A(3); B(5); C(2)

RGS 3rd 39.4% (13/33) AQA 1st 70% (14/20) AQA 4th 78.3% (18/23) CIE A*(0); A(2); B(8); C(3) A*(0); A(2); B(8); C(4) A*(1): A(4); B(4); C(9)

SNHS 4th 37.5% (9/24) OCR 4th 53.8% (14/26) OCR 3rd 78.9% (15/19) CIE A*(0); A(3); B(2); C(4) A*(1); A(4); B(4); C(5) A*(0); A(4); B(7); C(4)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 36.3 = D): CRHS (42.12 = C); RGS (34.55 = D): BHS (39.29 = D); SNHS (30.17 = E) 2017: (IOM Av = 38.3 = D): BHS (39.33 = D); CRHS (38.11 = D); RGS (38 = D); SNHS (37.54 = D) 2018: (IOM Av = 42.66 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

53

TABLE 37: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE GEOGRAPHY 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE GEOGRAPHY

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 65.1%) (IOM 2017 Av. 72.3%) (IOM 2018 Av. 75.8%) BHS 4th 65% (52/80) AQA 3rd 69.9% (58/83) CIE 4th 69.5% (57/82) CIE A*(2); A(13); B(8); C(29) A*(3); A(7); B(28); C(20) A*(1); A(8); B(25); C(23)

CRHS 5th 53.6% (30/56) AQA 4th 68.1% (47/69) CIE 3rd 73.2% (41/56) CIE A*(3); A(7); B(7); C(13) A*(4); A(7); B(13); C(23) A*(1): A(6); B(13); C(21)

QEII Joint 70.7% (41/58) AQA 2nd 75% (48/64) AQA Joint 86.7% (65/75) CIE 1st A*(3); A(11); B(14); C(13) A*(4); A(7); B(19); C(18) 1st A*(3): A(14); B(24); C(24)

RGS 3rd 66.7 (46/69) AQA 1st 82.5% (52/61) CIE Joint 86.7 (39/45) CIE A*(2); A(15); B(17): C(12) A*(10); A(18); B(16); C(8) 1st A*(1); A(15); B(12); C(11)

SNHS Joint 70.7 (29/41) AQA 5th 57.6 (19/33) CIE 5th 60% (24/40) CIE 1st A*(1); A(10); B(8); C(10) A*(3); A(3); B(8); C(5) A*(0); A(4); B(14); C(6)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 40.1 = C): QEII (41.79 = C); RGS (41.74 = C); SNHS (41.02 = C); BHS (39.48 = D); CRHS (36.61 = D). 2017: (IOM Av = 41.3 = C): QEII (42.06 = C); RGS (41.11 = C); BHS 40.24 = C); CRHS (38.7 = D); SNHS (37.76 = D); 2018: (IOM Av = 41.1 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

54

TABLE 38: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE HISTORY 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE HISTORY

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 54.9%) (IOM 2017 Av. 59.8%) (IOM 2018 Av. 53.8%) BHS 4th 52.3% (57/109) Edexcel 3rd 63.9% (46/72) Edexcel 3rd 50.7% (36/71) CIE A*(7); A(11); B(18); C (21) A*(2); A(11) B(19) C(14) A*(4); A(7); B(12); C(13)

CRHS 2nd 71.4% (40/56) OCR 2nd 69.1% (38/55) OCR 2nd 62.5% (40/64) CIE A*(8); A(14); B(10); C(8) A*(3); A(10: B(9); C(16) A*(3); A(3); B(18); C(16)

QEII 1st 72.5% (29/40 AQA 4th 59.1% (26/44) AQA 1st 71.4% (40/56) CIE A*(2); A(11); B(10); C(6) A*(1); A(10); B(9) C(6) A*(4); A(10); B(16); C(10)

RGS 3rd 56.8% (42/74) CIE 1st 72.2% (39/54) CIE 4th 50.0% (34/68) CIE A*(2); A(10); B(20); C(10) A*(3); A(7); B(11); C(18) A*(5); A(5); B(10); C(14)

