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

Published 4 May 2018

Last updated 14 May 2019 - see all updates

This page has been archived.
It has been replaced by School results for 5 to 7 year olds.

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

Contents

1. Main facts and figures

• overall, 68% of pupils finishing year 2 in 2016/17 met the expected standard in writing and 16% 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 82% and 22% respectively
• Chinese pupils were most likely to meet the higher standard and Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to do so, at 29% and 1% 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

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 writing attainment of children at the end of key stage 1 (year 2) when pupils are aged 6 to 7 years.

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 writing by ethnicity

Ethnicity	Expected standard	Higher standard
All	68	16
Asian	72	17
Bangladeshi	70	16
Indian	79	24
Pakistani	66	12
Asian other	74	19
Black	71	16
Black African	72	17
Black Caribbean	66	12
Black other	68	15
Chinese	82	29
Mixed	70	17
Mixed White/Asian	75	21
Mixed White/Black African	71	17
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	64	12
Mixed other	71	18
White	68	15
White British	68	16
White Irish	68	17
White Irish Traveller	26	2
White Gypsy/Roma	22	1
White other	64	14
Other	64	13

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

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

This data shows that:

• overall, 68% of pupils met the expected standard in writing and 16% met the higher standard, making these figures the national averages in 2016/17
• 82% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard and 29% met the higher standard (the highest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 22% of pupils from the Gypsy/Roma pupils met the expected standard and 1% met the higher standard (the lowest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 68% of White British pupils met the expected standard and 16% met the higher standard

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 writing by ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals

Ethnicity	FSM	Non-FSM
	%	%
All	52	71
Asian	62	73
Bangladeshi	64	71
Indian	67	80
Pakistani	60	67
Asian other	64	75
Black	63	73
Black African	65	74
Black Caribbean	58	69
Black other	60	70
Chinese	75	82
Mixed	56	74
Mixed White/Asian	54	78
Mixed White/Black African	63	73
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	53	69
Mixed other	57	74
White	48	71
White British	49	72
White Irish	38	73
White Irish Traveller	22	30
White Gypsy/Roma	21	22
White other	53	65
Other	57	65

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Writing 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, 52% of FSM-eligible pupils met the expected standard, compared with 71% who were not eligible (a gap of 19 percentage points)
• in every ethnic group, FSM-eligible pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard than those not eligible
• 75% of FSM-eligible Chinese pupils met the expected standard (the highest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible pupils)
• 21% of FSM-eligible Gypsy/Roma pupils met the expected standard (the lowest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible pupils)
• 49% of FSM-eligible White British pupils met the expected standard, compared with 72% who were not eligible
• the largest gap in attainment between FSM-eligible pupils and those not eligible was found in the White Irish group, where 38% and 73% met the standard respectively (a gap of 35 percentage points)

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 achieving the expected standard in writing by ethnicity and area

