Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1)

Published 4 May 2018

Last updated 14 May 2019 - see all updates

There is a new version of this page. View the latest version.

Contents

1. Main facts and figures

• overall, 76% of pupils finishing year 2 in 2016/17 met the expected standard in reading and 25% of pupils met the higher standard (making these figures the national averages)
• Chinese pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard and Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to do so, at 84% and 27% respectively
• Chinese pupils were most likely to meet the higher standard and Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to do so, at 35% and 2% respectively
• across all ethnic groups, a higher percentage of girls than boys met both the expected and higher standards
• within every ethnic group, a lower percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) met the expected standard than those who were not eligible, except for Gypsy/Roma pupils

Things you need to know

In 2016/17, there were 653,945 pupils at the end of year 2, and ethnicity was known for 646,520 (99%) of them.

Of those whose ethnicity was known, 75% were White, 11% were Asian, 6% were Black, 6% were Mixed, 2% were from the Other ethnic group and 0.5% were Chinese.

The 2015/16 key stage 1 assessments were the first to assess the new, more challenging national curriculum. The expected standard was raised to be higher than the old level 2. As a result, figures for 2015/16 and 2016/17 are not comparable to those for earlier years.

Teacher assessments for year 2 pupils studying the national curriculum are collected and reported by the Department for Education (DfE), but test results for those pupils are not collected.

School level data is not published for key stage 1.

Results for the Isles of Scilly and the City of London, which have only one school each, have been excluded from local authority breakdowns.

The Department for Education (DfE) has also excluded, or ‘suppressed’, very small numbers (for example, values of 1 or 2, a percentage based on 1 or 2 pupils who achieved, or 0, 1 or 2 pupils who did not achieve a particular standard).

This is because, where the size of the ethnic group population is small enough that an individual’s identity could be revealed, information is suppressed to preserve confidentiality. This is consistent with DfE’s statistical policy statement on confidentiality (PDF opens in a new window or tab) (PDF).

Pupil numbers for key stage 1 vary between measures of attainment for different subjects. This is because pupils who don't have a valid teacher assessment for a particular subject are excluded from the total. For more about valid teacher assessments, see the Methodology section.

What the data measures

This data measures the reading attainment of children at the end of key stage 1 (year 2) when pupils are aged 6 to 7.

The data covers the academic year 2016/17 (September 2016 to July 2017). Data for the academic year 2015/16 is available in the download file.

The standards for this measure are divided into 2 categories:

• expected standard
• higher standard

To reach the expected standard, pupils must have been assessed by a teacher as 'working at the expected standard' or 'working at a greater depth within the expected standard'.

To reach the higher standard, pupils must have have been assessed by a teacher as 'working at a greater depth within the expected standard'.

The ethnic categories used in this data

This data uses categories from the Department for Education’s school census, which is broadly based on the 2001 national Census, with 3 exceptions:

• Traveller of Irish Heritage and Gypsy/Roma children have been separated into 2 categories
• Sri Lankan has been added to the Asian/Asian British group but is not reported separately
• Chinese pupils have been assigned a separate category

These changes were made after consultations with local authorities and lobby groups.

The categories in the school census are as follows:

White:

• White British
• White Irish
• Traveller of Irish Heritage
• Gypsy/Roma
• Other White

Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups:

• White and Black Caribbean
• White and Black African
• White and Asian
• Other Mixed background

Asian/Asian British:

• Indian
• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Sri Lankan
• Other Asian background

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British:

• Black African
• Black Caribbean
• Other Black background

Chinese

Other ethnic group

Information is provided for both detailed and broad ethnic groups where possible and when the data is available.

The 6 broad categories used are as follows:

• Asian/Asian British
• Black/African/Caribbean/Black British
• Chinese
• Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups
• White
• Other ethnic group

However, local authority data is only provided for 5 broad ethnic groups. Information about the specific ethnic categories is excluded to preserve confidentiality and ensure individuals cannot be identified. Information about the Other ethnic group is not given because DfE does not publish data for this group at the local authority level.

