March 2026

The big education news over the last couple of weeks has been the publication of the Education White Paper -  and the proposed SEND reforms have, of course, dominated the headlines.  I'm no SEND expert so I'll leave the debate around these changes to  people who are better informed than me, but there were also some 'data'  related proposals that are more up my street:

• The DfE is proposing to decouple Pupil Premium funding from FSM eligibility.  Their argument (which in my view is correct) is that FSM eligibility is  a poor indicator of income deprivation (especially when it includes  children that have been eligible at any time over the previous 6  years). They are proposing that, instead of FSM, they will use 'family  income data' which will allow them to "take into account how low family income is, and for how long this has been the case". In theory this should enable them to target PP  funding more accurately to support the most-deprived communities and  schools, and thereby have a greater impact on improving outcomes. They  also argue that it will mean that families won't have to register for  FSM in order to attract PP funding (I'm not sure that children missing  out on FSM is a good thing) and that school's won't have to spend a load  of time nagging parents to register (I can see the attraction of that).  Unsurprisingly, this re-focussing of funding will almost certainly come  with strings attached, in the form of new targets for closing the  'attainment gap' between 'Disadvantaged' and 'Other' children, but there  doesn't appear to be anything specific about this at the moment, and  there will be a consultation running during the summer of 2026 with  regard to these proposals. The detail of this proposal is in Part 1 / Chapter 3 of the White Paper.
• The DfE are also proposing to change the way measures of pupil progress are presented and they have already published a consultation exercise for this, which runs until 4th May.  There are lots of technical proposals about changes to how the KS4  progress 8 and Attainment 8 measures will be calculated, which will  probably be of interest to secondary school data managers and exams  officers, but the headlines are about the fact that they intend to stop describing schools'  progress as 'above average' 'average' or 'below average' and they will rank schools' progress scores instead; putting them into 'bandings' (e.g.  'top 20%' to 'bottom 20%'). Their argument for this seems to be that, at  the moment, too many schools are described as 'average' (it's about two  thirds of primary schools and one third of secondary schools) and that  this new approach will provide more differentiation of school outcomes.  In my opinion, given the high level of statistical uncertainty inherent  in progress measures, there are already too many schools being  given a hard time about what are deemed to be their poor rates of  progress and we don't need to move to a system which is apparently  designed to encourage even more over-interpretation of a very inexact  science. Moreover, they say that "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"!! They  say that they will address concerns over 'statistical uncertainty' by  providing 'guidance' and by presenting 3 year's worth of data, but I'm  not at all convinced that this will do much good especially as there  will only be one year of KS2 progress data to present in 2026 (unless  they go all the way back to 2022 & 2023 - which I think most people  would not see as being relevant to a school's current situation).  They've also not addressed the elephant in the room that, from 2028  onwards any measures of progress at KS2 are going to have to be based on  Reception Baseline assessments - and I still have major doubts as to  whether they will prove to be sufficiently robust. I was hoping that  they were going to move away from progress measures altogether and  develop the 'similar schools' attainment analyses methodology instead.  Alas, it seems not, based on this latest information. If you want more  technical discussion of the proposed changes to the pogress measures  then FFTEducationDatalab have written an article.

There's  lots of other interesting and potentially important proposals in the  White Paper (e.g.  moving all schools into Trusts, retention payments  for headteachers, training and recruitment, digital complaint handling).  If you want to catch up on summaries of all of the White Paper  proposals then I would recommend these articles in the TES and Schoolsweek.

Ofsted have just announced that the IDSRs now include attendance data that is based on the 'live' attendance feed that goes automatically from your MIS straight to the DfE. It looks as  though they are updating the system on a half termly basis rather than a  daily basis, but it does mean that inspectors will now have access to  relatively recent attendance data for your school when they visit,  rather than it being at least a year out of data as has been the case  previously. It's also interesting to note that the following statement  has now appeared in the IDSR itself: "school leaders can share their own [live] data with the inspection team if they wish".

Finally,  I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the 2026 testing & exam  season is fast-approaching. It's probably a good idea to keep a regular  eye on the Standard & Testing Agency website; they've just published updated guidance on KS2 assessments  and you need to have submiitted your KS2 registration data by the end of this week (March 6th) via the NCA Portal. If you aren't already subscribed to the STA email updates then I would recommend doing so as they are particularly important at  this time of the year for those involved in the statutory assessment  process. 