SNHS 5th 41% (43/105) Edexcel 5th 43.0% (37/86) Edexcel 5th 42.7% (41/96) CIE A*(3); A(7); B(13); C(20) A*(2); A(8); B(8); C(19) A*(1); A(7); B(15); C(18)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 38.1 = D): CRHS (43.75 = C); QEII (43.0 = C); RGS (38.95 = D); BHS (37.45 = D); SNHS (33.12 = E) 2017: (IOM Av = 38.4 = D): CRHS (41.13 = C); RGS (41.11 = C); BHS (39.47 = D); QEII (38.0 = D) SNHS (34.09 = D) 2018: (IOM Av = 34.7 = D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

55

TABLE 39: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE RELIGIOUS STUDIES 2016-18

GCSE RELIGIOUS STUDIES (Full Course Data)

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 66.1%) (IOM 2017 Av. 77.3%) (IOM 2018 Av. 86.2%) BHS 4th 55.1% (87/158) Edexcel 3rd 79.1% (68/86) WJEC 1st 98.2% (56/57) WJEC A*(6); A(9); B(35); C(37) A*(3); A(15); B(24); C(26) A*(1); A(15); B(31); C(9)

CRHS 2nd 82.4% (28/34) Edexcel 4th 69% (49/81) WJEC 5th 81.4% (57/70) WJEC A*(3); A(6); B(10); C(9) A*(1); A(9); B(9); C(30) A(1); A(12); B(26); C(18)

QEII 3rd 76.5% (26/34) AQA 1st 100% (7/7) AQA 2nd 93.8% (15/16) WJEC A*(1); A(12); B(6); C(7) A*(0); A(3); B(3); C(1) A*(2); A(4); B(6); C(3)

RGS 1st 91.5% (97/106) WJEC 5th 67.6% (75/111) WJEC 4th 84% (63/75) WJEC A*(3); A(28); B(36); C(30) A*(7); A(19); B(25); C(24) A*(6); A(9); B(23); C(25)

SNHS 5th 39.1% (27/69) AQA 2nd 97.1% (66/68) AQA 3rd 84.2% (139/165) WJEC A*(0); A(1); B(6); C(20) A*(9); A(31); B(17); C(9) A(23); A(41); B(49); C(26)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 40 = C): RGS (45.04 = C); CRHS (43.88 C); QEII (43.43 = C); BHS (38.49 = D); SNHS (31.88 = E) 2017: (IOM Av = 43 = C): SNHS (49 = B); QEII (47.71 = B): BHS (42.65 = C); RGS (41.08 = C); CRHS (40.08 = C) 2018: (IOM Av 44.9 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

56

TABLE 40: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE FRENCH 2016-18

GCSE FRENCH

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 76.6%) (IOM 2017 Av. 70%) (IOM 2018 Av. 75.6 %) BHS 2nd 84.6% (33/39) Edexcel 4th 52.9% (18/34) Edexcel 2nd 80% (40/50) WJEC A*(2); A(3); B(12); C(16) A*(4); A(4); B(5); C(5) A*(1); A(8); B(15); C(16) CRHS 5th 66.7% (12/18) Edexcel 3rd 69.2% (9/13) Edexcel 1st 100% (9/9) WJEC A*(1); A(3); B(2); C(6) A*(1); A(4); B(1); C(3) A*(3); A(3); B(2); C(1) QEII 4th 67.3% (33/49) AQA 2nd 73.5% (50/68) AQA 3rd 74.4% (32/43) WJEC A*(4); A(8); B(10); C(11) A*(2); A(12); B(15); C(21) A*(4); A(3); B(17); C(8) RGS 1st 87.1% (27/31) Edexcel 1st 81.8% (27/33) AQA 5th 57.9% (11/19) WJEC A*(3); A(10); B(7); C(7) A*(3); A(4); B(6); C(14) A*(2); A(2); B(1); C(6) SNHS 3rd 76.5% (13/17) Edexcel 5th 66.7% (8/12) WJEC 4th 71.4% (10/14) WJEC A*(0); A(5); B(3); C(5) A*(1); A(1); B(3); C(3) A*(0); A(3); B(5); C(2) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 42.8 = C): RGS (46.19 = B); BHS (42.5 = C); QEII (41.84 = C); SNHS (41.76 = C); CRHS 41.67 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 42 = C): CRHS (43.23 = C); RGS (42.73 = C); QEII (42.03); SNHS (41 = C); BHS (40.88 = C); 2018: (IOM Av = 42.28 =C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