The 5 broad categories are as follows:

• Asian/Asian British
• Black/African/Caribbean/Black British
• Chinese
• Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups
• White

2. By ethnicity

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standards in reading by ethnicity

Ethnicity	Expected standard	Higher standard
All	76	25
Asian	77	24
Bangladeshi	75	22
Indian	83	33
Pakistani	72	18
Asian other	78	26
Black	77	23
Black African	78	24
Black Caribbean	74	20
Black other	74	22
Chinese	84	35
Mixed	78	27
Mixed White/Asian	81	32
Mixed White/Black African	77	26
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	73	21
Mixed other	79	29
White	76	26
White British	76	26
White Irish	77	30
White Irish Traveller	33	5
White Gypsy/Roma	27	2
White other	70	20
Other	68	18

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity Summary

The data shows that:

• overall, 76% of pupils met the expected standard in reading and 25% met the higher standard, making these figures the national averages in 2016/17
• 84% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard and 35% met the higher standard (the highest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 27% of pupils from the Gypsy/Roma pupils met the expected standard and 2% met the higher standard (the lowest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 26% of White British pupils met the higher standard – 1 percentage point higher than the national average

3. By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in reading by ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals

Ethnicity	FSM	Non-FSM
	%	%
All	61	78
Asian	68	78
Bangladeshi	69	76
Indian	72	84
Pakistani	66	73
Asian other	68	79
Black	70	79
Black African	72	80
Black Caribbean	67	76
Black other	68	76
Chinese	76	85
Mixed	65	81
Mixed White/Asian	62	84
Mixed White/Black African	70	79
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	63	77
Mixed other	67	81
White	58	78
White British	58	79
White Irish	47	82
White Irish Traveller	30	37
White Gypsy/Roma	28	27
White other	59	71
Other	62	70

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals Summary

Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is used as an indicator of deprivation by the Department for Education. For more about who qualifies for FSM, see the Methodology section.

The data shows that:

• in 2016/17, there were 92,319 pupils eligible for free school meals in year 2 (14% of all pupils)
• overall, 61% of pupils eligible for FSM met the expected standard, compared with 78% of pupils not eligible for FSM (a gap of 17 percentage points)
• 58% of FSM-eligible White British pupils met the expected standard, compared with 79% of White British pupils not eligible (a gap of 21 percentage points)
• FSM-eligible pupils did less well than those not eligible in every ethnic group apart from Gypsy/Roma: here, 28% of FSM-eligible pupils met the expected standard compared with 27% of those not eligible
• the largest gap in attainment between FSM-eligible pupils and those not eligible was found in the White Irish group, where 47% and 82% met the expected standard respectively (a gap of 35 percentage points)
• 76% of FSM-eligible Chinese pupils met the expected standard (the highest percentage of any FSM-eligible group of children)

4. By ethnicity and area

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard in reading by ethnicity and area