 First off, I understand that you've all received an email from the Leeds data team (on 23rd Jan) informing you of the decision not to purchase an LA subscription to FFTAspire for 2026-27, which means that you will no longer be able to purchase  your own FFT Aspire subscription through them. You'll still be able to subscribe directly with FFT, but that will probably be at a considerably higher price.
A couple of schools have asked me if not having access to FFT will affect my ability to write an Early Analysis Report for them over the summer; the short answer is NO - I get the data I  need for these reports from Perspective Lite, and the LA have said that  schools will be able to continue to subscribe to that system via them  as normal. So if you want an Early Analysis Report for 2026 you'll just  need to look out for the email that the LA sends this month about  Perspective Lite and make sure you subscribe to that.
I'm  not totally surprised about the LA's decision regarding FFT Aspire: with  the absence of KS2 progress measures for the last two years and with  the DfE now producing far more of their own attendance analyses, there  has been less reason for schools to use this system; and I suspect fewer  have been subscribing, especially given budgetary constraints.
Ironically,  KS2 progress measures will be returning this year so FFT will be more  useful than it has been recently, but schools will still be able to  access progress data from other systems (e.g. Perspective Lite &  ASP).
If you have a current subscription to FFT and are  wondering whether you need to continue, it might be worth having a chat  with colleagues in school and verifying how much use of it is currently  being made. If people are making a lot of use of it ( e.g. for KS2  estimates, or for tracking your own internal assessments) then it may  well be worth the additional expense of a direct subscription.  Otherwise, it  might be an opportunity to save a few quid.

I've just read the first new-style OFSTED report published for a Leeds school (at least, the first that I'm aware of). We'll need to wait until the  first batch of national statistics relating to the new-format  inspections are released later this month before we can start to get any  proper sense of what kind of level the judgements are being pitched at,  but even this single report provides some revealing insights:

• Firstly it is very interesting (and potentitally encouraging) to see  that Attendance & Behaviour has been judged as 'Expected Standard'  despite the school's published attendance figures being well-below  'average'. This gives some hope that inspectors may be prepared to look  past the raw data and evaluate what a school is actually doing to  improve attendance.
  
• Less positively, the school has received  'Needs Attention' for Achievement. Again, its attainment results are  well-below average, but for this area inspectors don't seem to have been  able to look past the raw data, even though they have recognised within  the narrative that results are improving in some areas, that the school  has significant challenges around mobility and that "Pupils who attend  the school longer term achieve closer to national averages".
  
• Even more worryingly, they also appear to have graded Inclusion and Leadership & Management as 'Needs attention' because they weren't happy with the schools Pupil Premium strategy, which they say 'lacks precision'.
  

It's  far too early to be sure, but this does add to my concern that under  this new regime, inspectors will be quite comfortable with handing out  'Needs Attention' judgements to many, or possibly even the majority of schools.  And this concern is reflected in an analysis of the first 27 new OFSTED reports to be published, which shows that more than a third of these schools have received at least one 'Needs Attention'  judgement. This analysis also reveals that the areas most-commonly  judged as 'Needs Attention' are - unsurprisingly - Achievement and  Attendance & Behaviour. It has also been spotted that the same  'generic phrases' are being repeated across multiple reports, especially  in the 'next steps' section of the report.

The full list of behaviour & attendance hub lead schools has just been published, and there's a few local schools on it,  including some who might be reading this email! I'm not entirely sure  but I think that, rather than contacting these support-schools directly,  you need to 'join the support programme' first by filling in an online form to apply.

Also in the news recently was Bridget Philipson's announcement that school's should only use formal suspensions in response to the 'most serious' forms of behaviour, and encouraging schools to make more use of internal suspensions instead. The official guidance is yet to be published, but a DfE blog does  provide a little more detail. The problem, as far as I see it, is that  many schools (mainly secondary) already use internal suspension or  'isolation' as an alternative to formal suspension; and its not without  its own problems. The blog tries to draw a distinction between internal  suspension and 'isolation', describing the former in much more positive  terms than the latter, but it's really unclear how - or whether - there  will be any monitoring of which of these strategies schools use. And of  course, there's no additional funding to help with the additional  staffing that would presumably be required to implement a quality  internal suspension provision. A cynic might suggest that this is just  an attempt to reduce formal exclusion statistics (which would also help  to raise official attendance figures, because internally suspended  pupils would still be recorded as 'present').