57

TABLE 41: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE SPANISH 2016-18

GCSE SPANISH

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 89.5%) (IOM 2017 Av. 57.6%) (IOM 2018 Av. 67.2%) BHS 100% (Only 1 pupil 2nd 77.8% (7/9) Edexcel N/A entered) Edexcel A*(3); A(1); B(2); C1)

CRHS N/A 4th 25% (5/20) Edexcel 91.3% (21/23) WJEC A*(0); A(4); B(0); C(1) A*(1); A(4); B(5); C(11)

QEII N/A 100% (Only 1 pupil N/A entered)

RGS 1st 91.5% (43/47) Edexcel 1st 92.9% (26/28) Edexcel 68.8% (22/32) WJEC A*(7); A(16); B(11); C9) A*(3); A(2); B(8); C13) A*(3); A(7); B(0); C12)

SNHS 2nd 85.7% (24/28) Edexcel 3rd 41.2% (14/34) WJEC 57.4% (35/61) WJEC A*(1); A(7); B(9); C(7) A*(1); A(2); B(1); C(10) A*(1); A(6); B(10); C(18)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 46.6 = B): RGS (47.66 = B); SNHS (44.5 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 38.7 = D): BHS (44.67 = C); RGS (44.07 = C); SNHS (35.76 = D); CRHS (33 = E) 2018: (IOM Av 40.32 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

58

TABLE 42: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE GERMAN 2016-18

GCSE/GCSE GERMAN

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 31.7%) (IOM 2017 Av. 66.7%) (IOM 2018 Av. 74.3%) BHS 1st 50% (6/12) Edexcel 1st 91.7% (11/12) Edexcel 1st 93.8% (15/16) WJEC A*(1); A(0); B(1); C(4) A*(0); A(2); B(5); C(4) A*(2); A(4); B(8); C(1)

CRHS N/A N/A N/A

QEII 2nd 24.1% (7/29) AQA 2nd 41.7% (5/12) AQA 2nd 57.9% (11/19) WJEC A*(0); A(1); (B(3); C(3) A*(1); A(0); B(2); C(2) A*(1); A(0); B(1); C(9)

RGS N/A N/A

SNHS N/A N/A

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 35 = D): BHS (38 = D); QEII (33.79 = D) 2017: (IOM Av = 38.8 = D): BHS (44 = C); QEII (33.5 = E) 2018: (IOM Av = 39.54 =D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

59

TABLE 43: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE DRAMA 2016-18

GCSE DRAMA

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 89.9%) (IOM 2017 Av. 84.2%) (IOM 2018 Av. 87.1%) BHS 1st 100% (18/18) OCR 2nd 84.3% (43/51) AQA 2nd 95% (19/20) WJEC A*(2); A(4); B(9); C(3) A*(0); A(16); B(15); C(12) A*(3); A(8); B(6); C(2)

CRHS 3rd 85% (17/20) WJEC 1st 94.7% (18/19) WJEC 4th 88.2% (15/17) WJEC A*(4); A(4); B(6); C(3) A*(1); A(0); B(14); C(3) A*(5); A(1); B(5); C(4)

QEII N/A. An AQA Performing N/A. An AQA Performing 3rd 92.3% (12/13) WJEC Arts option was available. Arts option was available. A*(1); A(3); B(1); C(7) 22.7% @ A*-C = 2/9 pupils. 53.3% @ A*-C = 8/15 pupils. RGS 2nd 89.7% (26/29) WJEC 3rd 80% (8/10) WJEC 1st 100% (12/12) WJEC A*(0); A(8); B(13); C(5) A*(0); A(1); B(1); C(6) A*(0); A(2); B(4); C(6)