Local authority	All	Asian	Black	Chinese	Mixed	White
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Barking and Dagenham	76	80	81	58	74	73
Barnet	78	81	74	86	82	80
Barnsley	73		81		68	73
Bath and North East Somerset	76	68	75		81	77
Bedford	73	75	73	100	69	74
Bexley	81	88	91	93	79	78
Birmingham	72	75	74	85	74	71
Blackburn with Darwen	74	77	69	67	83	72
Blackpool	75	76			85	74
Bolton	73	76	61		79	73
Bournemouth	75	76	80	100	81	75
Bracknell Forest	75	88	79		81	74
Bradford	72	73	73		71	71
Brent	74	77	76		77	75
Brighton and Hove	76	67	79	74	72	78
Bristol, City of	73	69	62		73	76
Bromley	80	83	82	83	80	80
Buckinghamshire	78	74	74		79	79
Bury	73	68	73		69	75
Calderdale	70	63	76		72	72
Cambridgeshire	73	68	69	88	80	73
Camden	74	70	74	69	82	78
Central Bedfordshire	79	88	85	100	85	79
Cheshire East	77	88	80		73	77
Cheshire West and Chester	74	77	60	55	80	74
City of London
Cornwall	74	65			76	74
County Durham	77	80			76	77
Coventry	72	78	75		74	71
Croydon	77	80	76		77	77
Cumbria	73	72		62	77	73
Darlington	77	72			74	77
Derby	70	74	76	77	65	70
Derbyshire	75	74	75	75	77	75
Devon	77	81	79		81	77
Doncaster	72	75	78	82	73	72
Dorset	76	79	75		75	76
Dudley	73	72	74	71	69	74
Ealing	75	76	69	77	80	79
East Riding of Yorkshire	76	88			83	76
East Sussex	77	77	67	86	77	78
Enfield	72	84	73		75	69
Essex	78	87	84	89	81	77
Gateshead	77	82	71	83	81	77
Gloucestershire	75	74	75		76	75
Greenwich	80	85	84	94	85	76
Hackney	80	81	79	79	84	81
Halton	66		N/A*		64	67
Hammersmith and Fulham	79	81	75	100	79	83
Hampshire	82	85	82	82	88	82
Haringey	79	86	80	85	86	77
Harrow	78	83	72		84	71
Hartlepool	74	75	50	100		74
Havering	77	83	83	100	81	75
Herefordshire, County of	78				85	77
Hertfordshire	79	84	78	90	80	79
Hillingdon	77	83	76		82	74
Hounslow	80	83	79	80	84	78
Isle of Wight	72	100			70	72
Isles of Scilly
Islington	76	75	73	100	78	77
Kensington and Chelsea	82	73	84	100	82	84
Kent	79	83	88	91	83	78
Kingston upon Hull, City of	71	69	51		69	72
Kingston upon Thames	80	84	78		81	80
Kirklees	72	72	71	62	73	73
Knowsley	71	85		100	58	71
Lambeth	79	84	77		82	81
Lancashire	75	72	74	74	74	76
Leeds	68	68	62	85	68	69
Leicester	70	75	74		74	64
Leicestershire	75	81	78	83	78	75
Lewisham	80	78	79	83	79	81
Lincolnshire	74	91	79	78	75	73
Liverpool	67	64	66	69	67	68
Luton	71	72	76	58	71	70
Manchester	71	69	76	79	73	72
Medway	79	87	87		85	77
Merton	77	78	76	79	80	78
Middlesbrough	68	68	69		61	69
Milton Keynes	77	85	81		80	75
Newcastle upon Tyne	74	69	80	78	75	75
Newham	78	80	80	90	81	73
Norfolk	75	77	70	88	73	75
North East Lincolnshire	73	83			79	72
North Lincolnshire	77	87	67		88	77
North Somerset	79	80			77	79
North Tyneside	79	60	67		87	79
North Yorkshire	75	76	76	75	78	75
Northamptonshire	75	77	75	82	78	75
Northumberland	80				79	81
Nottingham	70	73	76	82	72	69
Nottinghamshire	73	76	75	80	76	73
Oldham	69	65	60	100	76	72
Oxfordshire	76	76	78		76	76
Peterborough	69	70	70		76	69
Plymouth	73	79	73	79	76	73
Poole	79	89	100		80	79
Portsmouth	74	75	77		84	74
Reading	75	79	74	100	82	73
Redbridge	79	83	78	90	77	74
Redcar and Cleveland	78			N/A*	82	78
Richmond upon Thames	83	89	72	87	83	83
Rochdale	71	72	69		73	72
Rotherham	73	73	81	80	72	73
Rutland	79	100	33	N/A*	100	79
Salford	75	83	78		81	74
Sandwell	71	74	71		73	69
Sefton	74	78	67		72	74
Sheffield	74	74	73	85	74	74
Shropshire	74	77			85	73
Slough	77	83	77		74	69
Solihull	79	84	81		80	77
Somerset	76	85	79		75	77
South Gloucestershire	82	88	72		80	82
South Tyneside	77	85			76	77
Southampton	73	80	78	79	77	72
Southend-on-Sea	78	81	80	100	80	78
Southwark	79	77	80	85	81	80
St. Helens	72	64	56	60	77	72
Staffordshire	79	81	77	87	80	79
Stockport	77	72	71	63	81	78
Stockton-on-Tees	78	80	91		76	78
Stoke-on-Trent	72	74	73	80	73	72
Suffolk	74	80	73		72	74
Sunderland	76	76	89		80	76
Surrey	80	80	80	77	84	80
Sutton	78	85	82		78	76
Swindon	76	75	81	70	80	76
Tameside	72	68	70	65	65	73
Telford and Wrekin	77	75	75		85	77
Thurrock	77	83	85	100	82	74
Torbay	74	64			73	75
Tower Hamlets	76	78	78		77	72
Trafford	80	82	72	83	79	81
Wakefield	72	63	66		82	73
Walsall	71	74	77	73	73	71
Waltham Forest	81	85	82	85	84	78
Wandsworth	82	82	74		81	85
Warrington	77	82			85	77
Warwickshire	77	80	81		80	77
West Berkshire	78	85	88	100	80	78
West Sussex	73	69	68	85	76	73
Westminster	76	72	77		81	82
Wigan	75	77	78	80	80	75
Wiltshire	74	77	74	64	78	75
Windsor and Maidenhead	81	82	78	100	85	81
Wirral	73	66			74	73
Wokingham	82	84	75	100	80	81
Wolverhampton	73	77	78	84	74	72
Worcestershire	77	73	67		75	77
York	77	64			79	77