Finally, over the last few months I've been trying to get my head around the implications of the release of the new 2025 Indices of Deprivation data,  and to incorporate this information into the 'Beyond The School Gates'  reports that we produce for a lot of schools. There have been quite a  few changes to how these figures have been calculated, and these changes  affect the comparability of the new 2025 data with the old 2019 data.  Perhaps the most significant change is that the Income deprivation  measure now takes a household's housing costs into account when deciding whether or not it is 'income-deprived'. This change has had the effect of moving areas in which housing costs are high up the income deprivation rankings, as noted by Christopher Reynolds in a recent article for Oxford Economics.  Conversley, many areas in which housing costs are lower than average  are now not ranked as highly for income deprivation as they used to be.  At a national or even LA level, these changes might be fairly minor, but  we've found that they can have a significant impact on the deprivation  figures for individual schools, because they often have a large  proportion of their children living across a small area. For example,  we've just done a report for a school which has almost a fifth of its  pupils in one Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) - and  the IDACI ranking of  this LSOA has slipped from the 2nd decile based on the 2019 rankings to  the 3rd decile on the 2025 rankings. This means that the overall  proportion of the school's pupils identified as living in 1st or 2nd  decile LSOAs has fallen by almost 20%. This could have  implications for the school because these deprivation figures are often  used by local authorities, the government and third sector organisations  to prioritise funding and to contextualise performance. Because we work  with individual schools and don't have access to LA-wide data we  currently have no way of knowing the potential impact on every  individual school, but as soon as I get the chance I'll be trying to  engage colleagues at Leeds LA in a conversation about this.

 

Revised KS2 data for 2024-25 has now been published, which  should reflect any removals, remarks etc that you have successfully  applied for. However, you'll need to be careful about which system you  choose to admire your data in. These revised figures were published in  the DfE Performance tables yesterday and have been available in the Ofsted Inspection Data Summary Reports for over a week; but for some reason beyond my understanding the DfE Analyse School Performance (ASP) system is still showing provisional 2024-25 KS2 data and it isn't scheduled to be updated until January. I  still find it mystifying as to why the government is incapable of  updating all of its systems at the same time. As for the main 'third  party' non-governmental systems: as of this morning FFTAspire still appears to still only have provisional KS2 data, while Perspective Lite is showing the revised figures.

The picture for attendance/absence data is arguably even more messy - and not consistent with the attainment  data. 2024-25 data is currently available in the OFSTED IDSRs (but only  for autumn & spring terms), Perspective Lite has 2024-25 data for  the full year, and FFT Aspire also has full year data for 2024-25 and  even some data for 2025-26. However, the DfE Performance Tables are  still inexplicably showing 2023-24 absence data, as is Analyse School  Performance.

It's almost as if someone is intentionally trying to make things difficult for us.

Year 4 Multiplication Tables Check Data for 2024-2025 has also now been published. The national data is available here and shows that there has been an increase in attainment compared to  last year. The average score has risen from 20.6 in 2024 to 21.0 in  2025, and that the percentage achieving full marks has increased from  34% to 37%. The only place I've so-far been able to find any school level data for 2025 is in the OFSTED IDSR, but you'll have to wrap your head around the  'imaginative' presentation style that they have adopted this year -  which is making even my head hurt.

National EYFS Foundation Stage Profile data for 2024-2025 was published by the DfE at the end of November and is available here,  but it probably won't tell you much that you don't already know if  you've had one of my Early Analysis Reports or if you have looked in  Perspective Lite, which has had this data available since July.

National Exclusions / Suspensions data for 2024-25 was also published in November and is available here,  but only for the first two terms of that year. Again, it's a case of  lucky-dip as to where you might be able to find your school level data  for 2024-25; so far the only place I've been able to find it is in  Perspective Lite; with The DfE Performance Tables, OFSTED IDSR and ASP  all still showing 2023-24 data as of this morning.
I think (hope) that's it for recent data releases.