SNHS 4th 83.3% (10/12) (Not Indicated) 4th 73.3% (11/15) WJEC 5th 69.6% (16/23) WJEC A*(0); A(2); B(3); C(5) A*(1); A(2); B(1); C(7) A*(0); A(3); B(7); C(6)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 45.8 = C): BHS (47.67 = B); CRHS (46.9 = B); RGS (45.38 = C); SNHS (42 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 43.7 = C): CRHS (45.05 = C); BHS (44.59 = C); SNHS (41.6 C); RGS (40 = C) 2018: (IOM Av 44.3 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

60

TABLE 44: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE MUSIC 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE MUSIC

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 63.6%) (IOM 2017 Av. 75%) (IOM 2018 Av. 87.2%) BHS 1st 85.7% (12/14) OCR 2nd 90.9% (10/11) OCR 1st = 100% (14/14) CIE A*(0); A(1); B(6); C(5) A*(1); A(6); B(1); C(2) A*(2); A(7); B(5); C(0)

CRHS 4th 55.6% (10/18) OCR 3rd 89.5% (17/19) OCR 4th 86.7% (13/15) CIE A*(2); A(3); B(5); C(0) A*(3); A(5); B(4); C(5) A*(3); A(2); B(6); C(2)

QEII 3rd 66.7% (4/6) AQA 1st 100% (5/5) CIE 1st = 100% (3/3) CIE A*(1); A(1); B(0); C(2) A*(0); A(2); B(3); C(0) A*(0); A(1); B(2); C(0)

RGS 2nd 80% (12/15) AQA 4th 75% (9/12) AQA 5th 57.9% (11/19) CIE A*(2); A(3); B(4); C(3) A*(0); A(1); B(2); C(6) A*(0); A(1); B(4); C(6)

SNHS 5th 30.8% (4/13) OCR 5th 30.8% (4/13) OCR 1st= 100% (27/27) CIE A*(0); (A1); B(0); C(3) A*(0); A(0); B(1); C(3) A*(1); (A(8); (9); C(9)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 41.1 = C): RGS (44 = C); QEII (43 = C); CRHS (42.67 = C); BHS (42.57 = C); SNHS (33.08 = E) 2017: (IOM Av = 43.1 = C): QEII (48.4 = B); BHS (48.18 = B); CRHS (46.63 = B); RGS (40.5 = C); SNHS (34 = D) 2018: (IOM Av = 45.2 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

61

TABLE 45: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE ART/FINE ART 2016-18

GCSE ART (Full Course) /IGCSE FINE ART (2018)

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 86.2%) (IOM 2017 Av. 90.2%) (IOM 2018 Av. 55.1%) BHS 2nd 94.7% (18/19) Edexcel 3rd 87.5% (21/24) Edexcel 2nd 67.9% (19/28) CIE A*(3); A(1); B(4); C(10) A*(1); A(0); B(11); C(9) A*(0); A(1); B(9); C(9)

CRHS 4th 87% (20/23) AQA 4th 86.7% (26/30) AQA 1st 70.8% (17/24) CIE A*(2); A(2); B(3); C(13) A*(2); A(10: B(5); C(9) A*(1); A(3); B(3); C(10)

QEII 1st 96.8% (30/31) AQA 2nd 93.9% (31/33) AQA 3rd 65.2% (30/46) CIE A*(11); A(8); B(4); C(7) A*(13); A(6); B(4); C(8) A*(0) A(2); B(7); C(21)

RGS 3rd 94.5% (52/55) AQA 1st 98% (49/50) AQA 4th 51.2% (21/41) CIE A*(8); A(7); B(21); C(16) A*(1); A(10); B(28); C(10) A*(0); A(2); B(4); C(15)

SNHS 5th 70.5% (43/61) AQA 5th 82.6% (38/46) AQA 5th 27% (10/37) CIE A*(1); A(8); B(20); C(14) A*(5); A(3); B(10); C(20) A*(1); A(0); B(3); C(6)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 44.7 = C): QEII (50.06 = B); RGS (46.11 = B); BHS (44.42 = C); CRHS (42.09 = C): SNHS (41.67 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 45.3 = C): QEII (49.64 = B); RGS (46 = B); CRHS (45.2 = C); SNHS (43 = C); BHS (42.5 = C); 2018: (IOM Ac = 37.5 = D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

