{"id":242421,"date":"2026-02-24T13:45:47","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T13:45:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/schoolsweek.co.uk\/?p=242421"},"modified":"2026-02-24T13:45:50","modified_gmt":"2026-02-24T13:45:50","slug":"dfe-wants-to-ditch-average-labels-for-school-progress-scores","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/schoolsweek.co.uk\/dfe-wants-to-ditch-average-labels-for-school-progress-scores\/","title":{"rendered":"DfE wants to ditch ‘average’ labels for school progress scores"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Schools will no longer be publicly compared to the national “average” for their progress scores in a proposed overhaul of government league tables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, ministers are proposing that schools be listed based on percentiles \u2013 so for example, they might be in one of five \u201cquintiles\u201d for pupil progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Department for Education has also fleshed out details on how a proposed new “best fit” progress score for low prior attaining pupils could work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under proposed reforms, league tables would also show the proportion of pupils achieving a grade 7 or above in English and maths GCSE, with breakdowns for key pupil groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New ratings for progress scores<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Currently, schools are given progress scores based on how much pupils improve during primary school, between primary school and GCSE and between GCSE and A-level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They are currently listed based on \u201cconfidence intervals\u201d. These are \u201cwell below average\u201d, \u201cbelow average\u201d, \u201caverage\u201d, \u201cabove average\u201d or \u201cwell above average\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
How performance tables currently look<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But in a consultation launched yesterday<\/a> the government said the \u201cmethodology is complex and we know it is poorly understood”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, it can \u201clead to labelling a large proportion of schools as \u2018average\u2019 and therefore limits users\u2019 ability to differentiate between performance\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCurrently, if a confidence interval includes zero (the national average for progress), then a school or college is labelled \u2018average\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means that two thirds of schools at key stage 2 and 43 per cent at 16 to 18 are \u201caverage\u201d, though the figure is a third for key stage 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bandings can also be impacted by school size. The smaller a school, the larger the confidence interval, \u201cmeaning smaller schools need to achieve higher progress scores to be labelled \u2018above average\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTherefore, a school can achieve a higher progress score than another but be assigned a lower banding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From averages to percentiles<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Instead, the government is proposing to continue to rank schools in order of progress score, but to assign bandings based on percentiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor example, if using quintiles, this would mean assigning the top banding to the 20 per cent of schools with the highest progress scores in a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis simpler approach will also ensure we have a more useful spread of bandings to differentiate between performance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it is \u201cstill important to reflect the uncertainty in progress scores\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DfE is therefore proposing to present three years of progress scores and bandings, along with cohort size and pupil characteristics and a \u201cshort pop-out box explaining the uncertainty due to cohort size\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It will then link to a technical document outlining the \u201cuncertainty inherent in all performance measures\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe think that presenting uncertainty as outlined above will add more value to the progress measures. We are planning to implement this across all key stages, with the first being the return of progress measures at key stage 2 in December 2026.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New progress measure for low prior attainers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The government also announced yesterday that they would consult on a new performance measure for key stage 4, in addition to progress 8, focused on the \u201cprogress made by pupils who enter secondary school behind their peers\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the consultation, the DfE said it was \u201cconsidering whether we could spotlight the performance of the low prior attainers (LPA) cohort via a bespoke \u2018best-fit\u2019 progress measure\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government already allocates pupils to prior attainment groups based on their key stage 2 results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is proposing to calculate a new, additional measure for those in low prior attainment groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DfE would then calculate progress scores for each pupil starting with a score for maths, at least one English GCSE and their best subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would calculate an additional progress score for every extra subject sat by a pupil and take their best progress score to calculate the new measure for the school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUsing pupils\u2019 best progress scores will encourage schools to enter them for as many qualifications as they feel appropriate for each pupil, without a penalty for empty slots, but also without an artificial cap or limit on what a pupil can attempt,\u201d the DfE explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adjustment could better reflect EAL starting points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Government could also make an adjustment to the baseline used for pupils with English as an additional language (EAL), taking the higher of their average score in reading and maths at the end of KS2, or just maths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The adjustment \u201cwould ensure that EAL pupils are assigned to prior attainment groups that are more reflective of their academic starting points\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt would mean approximately 31 per cent of EAL LPA pupils would move out of the low prior attainment cohort and would lead to fairer comparisons and progress calculations for pupils remaining in the LPA cohort.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consultation also sets out plans to adjust which additional academic measures the government publishes in league tables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This will include a new attainment measure showing the proportion of pupils getting a grade 7 or above in English and maths GCSE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There will also be additional breakdowns for key pupil groups, and a metric showing the proportion of disadvantaged pupils achieving certain grade thresholds compared to national and local averages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government is also consulting on previously-announced plans to reform the progress 8 key stage 4 performance measure in a bid to encourage uptake of a broader range of subjects.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The current ‘confidence interval’ ratings can limit understanding of a school’s performance, the government has said<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":93843,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[239],"post-theme":[2345],"class_list":["post-242421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-education-policy","post-theme-assessment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t