The DfE are continuing to issue reminders that the Primary Assessment Gateway (PAG) will be closing down for good on the 19th December and that you should  make sure that you have downloaded any documents relating to the 2024 to  2025 test cycle before then. The PAG will be replaced by the National Curriculum Assessments (NCA) Portal  for the 2025-26 test cycle. If you haven't yet set up an account for  this new portal they are now advising that you contact the national  curriculum assessments helpline on 0300 303 3013 or at assessments@education.gov.uk.

To finish, here's a few items of recent news that have caught my eye:

• There appear to be some worrying teething problems with the DfE's 'similar schools' attendance reports,  with several schools reporting inaccuracies in the data or unhelpful  comparisons with other schools - such as suggesting that headteachers  try to seek advice from and collaborate with schools at the other end of  the country, or even with themselves. These reports are, of course,  AI-generated; and it seems that they are as prone to inaccuracies and  inconsistencies as ChatGPT, Grok and all the others.  While I'm keen on  'similar schools' analyses in principle, they really need to get these  systems to a proper level of reliability before we can really trust what  we are reading.
  
• The government has (very quietly) announced plans to replace Free School Meal eligibility with data relating to family income as its trigger for pupil premium funding. Again, in principle this  seems like a good idea: there are long-standing concerns about the fact  that many families who would qualify for FSM don't actually register for  it - and this new system should ensure that every child who qualifies  will automatically receive the funding. The government have also said  that the overall spend on pupil premium funding 'will be  maintained' but there doesn't appear to be any details about when this  change will be introduced or which year's benchmark funding figure will  be used. Things are further complicated by the fact that FSM-eligibility  is due to be extended to all children from households in receipt of  Universal Credit in September 2026, which would see an additional  estimated half a million children becoming eligible for free meals (but  not pupil premium funding apparently). This new system might therefore  be a way of avoiding potential confusion around what 'type' of FSM  eligibility qualifies for PP funding. Either way - it's bound to affect  individual schools differently, with some 'winners' and some 'losers' in  terms of PP funding levels.
  
• And finally, the government has today announced a £3bn funding package to create 50,000 additional SEN places in mainstream schools,  over the next three years. I think we can all agree that something  needs to be done urgently to solve the SEN crisis, but I've no idea  whether this is the way to do it. The NAHT have broadly welcomed the  announcement but there are concerns that councils will only be able to  spend the money on the creation of physical spaces and resources  for children with SEN in existing schools, with nothing identified for  the appointment of the additional (suitably qualified) staff who are  also obviously going to be needed. Moreover, this isn't new  money, it's been re-directed from the existing school-building  programme, meaning that there will be far fewer new schools being built  than was originally planned.
  
   

 The new Inspection Data Summary Reports (IDSRs) were published on 4th November. You can access your school's report from the IDSR portal (using  the same login details as for DfE Sign-In portal). Once you are in the  system, click on your school name to bring the IDSR up on screen. It's  really not designed to be printed out, but you can click on the  'download this page' button: this creates a .html file in your download  folder, which you can then view in a browser without having to log into  the system every time you want to look at it.
I  was kind of hoping that there would have only been minimal changes made  to the IDSR format this year, but alas, someone has been allowed to use  their imagination and there is plenty of new stuff to get your heads  around, including:

• 'local area' comparative figures in the 'context' section. Previously, your school's contextual  information was compared to national 'averages', but this year they have  decided to compare against averages for your 'local area', as defined  by the MSOA (Middle Super Output Area) in which your school is located.  An MSOA typically has a population of between 5k-15k; they tell you the  name of the MSOA you are in at the top of the context table (e.g. 'Leeds  001') but they don't provide a map of the area covered. It's possible  to view a map of the Leeds MSOAs here: https://leedscc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=d7819809dd554f6e929b8382b7a96e43 but  you'll need to play around with the menu options (use the 'layers'  option) to show the MSOA boundaries. I haven't yet decided whether I  think this is a good change or not: I can see some benefit in providing  some local context, but they are still comparing your 'performance'  against national averages, which makes the localised context seem a bit  redundant to be honest.
  
