Research School Network: P8 figures What do they really mean?

So now we know. After all the speculation, spreadsheets and, not to be underestimated, significant concern, we have our Progress 8 (P8) figures. Perhaps I am a little premature, as the figures that we have remain subject to slight amendment, but we broadly know where the land lies.

If you work in a secondary school, the chances are that you have seen the projected manifestations of this system for some time. Whether through 4Matrix, SISRA, or some other data analysis tool, we have been able to chart projections as staff gave us anticipated grades. I am not here to debate the accuracy or otherwise of those systems, but like all pieces of evidence in school, I am much more concerned with meaning.

Progress 8 is the latest in a long line of attempts to create a single figure or grading that sums up a school. We have lived with the era of five GCSEs at grade C or above, the addition of English and maths, a VA or CVA figure, and, of course, the single Ofsted grading. All are designed to simplify the nature of what happens in school so that the outside world, predominantly non-educationalists, can understand us.

Simplification has its obvious downside. The breadth of 

a school experience is extremely difficult to condense. We are aiming to grow our young people so that they are academically, socially and emotionally able to flourish in the outside world. Some might add other words to that list, but the key point is that these multiple strands do not always sit comfortably together.

And yet I have heard the lament already. School leaders, worried about how their schools will be judged as a consequence of a fall in their P8 figure. I understand this, particularly if you are in a more vulnerable position, but we have been given an opportunity to use the evidence and help both ourselves and those judging us. Above all, we need to give these numbers meaning.

We are all aware that P8 is calculated using 10 subject slots, English and maths having been double counted. If we are at zero, then we have broadly achieved in line with national progression. So what if a school has suffered a fall of, say, 0.2 overall? What does this actually mean?

In this context, 0.2 would represent a reduction by a single grade in two out of the ten subject slots that year. Remember, students can only move by a whole grade in any given subject. Let’s put that the other way around, in eight out of the ten subjects, students will have performed in line with the previous year. Making that statement should immediately give the grading some perspective. In the majority of the areas there has been no significant change, but in a small number there has.

To that must be added the fact that, above grade 4, all the grade boundaries have narrowed. For example, there are now three grades – 4, 5 and 6 – to replace grades B and C. With narrower grade boundaries, we should expect greater fluctuation in performance, particularly of a single grade. Of course, if that single grade change occurred in English or maths, then the affect would be amplified.

Consequently, there may be several things a change of 0.2 may tell you. It is likely to highlight the variation that exists in your school, a topic that numerous studies have recognised as significant. NCSL reported* in 2011:

‘National and international evidence shows that if, in each school in England, the least effective teachers and departments were as effective as the best in that school – not the best in the region or nation, just the best in that school – then outcomes for students overall would be transformed.’

Equally, however, there are many things that this change in P8 does not tell you. It is unlikely to illustrate that teaching overall in that school has substantially changed. It does not tell you where the curriculum may be lagging. It does not tell you the choices that students made.

I am hoping that Amanda Spielman’s commentary recently in part reflects this. Her call for the inspectorate to move away from an exam results focus perhaps acknowledges the difficulty in using single judgement points to sum up a whole school. The variation between schools in our system is not as great as Ofsted’s grading structure may have led some to believe. We need to use the evidence to help show this.

Mark Woodlock

Headteacher

The Blue School, Wells

*Leadership for closing the gap and reducing variation in outcomes: developing a framework for action – Written by Professors Denis Mongon, University of London and Christopher Chapman, University of Manchester