Can anyone please interpret these primary school KS2 results for me please

[Hotcrumpets]

I can't make head nor tail of them! Is this a 'good' school or not?

thanks

I don't think this data will help you. Go and see the school and get a feel for it.

I just had a look at my ds's school result.
Percentage achieving Level 4b or above, and Percentage achieving Level 5 or above seems significantly lower compared to d's school.

I haven't got a clue about interpreting results though. Sorry.

Ignore above on the results put them in the wrong order. This years results are in line with the national - they were below the national in 2012 and then have improved.

The Ofsted data dashboard is what you need: here it is for this school. It gives you comparative information.

This comparitative incormation might also help.

From a quick look at the data dashboard, this seems like a school which was underperforming in 2012, but which has really improved in recent years. Did they have a bad Ofsted / change of Head?

Sorry -second go as the 1st one was wrong- blame too much lemsip!

the school is smaller than typical. The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals is higher than typical. The percentage of pupils with EAL is lower than the national

It had a small Year 6 cohort of 21 - so each child was 4.76%.

The percentage of pupils with L4+ combined was significantly below the national in 2012 but t the attainment was high in 2013 and 2014 and in line in with the national in 2015.

There were fewer higher attaining pupils than national (l5%+)

100% of the pupils made the expected progress in reading, writing and mathematics. So the school is above the floor. The value added suggests that some pupils made more than expected progress.

Suggests that the low results are related to a small cohort who were low attaining at key stage 1 and key stage 2 (so maybe had SEN). The writing is high than the reading which may imply that the readings as a bit lower then they expected (writing is teacher assessment)

Disadvantaged pupils (those eligible for free school meals) did better than other children at the school

Absence and persistent absence are fine.

Thanks febreeze that a great summary!

Febreaze has already done a great summary. I would make it briefer to say it is now a school with good value added, achieving average results despite a relatively deprived intake. It has improved a lot in two years.

I echo others though that I would take these statistics, the Ofsted, and reputation with a pinch of salt. Go and see the school, and think about whether it is right for your child.

I wouldn't rely too much on that value added. I suspect it's more likely to be a reflection of the fact that the ks1 results were lower than they should have been even accounting for the disadvantaged intake.

Similarly, the reason the disadvantaged children are doing well compared to the other children is as much a sign of how badly the non-disadvantaged children did.

Looking at the DfE tables, I would suggest that the increase in ks2 results over the past few years might have more to do with some effective intervention/booster groups for certain groups of pupils than with what is going on in the classroom on a daily basis.

It would be probably be worth asking the school about the discrepancy between their reading results and the others if you get the chance. And about how their plan to ensure progression and improve attainment across the school.

Thanks you've all been very helpful. A friends children go there and said that over half the Y6 cohort had come to the school at different times so didn't actually start there. Not sure if that makes a difference.

No change of head or bad ofsted. Friend said lots of new teachers though.

One of her children were FSM and said that the school provides after school booster classes/tutors for FSM kids and those on the cusp of the next level. Perhaps why FSM kids do so well?

That's what I would have guessed looking at the tables. The disadvantaged pupils not only outperform disadvantaged pupils nationally but they achieve results that are inline with non-disadvantaged children nationally at 4, 4b+ and 5. The school have essentially closed the gap.

The % of non-disadvantaged children achieving 4+ is in line with the national average, but the % at 4b+ is about 30% less than average and the % at 5+ is about half the national average. Obviously the data doesn't tell the whole story. There might be an underlying reason why that is the case which you won't find unless you ask.

I think the quintile data on fsm eligibility is a bit misleading. The school (or the 2015 yr 6 cohort) seems to be broadly average in terms of deprivation. The 2nd quintile thing makes it look worse than it actually is.