• There's more detail on attendance (they're calling it attendance now, as opposed to 'absence' in previous  years). There's 4-years' worth of data, but at the moment the 2024-25  figures are only for Term 1, so you need to be aware that they don't  reflect the whole of the most-recent year. There's a 'banding' judgement  indicating where you sit within the national distribution; a  description of your 'trend' (e.g. improvement or decline) relative to  the national trend, and a reminder of key context (e.g. 'High FSM').  There's also separate tables for FSM6 and SEN pupils' attendance.
  
• There's also more detail on suspensions, following the same format as attendance.
  
• The attainment section has been completely re-formatted. They now present judgements  about outcomes at KS2, Y4 MTC, and in Phonics all together in one  'graphic' for 3-year average attainment; another one for individual  years; and a third for progress. I would ignore the progress information  entirely as the most recent figures are only for 2023. They group your  performance measures according to whether they are 'below', 'close to  average', or 'above' national; and they use an over-complicated  colour-coding methodology to indicate statistical significance. There  are also sub-tabs for Disadvantaged pupils and for prior attainment  groups (again, ignore the latter as they don't have prior attainment  data for the two most-recent years). They  then essentially repeat all of that information in a series of separate  tables, which although lengthy are probably easier to understand than  the summary 'graphics'.
  
• Finally, there is a representation of the data that will eventually be published alongside the inspection report (i.e. the 'Report Card').  Again, this repeats a lot of what has already been presented, but is  presented in a format and level of detail which is deemed to be more  accessible to the general public. At the moment, all of the 2024-25 data  for this section is redacted (shown as 'R') because it's all still  provisional until the performance tables are published in December.
  
• If  you're not expecting an imminent inspection, it might be worth  'parking' this for a while, until you have a good few hours (haha) to  peruse it at your leisure.
  

As I'm sure you will all be aware, the new Inspection Framework went 'live' at the beginning of this week, and they snuck in a last minute 'tweak' to the wording of the 'Achievement' section in the 'toolkit'.  They have added the word 'typically' to the following paragraph, which  describes a school operating at the 'expected standard':

• "On the whole, pupils achieve well. Typically,  this will be reflected in their attainment and progress in national  tests and examinations, which are broadly in line with national  averages, including for disadvantaged pupils."
  

I  assume this is to provide a bit of 'wriggle room' for schools that have  had an unusually low set of results in one particular year. However, it  doesn't change my significant misgivings about the general thrust of the  whole Achievement section; the current wording of which looks like it  will make it difficult for any school whose raw attainment is  consistently below average to meet the 'expected standard' criteria.


The Curriculum and Assessment Review report & recommendations were published on 5th November, and I have to say that I was quite  underwhelmed. They clearly spent most of their time focussing on the  secondary phase; and on curriculum rather than assessment: The primary  assessment section only takes up 4 of the 197 pages of the full report.  Their statement that "the primary assessment system is broadly working well"  is in my view, symptomatic of the fact that they haven't really looked  at it very closely, and I can't help thinking that this has been a very  big missed opportunity to make some much-needed changes. Their very  limited recommendations for primary assessment are to:

• encourage schools to continue to make use of Optional KS1 tests
  
• explore ways to enable children (with SEND) who currently cannot access the PSC and the MTC to be able to do so.
  
• develop an improved teacher assessment framework to provide teachers with clarity and include a greater focus on writing fluency
  
• review external moderation processes
  
• replace  the current GPS test with an amended test, which retains some elements  of the current GPS test but with new tasks to better assess composition  and application of grammar and punctuation. Once the new test is  established in schools, the DfE may wish to consider whether the role of  the test in accountability should remain as stands, or whether any  changes, such as including the new test in headline measures, should be  explored.
  

So - absolutely no sign of rationalising or  streamlining the currently bloated system; just a few tweaks here and  there, with some possible additions! Thanks for that.

 

Many thanks to all those of you that have already returned your  service order requests for 2025-26. If you've been meaning to get in  touch but haven't yet had time, I've still got capacity to accept some  more work for next year, so please do send me your requirements (before  the end of term if possible) and I'll get you on the work schedule. I've  attached another copy of the 'order form' to this email.