^* Not applicable Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity and area Summary

Except for the information for White pupils, the statistics quoted for attainment by ethnicity and local authority are based on small numbers of pupils and are highly variable over time.

The data shows that:

• in 2016/17, 100% of Asian pupils met the expected standard in reading in Rutland in the East Midlands and Isle of Wight in the South East, compared with 60% in North Tyneside in the North East (a gap of 40 percentage points)
• 100% of Black pupils met the expected standard in Poole in the South West, compared with 33% in Rutland in the East Midlands (a gap of 67 percentage points)
• 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in 16 out of 80 local authorities, where data is available; 55% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in Cheshire West and Chester in the North West (a gap of 45 percentage points)
• 100% of pupils with Mixed ethnicity met the expected standard in Rutland in the East Midlands, compared with 58% in Knowsley in the North West (a gap of 42 percentage points)
• 85% of White pupils met the expected standard in Wandsworth in London compared with 64% in Leicester in the East Midlands (a gap of 21 percentage points)

5. By ethnicity and gender

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standards in reading by ethnicity and gender

	Boys		Girls
Ethnicity	Boys Expected standard	Boys Higher standard	Girls Expected standard	Girls Higher standard
All	71	22	80	29
Asian	73	21	81	28
Bangladeshi	70	19	79	26
Indian	80	29	87	37
Pakistani	68	16	77	21
Asian other	74	22	82	30
Black	72	19	81	27
Black African	73	21	82	28
Black Caribbean	68	17	80	23
Black other	70	17	79	26
Chinese	81	33	87	38
Mixed	73	23	82	31
Mixed White/Asian	77	28	85	36
Mixed White/Black African	73	21	82	30
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	68	18	79	25
Mixed other	74	24	83	33
White	71	22	80	29
White British	72	23	81	30
White Irish	74	28	80	33
White Irish Traveller	25	4	42	6
White Gypsy/Roma	24	2	31	3
White other	66	18	74	23
Other	65	15	72	21

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity and gender Summary

The data shows that:

• overall, 80% of girls met the expected standard in reading in 2016/17, compared with 71% of boys, and 29% of girls met the higher standard, compared with 22% of boys; girls were more likely to meet the expected and higher standards than boys in every ethnic group
• Chinese girls were most likely to reach both the expected and higher standards, at 87% and 38% respectively
• among White British pupils, 81% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 72% of boys; and 30% of girls met the higher standard, compared with 23% of boys
• Gypsy/Roma boys were least likely to reach either the expected or the higher standard
• for the expected standard, the smallest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 6 percentage points, was found among Chinese pupils (where 87% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 81% of boys) and Irish pupils (where 80% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 74% of boys)
• for the expected standard, the largest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 16 percentage points, was found among Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils (where 42% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 25% of boys)
• for the higher standard, the smallest attainment gap, at 1 percentage point, was found among Gypsy/Roma pupils, where 2% of boys met the higher standard, compared with 3% of girls
• for the higher standard, the largest attainment gap between boys and girls, at 9 percentage points, was found among White and Black African, any Other Mixed Background and Any Other Black Background pupils