62

TABLE 46: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE BUSINESS STUDIES 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE BUSINESS STUDIES

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 70.3%) (IOM 2017 Av. 58.9%) (IOM 2018 Av. 55.6%) BHS 4th 51.4% (19/37) CIE 5th 44.4% (32/72) CIE 4th 37% (27/73) CIE A*(2); A(2); B(5); C(10) A*(2); A(5); B(7); C(18) A*(0); A(2); B(7); C(18)

CRHS 3rd 71% (22/31) CIE 2nd 64.2% (34/53) CIE 1st 68.6% (35/51) CIE A*(5); A(3); B(10); C(4) A*(8); A(5); B(8); C(13) A*(1); A(3); B(14); C(17)

QEII N/A 3rd 60.7% (17/28) CIE N/A. CIE iGCSE A*(1); A(4); B(8); C(4) Enterprise offered. A*-C = 68.4% (26/38 students) RGS 1st 80.9% (38/47) Edexcel 1st 76.1% (35/46) Edexcel 3rd 59.2% (29/49) CIE A*(0); A(9); B(14); C(15) A*(0); A(4); B(16); C(15) A*(0); A(2); B(8) C(19)

SNHS 2nd 72.7% (56/77) CIE 4th 56.8% (21/37) CIE 2nd 60.8% (59/97) CIE A*(0); A(8); B(20); C(28) A*(1); A(2); B(2); C(16) A*(2); A(6); B(14) C(37)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 39.8 = D): RGS (41.91 = C); CRHS (41.74 = C); SNHS (39.4 = D); BHS (36.43 = D) 2017: (IOM Av = 36.1 = D): RGS (40.13 = C); CRHS (38.49 = D); QEII (36.54 = D); SNHS (35.03 = D); BHS (32.17 = E) 2018: (IOM Av = 35.3 = D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

63

TABLE 47: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE D&T TEXTILES 2016-18

GCSE D&T TEXTILES

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 74%) (IOM 2017 Av. 70%) (IOM 2018 Av. 66.7%) BHS 1st 92.9% (13/14) WJEC N/A N/A A*(2); A(6); B(2); C(3)

CRHS 4th 54.5% (6/11) AQA 1st 100% (7/7) WJEC 1st 77.8% (7/9) AQA A*(1); A(1); B(1); C(3) A(*1); A(1); B(2); C(3) A*(0); A(5); B(1); C(1)

QEII 2nd 72.2% (13/18) AQA 3rd 55.6% (5/9) AQA 2nd 71.4% (5/7) AQA A*(0); A(2); B(1); C(10) A*(0); A(1); B(2); C(2) A*(1); A(1); B(3); C(0)

RGS N/A N/A N/A

SNHS 3rd 71.4% (5/7) WJEC 2nd 64.3% (9/14) WJEC 3rd 50% (4/8) AQA A*0); A(2); B(2); C(1) A*(0); A(1); B(1); C(7) A*(0); A(1); B(1); C(2)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 41.5 = C): BHS ( 45.71 = C); SNHS (43.43 = C); QEII (39 = D); CRHS (38.91 = D) 2017: (IOM Av = 40.8 = C) CRHS (46 = ); QEII (40 = C); SNHS (38.71 = D) 2018: IOM av = 42.3 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

64

TABLE 48: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE D&T RESISTANT MATERIALS 2016-18

GCSE RESISTANT MATERIALS

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 42.6%) (IOM 2017 Av. 40.3%) (IOM 2018 Av. 39.5%) BHS N/A N/A N/A

CRHS 1st 57.1% (4/7) WJEC 2nd 50% (8/16) 1st 50% (4/8 AQA A*(0); A(0); B(1); C(3) A*(0); A(2); B(2); C(4) A*(0); A(2); B(1); C(1)