Once we are back from the Easter break, we will of course be entering statutory-assessment season. The latest newsletter from the Standards & Testing Agency is packed full of instructions and reminders for the attention of your  Assessment Leads, and it's particularly useful to use it as a checklist  at this time of year. Amongst all of the usual reminders in the  newsletter, there is a invitation for schools to sign up to "feature testing of the new National Curriculum Assessments Portal in June":  I'm a bit flumoxed by this as I hadn't heard of it before; I don't know  whether it is replacing an existing system or is a new service; and I  can't find anything about it on tinternet. It was only last year that  the KS2 results service moved to the PAG - and as this process appeared  to work quite well in 2024 I'm hoping it's not going to change again  this year. If anyone knows what this new system is supposed to do,  please let me know (I don't receive all of the emails that get sent into  schools about this kind of thing, thankfully)!

On 18th March, Becky Francis published the interim report of the Curriculum & Assessment Report. You can download a full copy of the report here, or read a summary of the main headlines here. 

It definitely looks as though any changes that come as a result of this review are going to be more of an evolution rather than a revolution: the report appears to confirm that there is no appetite for making fundamental changes to the current curriculum, but it does talk about introducing  reforms aimed at making sure the 'system works well for everyone', and  they also want to look at the depth and breadth of the curricula at all  key stages.

In terms of assessment, it seems clear that  the EBacc is on its way out and that there will be some recommendations  about 16-19 qualifications, but again, it doesn't look as though there  will be any fundamental changes to GCSEs and A levels in the secondary  phase, and that there won't even be any wholesale changes to primary  tests and assessments. The report states that "we are clear that formal assessments are an important part of key stage 1 & 2". However, they have stated that they are going to look at whether the SPAG test is fit for purpose, and also "how the assessment of writing at key stage 2 can be improved to support high and rising standards".

So  at the moment it seems as though things like the Phonics Screening  Check and the Multiplication Tables Check are going to survive for the  foreseeable future.

The consultation on the proposed new OFSTED inspection framework and associated report cards closes on April 28th. It seems as though  lots of the big stakeholder organisations have submitted official  responses on behalf of the memberships (including this one from ASCL) and that many of them have highlighted significant concerns. Meanwhile, OFSTED have been sending out extremely mixed messages about whow they will respond to negative feedback, with one of their  Directors saying that they would be prepared to 'think again' while  another saying that they would not be undertaking any more consultations  and that they are determined to introduce changes in Novemmber 2025.  Sir Martyn Oliver has been even more combative,  accusing the critics of the proposals of being 'anti-accountability'. I  think that most of the people (myself included) who have raised  concerns are just trying to prevent a potential disaster from happening  next year, but hey whatever.

The Education Policy Institute have published a piece of research that backs up the findings of previous studies (e.g. this one from cresh.org.uk), evidencing the fact that there are significant differences between the number of children estimated to be living in poverty and those who are receiving FSM or PP.  These differences are particularly acute for certain ethnic minority  groups, so if you have ever thought that your FSM figures don't  accurately represent the levels of poverty amongst your pupil  population, then it would be worth having a read. (You could also  commission a 'Beyond The School Gates' Report from me, which would  provide even more detail on this issue ).

And for those of you thinking about updating your Pupil Premium Strategy, it might be useful to have a look at this evaluation report from the DfE which has looked at how other schools have used the funding and the impact that the funding has had.

I was going to finish this month's missive with reference to the latest Academy CEO salary figures (despite the harsh financial situation that many schools are facing,  there are apparently more than 60 trusts that can afford to pay their  CEOs at least £200k) but seeing as one of the people on the  'top-earners' list is the CEO of a Leeds-based MAT I've decided it's  probably wise not to make a big deal of it. Instead, I'll focus on the  nomination (by the Conservative Party) of Amanda Speilman for a peerage.  Some people have described the nomination as an 'insult' and  'offensive', but it's probably quite appropriate for the person who  presided over one of the worst ever episodes in OFSTED's history to sit  alongside the likes of: Michelle Mone who is currently being investigated for £200m PPE fraud; Evgeny Lebedev the Russian oligarch and son of a KGB agent; and Charlotte Owen who was given a life-peerage at the age of 30 in recognition of her  services as ... an intern in Boris Johnson's office. The House of Lords  seems to be packed-full of people who would probably fail a background  check for a place on a primary school's governing body, and maybe it's  safer to keep them in Westminster, where they can't do any real harm.