Local authority	All	Asian	Black	Chinese	Mixed	White
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Barking and Dagenham	69	75	75	58	69	62
Barnet	71	76	68	84	72	72
Barnsley	67		81		64	67
Bath and North East Somerset	68	54	75		68	69
Bedford	66	69	69	100	64	66
Bexley	75	89	84	88	72	72
Birmingham	65	68	67	82	66	62
Blackburn with Darwen	67	70	62		74	66
Blackpool	66	70		100	72	66
Bolton	66	71	55	80	74	66
Bournemouth	67	75	73	100	77	67
Bracknell Forest	67	84	74		70	65
Bradford	66	70	66	100	63	63
Brent	68	71	69		70	68
Brighton and Hove	69	62	71	79	66	70
Bristol, City of	65	65	55	85	63	66
Bromley	74	83	78	79	75	73
Buckinghamshire	69	64	61		69	70
Bury	66	63	68	70	63	68
Calderdale	60	51	65		64	62
Cambridgeshire	64	68	60	88	69	64
Camden	67	64	69	69	73	68
Central Bedfordshire	70	82	81	100	76	69
Cheshire East	68	84	73		66	68
Cheshire West and Chester	64	68	67	50	73	63
City of London
Cornwall	65	65			67	65
County Durham	72	76		75	70	72
Coventry	64	72	66	75	66	61
Croydon	69	73	68	83	69	67
Cumbria	64	66	63	62	68	64
Darlington	70	74			78	69
Derby	63	67	68	69	57	64
Derbyshire	68	70	64	75	70	68
Devon	69	73		80	76	69
Doncaster	66	70	75		61	66
Dorset	67	79	75		68	67
Dudley	63	63	65	71	59	64
Ealing	68	69	61	77	70	72
East Riding of Yorkshire	70	79			76	70
East Sussex	71	74	61	86	73	71
Enfield	65	80	68		70	61
Essex	70	83	79	87	73	69
Gateshead	70	80	61		76	71
Gloucestershire	66	72	68	82	69	66
Greenwich	76	84	81	90	79	71
Hackney	77	79	75	79	80	77
Halton	58		N/A*		55	58
Hammersmith and Fulham	72	80	68	100	73	75
Hampshire	74	81	77	79	81	73
Haringey	74	81	74	85	80	73
Harrow	73	80	63		77	66
Hartlepool	69	75		100	77	69
Havering	71	81	78	100	73	69
Herefordshire, County of	72	56			74	72
Hertfordshire	71	81	70	86	74	70
Hillingdon	70	78	70	67	71	64
Hounslow	74	79	70	80	76	72
Isle of Wight	62				70	62
Isles of Scilly
Islington	71	67	69	100	73	71
Kensington and Chelsea	75	65	74		76	78
Kent	72	78	84	91	76	72
Kingston upon Hull, City of	66	71	45		67	66
Kingston upon Thames	71	79	67	85	71	68
Kirklees	64	66	63	54	60	65
Knowsley	63	65	81	100	52	63
Lambeth	73	81	71		76	75
Lancashire	68	67	69	79	68	68
Leeds	59	61	54	86	57	59
Leicester	64	71	68	67	68	56
Leicestershire	68	79	67		70	67
Lewisham	73	75	73	79	72	74
Lincolnshire	65	90	59	70	65	65
Liverpool	57	56	58	72	59	57
Luton	64	65	70	58	64	63
Manchester	65	64	71	76	65	65
Medway	73	84	82		80	72
Merton	69	75	71	79	71	67
Middlesbrough	62	65	69		53	63
Milton Keynes	69	80	73	80	73	66
Newcastle upon Tyne	68	64	75	78	70	69
Newham	73	76	75	90	74	68
Norfolk	67	80	68	82	63	67
North East Lincolnshire	69				78	68
North Lincolnshire	71	84	58		88	70
North Somerset	72	90		38	73	72
North Tyneside	73	55	67		87	73
North Yorkshire	68	75	71	67	70	68
Northamptonshire	68	73	70	82	71	68
Northumberland	74	77			78	74
Nottingham	62	67	68		65	61
Nottinghamshire	67	71	71	75	74	66
Oldham	61	58	59	100	68	64
Oxfordshire	66	67	69		64	66
Peterborough	63	65	67	79	66	62
Plymouth	65	74	58	71	72	65
Poole	72	82	100		71	72
Portsmouth	66	67	71		80	66
Reading	67	73	71		71	64
Redbridge	71	77	65	90	68	65
Redcar and Cleveland	72			N/A*	82	73
Richmond upon Thames	72	79	67	77	75	72
Rochdale	65	67	67		68	64
Rotherham	69	70	71	80	64	69
Rutland	72		44	N/A*	100	72
Salford	68	79	75		77	67
Sandwell	64	69	66		66	60
Sefton	66	78	60		59	66
Sheffield	68	69	68	78	68	69
Shropshire	66	77	70		73	65
Slough	71	79	71		67	64
Solihull	70	75	77		69	69
Somerset	70	78	79	70	72	70
South Gloucestershire	73	83	68		76	73
South Tyneside	71	80	60		68	71
Southampton	67	75	72	74	70	65
Southend-on-Sea	71	80	75		68	71
Southwark	73	72	75	79	73	73
St. Helens	64	64	44	67	72	64
Staffordshire	72	79	73	84	73	72
Stockport	69	66	71	68	71	70
Stockton-on-Tees	72	77	88		78	72
Stoke-on-Trent	64	68	64	73	70	64
Suffolk	66	78	70	43	66	66
Sunderland	71	73	78		79	71
Surrey	71	76	71	75	76	71
Sutton	72	84	79	92	72	68
Swindon	71	73	76		76	70
Tameside	65	65	67	65	58	65
Telford and Wrekin	69	73	75		77	69
Thurrock	71	80	79	100	78	68
Torbay	68	64			66	68
Tower Hamlets	72	74	73		64	66
Trafford	72	74	67	85	71	72
Wakefield	65	63	61		77	65
Walsall	63	69	70	64	65	60
Waltham Forest	75	82	75	85	76	74
Wandsworth	76	79	68	83	74	79
Warrington	71	78			80	71
Warwickshire	70	75	75		74	69
West Berkshire	68	84	85	100	70	68
West Sussex	61	60	61	75	66	60
Westminster	70	67	71		71	75
Wigan	69	75	70	67	79	69
Wiltshire	65	77	73	64	64	65
Windsor and Maidenhead	73	79	67	100	79	72
Wirral	66	67			63	66
Wokingham	74	83	66	100	73	72
Wolverhampton	66	72	71		67	63
Worcestershire	69	70	63		70	70
York	70	69			81	69