6. By ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in reading by ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals

	Boys		Girls
Ethnicity	Boys FSM	Boys Non-FSM	Girls FSM	Girls Non-FSM
All	56	74	66	82
Asian	65	74	71	82
Bangladeshi	66	71	73	81
Indian	69	81	75	88
Pakistani	63	69	70	78
Asian other	65	75	71	84
Black	64	74	76	83
Black African	66	75	77	84
Black Caribbean	59	71	76	82
Black other	62	73	74	80
Chinese	72	82	80	88
Mixed	59	77	71	85
Mixed White/Asian	55	81	70	87
Mixed White/Black African	65	75	75	84
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	58	72	69	83
Mixed other	61	77	73	85
White	53	74	63	82
White British	53	75	64	84
White Irish	42	78	51	86
White Irish Traveller	22	29	38	46
White Gypsy/Roma	24	24	32	31
White other	55	67	65	75
Other	61	66	64	74

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals Summary

Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is used as an indicator of deprivation by the Department for Education. For more about who qualifies for FSM, see the Methodology section.

This data shows that:

• in 2016/17 there were 92,319 pupils eligible for free school meals in year 2 (14% of all pupils)
• 80% of FSM-eligible Chinese girls met the expected standard in reading (the highest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible children)
• 22% of FSM-eligible Traveller of Irish Heritage boys met the expected standard (the lowest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible children)
• across all ethnic groups, a higher percentage of FSM-eligible girls met the expected standard than FSM-eligible boys

7. By ethnicity, gender and area

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in reading by ethnicity, gender and area

