Performance Review 2017

Published: 12 November 2017
This article provides a review of Sheffield's education performance in 2017. It compares outcomes across the education system (from Early Years to A-level) with national performance and in relation to other core cities and statistical neighbours.

There is much to be proud of in the 2017 educational performance of Sheffield. Outcomes across the system, from Early Years through to Post-16, see Sheffield broadly in line with national performance and performing well when compared to levels of deprivation and to similar places across the country. 

This position has been arrived at through a steady improvement over the past five years and leaves Sheffield in a starkly different place in the rankings to where it once was. We should recognise and celebrate this improvement, and our education community should be commended for it. We should also, however, remain focussed on the improvements that we want to see in the future, so that Sheffield young people have the best possible life chances.

This article will go through each of the key measures and review the performance in relation to national averages, in comparison to other Local Authority areas and in comparison to the other core cities and to our ‘statistical neighbours’. It will identify the strongest areas of performance and the areas of greatest concern.

 

Notes on rankings:

LA (Local Authority) ranking is out of 152 LAs in total. Sheffield deprivation index ranking is 104 and its Child Poverty ranking is 112 – so performance above these levels is also significant.

Core Cities ranking is out of 8 – the other core cities are Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Nottingham.

Statistical Neighbours ranking is out of 11 – the other places in this group are Bedford, Bolton, Calderdale, Derby, Leeds, Peterborough, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Telford & Wrekin and Southend-on-Sea.

 

Summary

There are twenty key measures, which span from early years to post-16 stages of education, considered below. Sheffield is ‘at or above national’ in ten of these (50%) and is also ‘in-line with national’ (e.g. just above, equal to or just below) in ten (50%) of the measures. There are, however, more measures (three) where Sheffield is well below national than well above (one measure).

When compared to all local authority areas, Sheffield is no longer amongst the weaker performers. Sixteen measures (80%) see Sheffield ranked higher than its Child Poverty ranking, with only two measures (10%) in the bottom quarter of LAs. This contrasts with seven measures (35%) which are in the top half of LAs. The average LA ranking across the measures is 86.8, which is 25 places higher than the Child Poverty Ranking and only 10 places below the median ranking.

Performance in comparison with Core Cities is also strong, with Sheffield ranked in the top three in fourteen measures (70%). This includes three measures where the City is the highest ranked Core City and a further five where it is ranked second. Three of the measures included have not yet reported rankings for 2017 and, given that performance in each has improved, we can expect to see the current average Core City rating (3.25) improve further.

When Sheffield is compared to its statistical neighbours, thirteen measures (65%) are in the top five rankings and the average statistical neighbours ranking is currently 4.5. Sheffield is in the top three rankings for nine measures (45%) but only ranked in the bottom three rankings in one measure (5%).

In summary Sheffield’s overall performance is in-line with national performance and out-performs both our context (in terms of the level of deprivation) and the performance of comparable places.

 

Early Years

Foundation Stage ‘Good Level of Development’ – 70% (up from 69% in 2016 but 1% point below national, which went up two % points to 71%).

Foundation Stage ‘Inequality Gap’ – 29.8 (improved from 31.6 in 2016 and moving from 0.2 worse than national to 1.9 better than national, which was 31.7 in 2017)

Notes

  • The LA ranking for the ‘FS GLD’ measure was 94, whilst the ‘FS Gap’ measure LA ranking was 55, which is our third best ranking currently.

  • It was disappointing to see the ‘FS GLD’ drop 1% point below national, having been equal to national in 2016, but this was offset by the ‘FS Gap’ measure being better than national for the first time.

  • Sheffield is ranked second amongst core cities for both of these measures.

  • The ‘FS Gap’ measure is ranked second whilst the ‘FS GLD’ measure is ranked third amongst statistical neighbours.

 

Primary - Key Stage One

Year One Phonics – 77% (which remains 4% points below the national average of 81%).

KS1 (Y2) Reading – 74% (improved from 71% in 2016 to narrow the gap to national to 2% points)

KS1 (Y2) Writing – 68% (improved from 65% in 2016 and remaining equal to the national average)

KS1 (Y2) Maths – 76% (improved from 71% in 2016 to move from 2% points below national to 1% point above in 2017)

Notes

  • The performance in Y1 Phonics is one of only two outcomes that place Sheffield in the bottom quarter of LAs (ranked 140). This is also reflected in a core cities ranking of 7 and a statistical neighbours ranking of 10.

  • The improvement in KS1 outcomes has led to Sheffield being ranked 1st amongst core cities for maths and reading and 2nd for writing.

  • Sheffield is ranked third amongst statistical neighbours for all three KS1 measures.

 

Primary - Key Stage Two

Note: KS2 measures are provisional at present. The final figures will have pupils who are recently arrived discounted from the results and this is likely to result in an increase in Sheffield’s results. The provisional data is provided with the anticipated final result shown in brackets where it differs from the provisional result.