^* Not applicable Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Writing 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.

This data shows that:

• in 2016/17, 90% of Asian pupils met the expected standard in writing in both Lincolnshire in the East Midlands and North Somerset in the South West, compared with 51% in Calderdale in Yorkshire and the Humber (a gap of 39 percentage points)
• 100% of Black pupils met the expected standard in Poole in the South West, compared with 44% in both St. Helens in the North West and Rutland in the East Midlands (a gap of 56 percentage points)
• 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in 15 out of the 90 local authorities where data on Chinese pupils was available; 38% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in North Somerset in the South West (a gap of 62 percentage points)
• 100% of pupils with Mixed ethnicity met the expected standard in Rutland in the East Midlands, compared with 52% in Knowsley in the North West (a gap of 48 percentage points)
• 79% of White pupils met the expected standard in Wandsworth in London, compared with 56% in Leicester in the East Midlands (a gap of 23 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 writing by ethnicity and gender

	Boys		Girls
Ethnicity	Boys Expected standard	Boys Higher standard	Girls Expected standard	Girls Higher standard
All	62	11	75	20
Asian	66	13	78	22
Bangladeshi	63	12	77	20
Indian	74	19	85	30
Pakistani	59	8	73	15
Asian other	68	14	80	25
Black	64	11	77	20
Black African	66	12	79	21
Black Caribbean	58	8	74	15
Black other	61	10	74	19
Chinese	77	23	87	35
Mixed	63	13	78	22
Mixed White/Asian	69	16	81	26
Mixed White/Black African	64	12	78	22
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	56	9	73	16
Mixed other	65	13	78	23
White	61	11	75	20
White British	61	11	76	20
White Irish	61	13	74	21
White Irish Traveller	18	1	33	4
White Gypsy/Roma	18	1	27	2
White other	58	10	71	17
Other	58	9	69	16

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

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

This data shows that:

• overall, 75% of girls and 62% of boys met the expected standard in 2016/17, while 20% of girls and 11% of boys met the higher standard; girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected and higher standards in every ethnic group
• Chinese girls were most likely to reach both the expected and the higher standards, at 87% and 35% respectively
• boys from the Gypsy/Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage ethnic groups were least likely to reach both the expected standard (18% did so from both groups) and the higher standard (1% did so from both groups)
• among White British pupils, 76% of girls and 61% of boys met the expected standard, while 20% of girls and 11% of boys met the higher standard
• for the expected standard, the largest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 17 percentage points, was found among Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils (where 56% of boys met the expected standard, compared with 73% of girls)
• for the expected standard, the smallest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 9 percentage points, was found among Gypsy/Roma pupils (where 27% of girls met the standard, compared with 18% of boys)
• for the higher standard, the largest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 12 percentage points, was found among Chinese pupils (where 35% of girls met the standard, compared with 23% of boys)
• for the higher standard, the smallest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 1 percentage point, was found among Gypsy/Roma pupils (where 2% of girls met the standard, compared with 1% of boys)

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 writing by ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals

	Boys		Girls
Ethnicity	Boys FSM	Boys Non-FSM	Girls FSM	Girls Non-FSM
All	44	64	60	78
Asian	56	67	68	79
Bangladeshi	59	64	69	78
Indian	61	75	72	86
Pakistani	54	61	66	74
Any Other Asian Background	59	69	70	81
Black	55	67	71	79
Black African	58	68	73	80
Black Caribbean	48	62	67	77
Any Other Black Background	52	64	69	76
Chinese	68	78	83	87
Mixed	48	67	65	81
White and Asian	44	73	66	84
White and Black African	55	66	71	80
White and Black Caribbean	46	61	62	77
Any Other Mixed Background	48	68	66	81
White	41	64	57	78
White British	41	65	57	79
Irish	32	65	42	81
Traveller of Irish Heritage	16	21	28	40
Gypsy/Roma	17	18	26	27
Any Other White Background	46	59	61	72
Other	53	59	60	72

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Writing 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)
• across all ethnic groups, a higher percentage of FSM-eligible girls met the expected standard in writing than FSM-eligible boys
• 83% of Chinese FSM-eligible girls met the expected standard (the highest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible children)
• 16% of boys from the Traveller of Irish Heritage ethnic group met the expected standard (the lowest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible children)
• among FSM-eligible White British pupils, 57% of girls and 41% of boys met the expected standard (a gap of 16 percentage points)
• of all FSM-eligible pupils, the biggest attainment gap between girls and boys, at 22 percentage points, was found among White and Asian pupils (where 66% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 44% of boys)
• the smallest attainment gap between those eligible for FSM and those not eligible was found among Gypsy/Roma girls, at 1 percentage point
• the largest attainment gap between those eligible for FSM and those not eligible was found among White Irish girls, at 39 percentage points