	All		Asian		Black		Chinese		Mixed		White
Local authority	All Boys	All Girls	Asian Boys	Asian Girls	Black Boys	Black Girls	Chinese Boys	Chinese Girls	Mixed Boys	Mixed Girls	White Boys	White Girls
Barking and Dagenham	71	82	76	85	76	86			65	82	67	79
Barnet	74	82	74	90	71	78	77		77	86	77	83
Barnsley	67	79						N/A*	59	79	67	79
Bath and North East Somerset	73	80	53		50	100			77	85	73	80
Bedford	69	77	73	77	72				65	73	69	78
Bexley	77	85	88	89	87	94	83	100	73	83	74	83
Birmingham	68	76	71	79	69	78	84	86	68	80	67	74
Blackburn with Darwen	71	78	74	80	55	80	N/A*	67	79	85	69	77
Blackpool	70	79	74	79					83	86	69	79
Bolton	69	77	72	80	54	68			78	81	69	78
Bournemouth	72	79	62	88					80	82	71	79
Bracknell Forest	69	80	83	94	68	88	N/A*		78	85	68	79
Bradford	67	77	68	79	70				65	77	67	76
Brent	70	79	72	82	68	83			71		71	79
Brighton and Hove	72	80	63	72	79	79	70		66	78	74	81
Bristol, City of	71	76	64	74	59	65			69	78	74	78
Bromley	77	83	81	86	75	90	85	80	77	82	77	83
Buckinghamshire	75	82	70	78	69	78		100	74	84	76	83
Bury	70	76	65	72	71	74			68	69	72	77
Calderdale	66	74	62	64					67	77	68	76
Cambridgeshire	70	77	63	75	64	74	85	91	78	82	70	77
Camden	71	79	64	76	69	79			78	86	75	81
Central Bedfordshire	74	84	85	90	79	89	100		83	87	74	83
Cheshire East	73	81	91	86					65	79	73	82
Cheshire West and Chester	69	80	64	88					73	87	69	80
City of London
Cornwall	70	79		67	N/A*			57	74	79	70	79
County Durham	74	81	78	82			100		65	86	74	81
Coventry	68	77	75	82	67	83		100	69	81	67	74
Croydon	73	82	77	84	72	81		100	71	83	73	81
Cumbria	68	78	70	73					71	82	69	78
Darlington	70	83	64	81							70	84
Derby	66	75	73	75	70	81	77	77	64	66	65	76
Derbyshire	70	81	64	84					68	86	70	81
Devon	72	81	81	81					78	84	72	82
Doncaster	68	76	65	87	78	79	100	63	70	75	68	76
Dorset	70	82	76	81					68	83	70	82
Dudley	68	78	65	79	70	78			66	72	69	79
Ealing	70	79	72	79	63	76			76	83	75	84
East Riding of Yorkshire	71	81		100			N/A*		73	93	71	80
East Sussex	73	81	77	76	64	72			73	81	73	82
Enfield	69	76	81	87	69	78			70	81	67	72
Essex	74	82	87	87	80	88	84		78	84	73	82
Gateshead	73	82	75						73	88	73	82
Gloucestershire	71	79	70	77	75	76			74	79	71	80
Greenwich	76	85	82	87	78	90	90	100	82	88	73	80
Hackney	77	84	82	80	75	82			77	92	78	85
Halton	62	70			N/A*	N/A*		N/A*	56	75	64	70
Hammersmith and Fulham	75	84			70	82			74	85	79	87
Hampshire	79	86	83	87	77	88	73	90	86	90	78	86
Haringey	74	84	82	89	75	84			83	90	71	84
Harrow	74	82	80	87	65	79		100	81	87	65	77
Hartlepool	70	79	69	80							70	79
Havering	74	81	82	84	77	89	100	100	77	84	72	79
Herefordshire, County of	73	83						N/A*	75	93	73	83
Hertfordshire	75	84	80	89	72	83			75	86	75	83
Hillingdon	74	81	78	87	69	84			78	86	71	77
Hounslow	75	85	79	89	74	84			82	86	72	84
Isle of Wight	68	77		100					57	83	68	77
Isles of Scilly
Islington	72	80	72	82	69	77	100	100	70	86	74	81
Kensington and Chelsea	81	84		71	82	87	100	N/A*	81	83	83	86
Kent	75	83	79	88	83	92			77	89	74	83
Kingston upon Hull, City of	67	76	64	75	52	50			64	75	67	77
Kingston upon Thames	77	84	81	88	76	79			77	86	76	84
Kirklees	68	77	68	75	60	80			68	79	68	78
Knowsley	66	75	73	100					50	67	67	75
Lambeth	74	84	76	93	71	83		100	78	86	76	85
Lancashire	71	79	67	78	71	77	67	77	69	79	72	80
Leeds	64	73	64	73	56	68	82	87	62	74	65	74
Leicester	66	73	73	78	69	78		100	70	79	60	69
Leicestershire	71	79	76	86	62	91	67		71	86	71	78
Lewisham	76	83	73	84	76	82	81	86	76	83	78	85
Lincolnshire	70	78	90		79	80	73		69	81	70	78
Liverpool	63	71	56	75	60	72	65	73	61	73	64	71