KS2 (Y6) Reading, Writing & Maths Combined – 59% (60% after discounts) (improved from 52% in 2016 but 2% (1%) points below national, which increased by 8% points in 2017)

KS2 (Y6) Reading Attainment – 68% (69% after discounts) (improved from 62% in 2016 to narrow the gap to national to 3% (2%) points)

KS2 (Y6) Reading Progress – +0.05 (improved from -0.2 in 2016)

KS2 (Y6) Writing Attainment – 76% (77% after discounts) (improved from 74% in 2016 to remain equal to / (1% point above) the national average)

KS2 (Y6) Writing Progress – +0.89 (improved from +0.6 in 2016)

KS2 (Y6) Maths Attainment – 73% (improved from 69% in 2016 but 2% points below national, which increased by 5% points in 2017)

KS2 (Y6) Maths Progress – +0.33 (improved from +0.2 in 2016)

KS2 (Y6) Grammar, Punctuation & Spelling – 73% (74% after discounts) (improved from 70% in 2016 but 4% (3%) points worse than national in 2017) 

Notes

  • The LA ranking for KS2 writing attainment was 67, which is in the top half of LAs nationally. The core cities and statistical neighbours ranking was 2nd for this measure.

  • The LA ranking for KS2 maths attainment was 97, which is above the deprivation ranking. The core cities and statistical neighbours ranking was 4th for this measure.

  • The LA ranking for KS2 reading attainment was 114, which is just below the deprivation ranking. The Core Cities ranking was 3rd and the statistical neighbours ranking was 5th for this measure.

  • The performance in Y2 GPS is one of only two outcomes that place Sheffield in the bottom quarter of LAs (ranked 129). This is also reflected in both a Core Cities and statistical neighbours ranking of 8th.

  • Sheffield is currently ranked 3rd (writing), 4th (maths) and 6th (reading) amongst Core Cities for KS2 progress measures. The national rankings for 2017 will not be confirmed until later in the year, but are expected to rise given the improved performance.

 

Secondary – Key Stage Four

KS4 (GCSE) Progress 8 – +0.01 (equal to the 2016 outcome and 0.04 better than the national average)

KS4 (GCSE) Attainment 8 – 44.3 (which was 0.1 above national in 2017 compared to 0.2 below national in 2016. The decrease in outcomes relates to the new assessment measures introduced in 2017)

KS4 (GCSE) C+/4+ English and Maths Combined – 59% (equal to the 2016 outcome and the national average)

KS4 (GCSE) EBacc (Standard Pass) – 21% (a decrease of 1% point from 2016 in line with the decrease in national outcomes, retaining a 1% point gap to national)

Notes

  • The LA ranking for the KS4 Progress 8 measure is 56, which is in the top half of LAs nationally. The Core Cities ranking for this measure is 2 and the statistical neighbours ranking is 3.

  • The LA ranking for the KS4 Attainment 8 measure is 110, which is in line with the deprivation rankings, just above the Child Poverty ranking for the city. The Core Cities ranking for this measure is 3 and the statistical neighbours ranking is 6.

  • The LA ranking for C+/4+ English and Maths combined is 114, just below the Child Poverty ranking for the city. The Core Cities ranking for this measure is 3 and the statistical neighbours ranking is 7.

  • The LA ranking for EBacc (Standard Pass) is 92, above the deprivation ranking for the City. The core cities ranking for this measure is 5 and the statistical neighbours ranking is 6.

 

Post 16 – Key Stage Five

KS5 (A Level) %AAB or better – 20% (equal to the outcome in 2016 and two % points below the national average of 22% in both 2016 and 2017).

KS5 (A Level) Average points per entry – 31.2 (improved from 31.0 in 2016 but with the gap to national widening to 0.9 in 2017)

Notes

  • The LA ranking for the KS5 %AAB or better measure was 38, which is in the top quarter of LAs nationally. Sheffield is ranked first amongst Core Cities in this measure and third amongst statistical neighbours.

  • The LA ranking for the KS5 (A Level) Average points per entry measure is 94, which is above the deprivation ranking. Sheffield is ranked third amongst core cities and sixth amongst statistical neighbours for this measure.

 

Pupil Groups 

Attainment gaps for BME (black minority ethnic) and EAL (English additional language) pupils are continuing to close across a number of headline measures. BME and EAL pupils make better progress than white British pupils in both the primary and secondary phases.

Gaps are not closing fast enough for disadvantaged pupils, who make less progress in both the primary and secondary phases. Attainment and progress of white British disadvantaged pupils is a particular concern, as it is nationally.

Gaps for pupils with SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) are also not closing rapidly enough and SEND pupils make less progress than their peers.

The aggregation of additional needs is also a focus, considering pupils who have more than one characteristic which makes them potentially vulnerable to weaker progress or attainment. An example of this would be white British disadvantaged boys, who are typically achieving less well across the country and in Sheffield. 

 

Return to Articles