QEII 2nd 55% (11/20) AQA 1st 63.2% (12/19) AQA 2nd 47.1% (8/17) AQA A*(0); A(0); B(4); C(7) A*(0); A(0); B(6); C(6) A*(0); A(0); B(1); C(7)

RGS N/A N/A N/A

SNHS 3rd 25% (5/20) WJEC 3rd 24.3% (9/37) WJEC 3rd 23.1% (3/13) AQA A*(0); A(0); B(2); C(3) A*(1); A(2); B(0); C(6) A*(0); A(0); B(2); C(1)

Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 34.6 = D): CRHS (38.29 = D); QEII (36.4 = D); SNHS (31.6 = E) 2017: (IOM Av = 34.5 = D): QEII (38.42 = D); CRHS (37 = D); SNHS (31.35 = E) 2018: (IOM Av 35.4 = D): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

65

TABLE 49: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE D&T PRODUCT DESIGN 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE D&T PRODUCT DESIGN

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 67.3%) (IOM 2017 Av. 44.7%) (IOM 2018 Av. 36.0%) BHS 1st 67.7% (21/31) WJEC 1st 66.7% (8/12) WJEC 2nd 45.5% 45.5% (10/22) A*(1); A(7); B(5); C(8) A*(0); A(2); B(4); C(2) WJEC A*(1); A(0); B(4); C(5) CRHS N/A N/A N/A QEII N/A N/A N/A RGS 3rd 57.1% (4/7) WJEC 2nd 36.4% (4/11) 1st 50.0% (4/8) WJEC A*(1); A(1); B(0); C(2) A*(0); A(1); B(0); C(3) A*(0); A(1); B(2); C(1) SNHS 2nd 71.4% (10/14) WJEC 3rd 33.3% (5/15) WJEC 3rd 20.0% (4/20) WJEC A*(1); A(2); B(4); C(3) A*(0); A(1); B(1); C(3) A*(0); A(0); B(0); C(4) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 41.3 = C): SNHS (42.14 = C); BHS (40.97 = C); RGS (40.86 = C); 2017: (IOM Av = 35.9 = D): BHS (38.67 = D); SNHS (35.6 = D); RGS (33.45 = E) 2018: (IOM Av = 33.36 = E): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

66

TABLE 50: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE D&T PRODUCT DESIGN 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE D&T SYSTEMS & CONTROL

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 38.5%) (IOM 2017 Av. 23.6%) (IOM 2018 Av. 33.3%) BHS 1st 66.7% (4/6) A*(0); A(1); B(2); C(1) CRHS N/A N/A N/A QEII N/A N/A N/A RGS 1st 45.5% (5/11) AQA 2nd 21.4% (3/14) AQA 1st 43.8% (7/16) AQA A*(0); A(0); B(2); C(3) A*(0); A(0); B(1); C(2) A*(0); A(1); B(1); C(5) SNHS 2nd 35.7% (10/28) WJEC 3rd 11.1% (2/18) WJEC 2nd 12.5% (1/8) AQA A*(0); A(0); B(4); C(6) A*(0); A(0); B(1); C(1) A*(0); A(0); B(0); C(1) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 33 = D): RGS (37.82 = D); SNHS (33 = D) 2017: (IOM Av = 28.7 = E): BHS (41 = C): SNHS (28.67 = E): RGS (26.14 = F); 2018: (IOM Av = 32.34 = D) A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

67

TABLE 51: ANALYSIS OF GCSE/iGCSE SPORT / PHYSICAL EDUCATION 2016-18

GCSE/iGCSE SPORT / PHYSICAL EDUCATION (Full Course Data)