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 writing 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	61	77	69	82	68	82			59	77	54	72
Barnet	65	77	67	88	62	74	73		65	80	67	78
Barnsley	60	75		100				N/A*	59	71	60	75
Bath and North East Somerset	61	76	40	69					55	79	61	76
Bedford	59	73	65	73					57	74	58	74
Bexley	68	82	88	89	79	89	72	100	64	80	64	80
Birmingham	59	71	63	74	62	72	79	84	58	74	56	68
Blackburn with Darwen	61	74	65	76	64		N/A*		67	80	60	73
Blackpool	58	74	63	79					67	77	58	74
Bolton	60	73	66	76	48	64			69	79	59	73
Bournemouth	61	74	62	85					73	82	60	73
Bracknell Forest	59	75	76	91	55		N/A*		70	70	58	73
Bradford	58	74	63	77					53	74	56	72
Brent	63	74	65	78	61	76					63	74
Brighton and Hove	61	76	52	74	71	71			60	72	62	77
Bristol, City of	59	71	58	74	50	61			57	69	61	73
Bromley	69	80	80	87	70	87	76	84	70	79	67	79
Buckinghamshire	63	75	56	72	56	66		100	62	77	64	76
Bury	61	71	58	68	68	69			60	67	62	73
Calderdale	55	66	49	54					57	73	56	69
Cambridgeshire	58	71	62	75	56	65	81		67	71	57	71
Camden	61	74	58	71	61	77			67	79	62	74
Central Bedfordshire	63	77	77	86	74	87	100	100	71	81	63	76
Cheshire East	61	76	85	83					56	76	61	76
Cheshire West and Chester	55	73	50	84			50	50	63	82	55	72
City of London
Cornwall	58	72		75	N/A*				60	74	58	73
County Durham	66	78	70	82					58	82	66	78
Coventry	57	71	67	79	58	76	73	77	58	76	54	68
Croydon	62	76	67	81	61	74			62	76	60	75
Cumbria	57	72	50	73					60	76	57	72
Darlington	61	79	64	86							60	80
Derby	57	70	63	70	58	79	62	77	52	61	57	71
Derbyshire	60	77	58	82	50	79	73	77	59	81	60	77
Devon	61	77	62	81					71	81	61	77
Doncaster	60	73	57	85	67	83			54	68	61	72
Dorset	58	76	71	86					58	80	58	76
Dudley	54	72	54	73	57	74			54	64	55	73
Ealing	61	75	64	75	53	70			65	75	65	79
East Riding of Yorkshire	63	78		100			N/A*		60	93	63	78
East Sussex	64	78	72	76					68	80	64	78
Enfield	60	71	74	85	61	74			63	76	56	67
Essex	63	77	82	84	75	84	82	92	68	79	62	77
Gateshead	64	78	75		50	65			69	81	64	78
Gloucestershire	59	73	66	76	65	71			58	81	59	73
Greenwich	71	82	80	88	75	87	85	100	72	85	66	77
Hackney	72	83	76	84	69	81			73	87	72	83
Halton	52	64			N/A*	N/A*		N/A*	47		53	64
Hammersmith and Fulham	66	79			61	76			66	80	69	81
Hampshire	68	80	78	86	71	84	70	87	75	86	67	80
Haringey	67	82	71	89	67	80			75	86	65	82
Harrow	67	79	75	85	53	72		100	70	84	59	73
Hartlepool	61	76	69	80							61	76
Havering	66	77	79	84	70	85	100	100	68	78	64	74
Herefordshire, County of	66	79						N/A*	50	90	66	79
Hertfordshire	65	78	74	87	61	79			66	82	64	77
Hillingdon	63	76	71	85	62	78			65	78	57	71
Hounslow	67	82	71	87	62	81			73	78	65	81
Isle of Wight	54	71							57	83	54	70
Isles of Scilly
Islington	64	77	60	80	64	74			63	83	63	78
Kensington and Chelsea	73	78		57	68	81		N/A*	77	75	74	82
Kent	66	79	71	85	77	90	88		67	85	65	78
Kingston upon Hull, City of	59	73	64	80	39	50			63	72	59	74
Kingston upon Thames	66	76	76	83	62	71	79		64	79	63	75
Kirklees	58	72	59	72	52	73			51	71	58	72
Knowsley	56	70	53						46	58	56	70
Lambeth	66	80	72	90	63	79		100	69	82	68	81
Lancashire	61	76	59	76	65	73	75	82	61	75	61	76
Leeds	52	66	55	67	46	62	82	90	47	66	52	66
Leicester	58	69	67	75	61	74	56	100	60	77	49	62
Leicestershire	61	75	73	85	46	85		100	62	80	60	74
Lewisham	68	78	70	81	70	76	78	81	65	80	68	80
Lincolnshire	59	72			64	53	60		58	73	59	71
Liverpool	50	65	48	66	50	65	60	81	52	68	51	65
Luton	58	70	58	72	65	76			56	75	59	68
Manchester	58	73	57	71	63	78	73	80	59	73	58	73
Medway	67	81	71	96	76	91			75	85	65	79
Merton	63	76	68	83	65	76			68	74	60	74
Middlesbrough	55	69	56	74		83			46	60	57	69
Milton Keynes	62	77	71	88	69	78			66	81	59	74
Newcastle upon Tyne	63	74	60	69	65	84	75	81	62	76	64	75
Newham	68	79	71	80	68	81			66	82	61	74
Norfolk	60	74	77	83	58	77			58	68	60	74
North East Lincolnshire	63	75							83	74	62	75
North Lincolnshire	64	77	82	85							63	77
North Somerset	66	79							69	77	65	79
North Tyneside	65	82	48	64					82	91	66	82
North Yorkshire	61	75	72	77		73			61	80	61	75
Northamptonshire	61	75	62	82	62	79			66	77	61	75
Northumberland	68	79			N/A*				71	84	68	79
Nottingham	55	70	61	73	63	73	100		58	73	52	70
Nottinghamshire	59	75	64	78	61	80	72	79	63	84	59	74
Oldham	55	68	52	64	56	61	100	100	61	74	57	72
Oxfordshire	59	74	59	74	65	73		100	56	73	59	74
Peterborough	55	71	57	74	61	72			57	74	55	71
Plymouth	57	73	68	79					64	79	57	73
Poole	66	79	73						69	74	66	78
Portsmouth	59	75	62	74	62	79		100	73	86	58	74
Reading	62	73	70	77	65	76		100	63	79	57	70
Redbridge	64	79	70	84	58	73			59	79	59	71
Redcar and Cleveland	65	81				N/A*	N/A*	N/A*			64	81
Richmond upon Thames	68	77	73	85	64	69	67	82	70	79	68	76
Rochdale	58	72	58	75	64	69			60	77	58	71
Rotherham	62	75	65	76	67	73			62	65	62	76
Rutland	67	77					N/A*	N/A*			67	77
Salford	62	75	78	80	71	78			71	83	60	75
Sandwell	56	72	63	76	58	75		100	59	73	53	69
Sefton	60	73	71					100	54	65	60	73
Sheffield	62	75	63	75	62	75	75	80	62	73	63	75
Shropshire	59	74							59	87	58	73
Slough	63	80	71	86					58	76	56	72
Solihull	63	77	72	78	72				58	79	62	77
Somerset	63	77	76	81					64	83	63	77
South Gloucestershire	66	81	85	82	81	59		100	63	89	65	81
South Tyneside	64	78	69						65	71	64	77
Southampton	60	74	69	81	63	84			63	78	59	72
Southend-on-Sea	64	78	73	84	74	77			67	69	63	79
Southwark	67	79	62	82	69	82	73		66	81	68	77
St. Helens	55	74							60	84	55	74
Staffordshire	66	79	76	82	68	78			70	77	65	79
Stockport	62	78	60	73	60	81	64		60	85	62	78
Stockton-on-Tees	66	79	72	81					70	89	65	78
Stoke-on-Trent	58	71	61	74	56	70			58	80	58	71
Suffolk	59	74	72	83	62	76			60	72	59	74
Sunderland	66	78	67	78					84	75	65	78
Surrey	65	78	68	84	64	78	74	77	71	82	64	77
Sutton	67	77	79	89	79	78			69	75	62	74
Swindon	65	76	68	78	75	76			69	82	64	77
Tameside	57	72	59	72	66	68			43	74	57	73
Telford and Wrekin	60	78	61	85	71	80			69	84	59	78
Thurrock	65	77	74	87	69	89			68	89	62	73
Torbay	61	75				N/A*			45		62	74
Tower Hamlets	65	79	67	81	66	81			58	70	59	75
Trafford	66	79	71	77	63	71	80		63	80	65	80
Wakefield	58	72	60	65	52	70			71	82	58	72
Walsall	55	70	62	77	65	75			53	78	54	68
Waltham Forest	69	83	77	86	66	84			69	83	66	82
Wandsworth	71	81	75	82	64	74			69	80	74	85
Warrington	66	77	74	82					87	74	65	77
Warwickshire	64	76	69	81	79	70			72	76	63	76
West Berkshire	62	75	82	86					63	78	61	75
West Sussex	53	69	54	68	59	62			58	75	53	69
Westminster	63	76	60	73	64	80		100	64	77	71	79
Wigan	63	75	69	84	64				80	78	62	75
Wiltshire	58	73	75	79	68	78			55	73	58	73
Windsor and Maidenhead	68	79	77	81					72	84	66	79
Wirral	59	73	58	77				100	52	75	59	72
Wokingham	69	79	83	83	59	73	100	100	65	81	67	78
Wolverhampton	59	73	67	78	63	79			62	72	56	71
Worcestershire	63	76	67	73	60	67	100		61	80	63	76
York	61	78	65	75					72	91	61	77