The fall-out from the announcements about the proposed new OFSTED inspection framework has continued to escalate, with a pretty consistent chorus of criticism  and very little in the way of approval. Those who are close to Ruth Perry and Caversham Primary have unsurprisngly been particularly vocal, and I agree that these  proposals don't do very much at all to address the issues that were so  problematic in the old system. 

Even the claim that the  'single word judgements' have been scrapped doesn't really hold water:  it's true that schools will no longer be labelled as 'Good' or  'Outstanding', but some schools could still find themselves being  described as 'requiring significant improvement' (or worse) due to a  perceived failing in just a single evaluation area.

In last month's email I provided some detail on a specific issue I had spotted relating to the Attendance Evaluation Area in the Framework. I won't repeat that again, but I will  say that I've double-checked my logic and I still think that it's going  to be possible for a school to fall into the 'requires significant  improvement' category purely based on their attendance figures, even if  every other area is secure or better. I've passed this information  to Simon Kidwell from NAHT, who has said that they will feed it into  their official response to the consultation. Hopefully it will be picked  up and adressed before it becomes a potential disaster.

Moreover, Ofsted have announced that they will be trialling the new inspection framework with 'visits' to 240 settings being organised. Again, this should be  another opportunity for some of the more glaring issues with the  inspection toolkits to be identified and adressed.

Bridget Phillipson has announced £20m of targetted funding to support 'stuck schools' (those graded ‘requires improvement’ at their last inspection and less than ‘good’ at the inspection before that) but SchoolsWeek have done an analysis which shows that, of the 626 schools which currently meet these  criteria, 85% are already academies, and that a third of them will be  ineligible to receive the additional funding because they have undergone  'structural change' (i.e. been academised) since their last inspection.  The analysis also shows that these schools are much more concentrated  in areas of high deprivation. This doesn't just demonstrate the fact  that forced academisation isn't a particularly effective tool for school  improvement, but also that the perceived weaknesses identified in  OFSTED inspections are much more likely to be rooted in the external  societal factors affecting the school, than in anything that has or can  be done within or by the school itself. Again, this begs the question as  to whether it would be more sensible to address these societal issues  directly, than to try to 'fix' the school system.

In more positive news, the government has announced that it is going to make it easier for parents - and more importantly - schools to check free school meal eligibility. The  proposals appear to fall short of full 'auto-enrollment' but it does  appear that they will make it much easier for schools to identify which  families are eligible and to target them directly in order to get them  to sign up for the benefit. Pressure for introducing full auto-enrollment continues to be applied from a number of organisations, so hopefully  the government will see sense on this issue in the near future.

The Chair of the Curriculum & Standards Review, Becky Francis, has provided an indication of the direction of her thinking in a recent article.  I haven't spotted any concrete or specific proposals within the  article, but it is encouraging that she appears to want to make measures  of attainment and achievement more 'inclusive': "In  practice, ‘high standards’ currently too often means ‘high standards  for some’ ... The socio-economic attainment gap remains unconscionably  large in  spite of efforts to reduce it by governments of all colours. The same is  true for the progress gap for young people with SEND. Our ambition is  ‘high standards for all’. We must aim high, drive up standards for all  our young people, and ensure that none are left behind. This is one of  the most significant challenges facing the curriculum and assessment  review, but it is also an immense opportunity, and one that we have  embraced as we undertake our work."

This review is  likely to have a major influence on how & what our children learn,  as well as how & what schools are judged on, for the next decade or  so. Let's hope they do a better job of their reforms than OFSTED appear  to be doing at the moment!

Unfortunately, this month's update is going to have to start with a repeat from the January 2024 email because, once again, the DfE are being slow to update their data systems. Despite the KS2 performance tables being released a month ago, we still haven't got the revised KS2 data in ASP, and they also haven't yet passed on that data to  Perspective Lite and FFTAspire. This means that I am currently unable to  make the updates to the Early Analysis Reports that some of you have  requested.
Moreover, although the MTC data has been available for individual schools in ASP for some time, it still hasn't found it's way to Perspective Lite yet, so that section of your reports will also have to continue to wait to be updated. It's now less than 6 months until the next round of MTCs have to be administered and I'm starting to wonder whether we will get last year's data before then!