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. 71.5%) (IOM 2017 Av. 66%) (IOM 20187 Av. 73.5%) BHS 3rd 74.4% (29/39)0 Edexcel 3rd 73% (27/37) Edexcel 85.4% (35/41) CIE A*(2); A(5); B(11); C(11) A*(0); A*8); B(10); C(9) A*1); A(12); B(9); C(13) CRHS 2nd 77.4% (24/31) AQA 1st 91.7% (33/36) CIE 97% (32/33) CIE A*(2); A(6); B(11); C(5) A*(6); A(4); B(14); C(9) A*3); A(17); B(10); C(2) QEII 4th 65.2% (15/23) AQA 4th 50% (21/42) AQA 88.6% (31/35) CIE A*(0); A(3); B(6); C(6) A*2); A(2); B(11); C(6) A*(0); A(6); B(16); C(9) RGS 1st 80% (28/35) AQA 2nd 82.9% (29/35) AQA 67.6% (23/34) CIE A*(4); A(8); B(8); C(8) A*(3); A(7); B(12); C(7) A*(0); A(3); B(12); C(8) SNHS 5th 62.7% (32/51) AQA 5th 40.9% (18/44) AQA 45.6% (26/57) CIE A*(0); A(13); B(8); C(11) A*(0); A(1); B(4); C(13) A*(0); A(1); B(11); C(14) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2016 (IOM Av = 42.2 = C): RGS (44.11 = C); CRHS (43.87 = C); BHS (42.46 = C); QEII (40.78 = C); SNHS (40.24 = C) 2017: (IOM Av = 40.8 = C): CRHS (45.83 = C); RGS (44.97 = C); BHS (42.27= C); QEII (38.43 = D); SNHS (34.18 = D) 2018: (IOM Av = 41.59 = C): A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

Exam attainment data obtained from DESC response to FOI Request Reference 708165 submitted 17th January 2019. This response has a breakdown of each attainment by each grade from A*-U for each subject sat (only Level 2 passes are indicated above A*-C). The full DESC response which also covers A level subjects can be accessed via the IOM FOI Disclosure Log.

68

TABLE 52: ANALYSIS OF iGCSE ICT EDUCATION 2018

iGCSE ICT

SCHOOL 2016 2016 % Entrants A*-C 2017 2017 % Entrants A*-C 2018 2018 % Entrants A*-C Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Rank (Pass/Cohort) Exam Bd Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes Breakdown A*-C Passes (IOM 2016 Av. %) (IOM 2017 Av. %) (IOM 2018 Av. 68.5%) BHS Only a 2018 (CIE iGCSE ICT) comparison has been undertaken. The 1st 75.7% (56/75) CIE FOI response from the DESC does not readily facilitate easy 2016 and A*(2); A(15); B(19); C(20) 2017 comparison as a multitude of awards are listed from BTEC ICT to CRHS GCSE ICT, Information Technology (Voc) and AIDA, CIDA and DIDA 3rd 50% (16/32) CIE some of which have been grouped together. Interested readers can A*(1); A(4); B(6); C(5) refer to the FOI responses on the Disclosure Log to elicit information of QEII interest to them and the information recorded in the school tables on N/A pages 40-44. NB. For 2018 other ICT qualifications were offered to RGS Secondary School pupils e.g. NPA PC Passport SCQF 5 (QEII), CIDA N/A Digital Applications Level 2 (RGS, SNHS). SNHS 2nd 69% 78/113) CIE A*(1); A(14); B(34); C(29) Comment: Av. Points per Entrant*: (A*= 58; A = 52; B = 46; C = 40; D = 34; E = 28; F = 22; G = 16;

2018: IOM Av = 40.06 = C A*-C = Level 2 qualification; D-G= Level 1 qualification.

* The GCSE points score system allows a quasi-continuous scale to be produced from the ordinal scale of reported GCSE grades A* to G. An A* grade is worth 58 points and so on down to a G grade worth 16 points.