Luton	66	77	67	78	69	87			64	80	67	74
Manchester	66	76	64	73	72	81	76	82	67	80	67	77
Medway	74	84	75		83	93			85	86	73	82
Merton	75	81	74	83	75	77			79	81	75	80
Middlesbrough	64	72	62	75					57	66	66	73
Milton Keynes	72	83	79	90	78	84			74	86	70	80
Newcastle upon Tyne	71	77	67	72	74	86	75	81	71	79	72	78
Newham	75	81	78	83	76	82			75	87	68	77
Norfolk	71	79	72	83	66	74		85	67	78	71	79
North East Lincolnshire	69	76							83	77	69	76
North Lincolnshire	73	81	86	88							72	81
North Somerset	74	84							73	81	74	84
North Tyneside	73	85	52	68			100		79		74	85
North Yorkshire	71	79	72	79					72	84	71	79
Northamptonshire	71	79	68	85	69	82			75	82	71	79
Northumberland	77	84			N/A*				74	84	78	84
Nottingham	66	75	71	76	74	77			67	78	64	76
Nottinghamshire	68	78	74	78	69	80	80	79	68	84	68	78
Oldham	64	73	61	70	56	64			73	79	68	77
Oxfordshire	72	80	72	80	73	85	100		74	77	72	80
Peterborough	65	75	64	77	63	77			68	84	65	74
Plymouth	68	78	74	84					73	79	68	78
Poole	75	84	77	100					85	74	75	83
Portsmouth	69	80	72	79	74	79		100	80	90	68	80
Reading	70	79	76	81	71	77	100	100	76	87	67	78
Redbridge	74	84	79	89	72	85			71	84	70	77
Redcar and Cleveland	73	83				N/A*	N/A*	N/A*			73	83
Richmond upon Thames	81	85	83	94	71	72		86	84	83	82	84
Rochdale	67	76	65	79	66	71			65	81	68	76
Rotherham	69	78	70	76	81	81			71	73	69	78
Rutland	76	81					N/A*	N/A*			76	82
Salford	70	79	84	82	72	83		100	76	87	70	79
Sandwell	66	76	70	80	67	76		100	68	78	64	74
Sefton	70	77	81	73	50	100		100	73	70	70	78
Sheffield	70	77	71	77	68	77			70	77	71	78
Shropshire	69	79							74		69	79
Slough	70	82	78	88					71	77	62	75
Solihull	75	82	80	87	67	100		100	79	82	74	81
Somerset	72	81	82	89					71	80	73	81
South Gloucestershire	77	86	88	88	81	66		100	68	92	77	87
South Tyneside	72	82							70	82	72	82
Southampton	69	78	77	85	70	86			68	86	68	76
Southend-on-Sea	73	84	73	86	80	80			80	80	72	84
Southwark	75	83	67	87	75	86	82		76	87	78	81
St. Helens	65	78					45	100	70	84	66	78
Staffordshire	75	83	80	82	68	87			78	83	75	83
Stockport	72	83	67	78	73	69			74	89	73	84
Stockton-on-Tees	75	82	75	84					70	86	75	82
Stoke-on-Trent	67	77	69	79	64	79			61	82	68	76
Suffolk	70	78	77	82	69	76			68	76	70	78
Sunderland	73	80	73	78					88	75	73	80
Surrey	76	83	75	84	74	86	74	81	80	88	76	83
Sutton	75	82	83	87	83	81			75	81	72	81
Swindon	72	80	72	78	78	83			74	86	72	81
Tameside	67	77	61	74	69	71			54	77	69	78
Telford and Wrekin	71	82	69	82	71	80			77	93	71	82
Thurrock	73	81	81	85	77	92			76	88	71	78
Torbay	72	77				N/A*			64	84	73	77
Tower Hamlets	72	81	74	82	73	83			75	79	66	81
Trafford	76	84	81	83	67	77	76		74	83	77	86
Wakefield	68	77	61	65	61	70			79	84	68	78
Walsall	67	77	68	81	71	82			65	82	67	75
Waltham Forest	76	86	82	89	77	88	84	86	80	88	73	84
Wandsworth	80	84	82	81	72	77			79	83	83	88
Warrington	74	80	82	82					91	78	74	81
Warwickshire	73	81	76	85	86	73			79	81	73	81
West Berkshire	74	82	82	89					74	88	74	81
West Sussex	69	78	64	74	68	68	75	100	73	79	69	78
Westminster	72	80	67	76	72	82		100	75	86	78	85
Wigan	71	80	69	88	72				80	80	71	80
Wiltshire	70	79	80	74	73	76			73	84	70	79
Windsor and Maidenhead	78	85	82	83					84	85	77	86
Wirral	70	77	58	74				100	69	80	70	77
Wokingham	79	84	85	83	73	77	100	100	77	83	79	84
Wolverhampton	69	78	74	80	73	82			71	77	67	77
Worcestershire	74	80	72	73	67	67			70	83	74	81
York	72	82	57	75					69	91	72	82

^* Not applicable Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity, gender and area Summary