There's very little in the way of new information from the Standards & Testing Agency that's worthy of mention but there was something in their latest email  that caught my eye. There was a "reminder" of changes to the way in  which absent pupils are handled in the KS2 tests. I haven't  previously spotted anything about this, I can't find any mention of it  in any other publications and the article ends by saying that more  details will be published in March, so I'm not convinced that 'reminder'  is the correct description. Anyway, here's the details:

• DfE have changed the way they treat absences in the KS2 tests, to support  pupils who cannot sit all tests due to unavoidable circumstances. 
• Historically,  where a pupil was absent for a test in a subject with multiple test  papers and unable to take it using a timetable variation, they would  receive an outcome of ‘A’ (absent) for the entire subject.
• From  now on (i.e. from 2025 onwards) if  a pupil is absent for one test paper but receives enough raw marks in  the remaining papers to meet the expected standard, they will receive an  outcome of ‘AS’ (at standard). If the pupil does not achieve enough raw  marks, they will receive an outcome of ‘A’ (absent). No scaled score  will be provided in either scenario.
• Apparently, DfE have also applied this change and updated pupil data retroactively for  the academic year 2023 to 2024. The updated data will not be visible on  the PAG, but is reflected in the revised school-level data published by DfE on Thursday 12 December.
• Apparently, they are also contacting all schools with affected pupils directly, but there is no action for schools to take.
• The official test administration guidance doesn't currently appear to reflect this change, but the STA article states that it will be updated in March 2025.
• My  interpretation of this change is that there are no circumstances in  which this could have a negative impact on your overall school  performance data, but it could (in a very small number of cases) improve  the the published figures for the school.
  

The big news in the wider world of education is that the government's Children's Wellbeing & Schools Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons last week, despite an attempt by the  Conservative Party to scupper it, by forcing a vote on an amendment  (which proposed a national inquiry into grooming gangs) that if passed  would have killed the entire Bill. This is a BIG Bill which pushes  forward a total of 39 policies which will have a far-reaching impact on our school system. Some of these policies (e.g. those affecting academy freedoms) will be popular with some and not with others, but there are also some policies which I think nearly all people would agree are well-overdue and need to be implemented as soon as possible. These include:

• Compulsory registers for children 'not in school'.  These are something that a lot of LAs (including Leeds) have been  trying to maintain for many years, with limited success. Hopefully, the  fact that they should now become a legal requirement will mean that the  teams responsible for them will be provided with the funding and  staffing they need to maintain them effectively.
• Greater regulation of home schooling.  This should make it harder for parents to remove children from school  for nefarious reasons, as well as making it more difficult for  unscrupulous schools to use 'home-schooling' as a back-door for  off-rolling unwanted pupils.
• Stronger controls over and monitoring of 'private' schools and crackdown on 'illegal' schools'.  We are all aware of the explosion in the numbers of private educational  settings and unregistered settings over recent years, and the growing  numbers of children who are moved from mainstream schools into these  settings. There are a host of potential safeguarding issues which need  to be addressed, as well as concerns about the quality of education that  children placed in these settings receive.
• A Single Unique Identifier to be introduced across multiple data sets. "But we already have the  UPN!" I hear some of you cry. The problem that we have always had with  the UPN is that it isn't actually Unique(!!) in several ways: it's only  used within the state school sector and doesn't extend to early  years settings, private schools, FE settings or HE settings, let alone  the NHS, social care and the police. This makes the sharing of data  across different agencies incredibly difficult and allows children to  get easily lost in the system. The UPN isn't even fully unique within the state school system, for example some of you may have had to deal  with problems caused by temporary UPNs being issued, leading to children  ending up with multiple UPNs. This is going to be a very difficult  change to get right, and one which will probably cause some serious  headaches along the way. But if it helps to reduce harm and ultimately  save lives, it's something that we all should be supporting and working  hard to implement.
  

In less positive news, there's more  evidence of the DfE looking for ways to reduce expenditure, such as  today's announcement that Computing Hubs are to be scrapped, while Language Hubs are to be scaled back.  This comes on the back of a previous decision to close down the Science  Hubs and to end funding for the Latin Excellence Programme ("Vae mihi!"). A Schools Week investigation last year found nearly £700 million had  been spent on running 13 hubs.