69

TABLE 53: CONVERTING NATIONAL CURRICULUM LEVELS INTO GCSE MATHS GRADES

Level Grade Number & Algebra Shape, Space & Measures Handling Data (KS3) (KS4) 2 G Count sets of objects and use mental recall Use mathematical names for common Record results in simple lists and of addition and subtraction facts to 10. two-dimensional and three-dimensional tables. Begin to order numbers up to 100. Use shapes and describe their properties. mental calculation methods to solve Understand angle as a measurement of number problems involving money and turn and recognise right angles in a turn. measures. Use standard units of length and mass. 3 G Show understanding of place value in Use non-standard units, standard metric Construct bar charts and pictograms. numbers up to 100. Add and subtract units of length, capacity and mass, and numbers with 2 digits mentally and standard units of time, in context. numbers with 3 digits using written methods. Use mental recall of the 2, 3, 4, 5 & 10 times tables. Use simple fractions that are several parts of a whole & recognise when two fractions are equivalent. Use decimal notation and recognise negative numbers. 4 F Multiply and divide whole numbers by 10 Use and interpret co-ordinates in the first Record data and record them using a and 100. Use mental methods of quadrant. Make three-dimensional frequency table. Understand and use computation with the four operations, +, -, shapes (cubes and cuboids) by linking the mode and range to describe sets X & ÷ including tables up to 12 x 12. Add given faces or edges and drawing two- of data. Construct and interpret simple and subtract decimals to 2d.p. and order dimensional shapes and find areas by line graphs. decimals to 3 d.p. Recognise and describe number patterns and relationships counting squares. Reflect simple shapes including multiple, factor & square. Use in a mirror line. Find perimeters of simple simple formulae expressed in words. shapes and find areas by counting squares. 5 E/D Multiply decimals by 10, 100 & 1000. Use Draw and measure angles. Use language Averages of discrete data and range. four operations with decimals to 2 d.p. associated with angles. Symmetry of two- Interpretation of pie charts. Use of Order, add and subtract negative numbers. dimensional shapes. Metric and Imperial probability scale from 0 to 1. Find Calculate fractions and percentages of a units. Estimation of measures in everyday probabilities using methods based on quantity. Multiply and divide 3-digit number situations. equally likely outcomes and by a 2-digit number without a calculator. Estimate using approximations. Construct experimental evidence. and use simple formulae.

70

TABLE 53: CONVERTING NATIONAL CURRICULUM LEVELS INTO GCSE MATHS GRADES (Cont’d)

Level Grade Number & Algebra Shape, Space & Measures Handling Data (KS3) (KS4) 6 D/C Express one number as a 2-dimensional representation of 3 dimensional Create class intervals in a frequency table. fraction/percentage of another. objects. Classification of quadrilaterals. Find Construct pie charts. Draw conclusions Equivalences between fractions, decimals angles using symmetry properties of from scatter diagrams (understanding and percentages. Calculating ratios. Trial polygons. Find angles using properties of correlation). Identify all possible outcomes and improvement. Describe, in words, the intersecting and parallel lines. Circumference of two events. Know that the total rule for the next term, or nth term in a and area of the circle. Areas of linear probability of mutually exclusive events is linear sequence. Solve linear equations rectilinear figures. Volume of a cuboid. 1. with whole number coefficients. Represent Enlargement by a positive whole number mappings using four quadrants. scale factor. Devise instructions for a computer to transform shapes and paths. 7 C Round to 1s.f. to give approximation. Pythagoras’ theorem. Calculate length, area Specify hypothesis and test them by Understanding the effect of and volume in plane shapes and right prisms. designing and using appropriate methods multiplying/dividing a number by a number Locus of an object. Enlargement by a that take account of bias. Determine between 0 and 1. Solving numerical fractional scale factor. Recognise that a modal class and estimate mean/median problems using a calculator efficiently and measurement given to the nearest whole for grouped data. Frequency polygons to appropriately. Understanding of number may be inaccurate by up to half in compare distributions. Drawing of line of proportional change. Describe in symbols either direction. Understand compound best fit by inspection. Understanding of the next term or nth term in a quadratic measures e.g. speed. relative frequency. sequence. Simultaneous linear equations using algebraic and graphical methods. Simple inequalities. 8 B Calculations with powers, roots and Mathematical similarity. Trigonometry in two Cumulative frequency curves. Estimation numbers in standard form. Use of fractions dimensions. Formula for perimeter, area and of median and interquartile range. or percentages in repeated proportional volume by considering dimensions. Calculating probability of compound change or finding the original quantity. events given probabilities of either Substitution into formula of fractions, independent events or mutually exclusive decimals or negative values. Manipulation events. of algebraic formula. Finding common factors. Multiplying two linear expressions. Inequalities with two variables. Graphs of quadratic, cubic and reciprocal functions.

71