^* Not applicable Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Writing attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity, gender 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.

This data shows that:

• overall in 2016/17, a higher percentage of girls than boys met the expected standard in writing in all local authorities
• for Asian pupils, the biggest attainment gap between girls and boys was in Cheshire West and Chester in the North West, where 84% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 50% of boys
• for Black pupils, the biggest attainment gap was in Leicestershire in East Midlands, where 85% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 46% of boys
• for pupils with Mixed ethnicity, the biggest attainment gap was in County of Herefordshire in the West Midlands, where 90% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 50% of boys
• for White pupils, the biggest attainment gap was in Darlington in the North East, where 80% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 60% of boys
• comparisons between Chinese girls and boys are not possible because of the small number of local authorities with data available for this group

8. Methodology

The key stage 1 dataset is compiled using information matched together from 2 data sources:

• key stage 1 teacher assessment results
• school census records

Key stage 1 results received from local authorities are combined with pupil characteristics from the school census. Records are matched using identifiers such as surname, forename, date of birth, unique pupil number, gender and postcode. This successfully matches around 98% of results.

Key stage 1 assessment results are not published at school level. The coverage of the local authority and regional statistics is for state-funded mainstream schools only in England. This includes schools and academies but excludes hospital schools, pupil referral units and alternative provision.

The information is collected from 16,369 state-funded schools (approximately 654,000 pupils).

Pupils are included in the figures for free school meals (FSM) if their families have claimed eligibility for FSM at the time of the annual spring school census. This FSM definition includes all who were eligible to receive FSM, not only those who actually received FSM. Pupils not eligible for FSM or unclassified pupils are described as ‘non-FSM’ or ‘all other pupils’.

Parents are able to claim FSM if they receive a qualifying benefit.

FSM is used as an indicator of disadvantage, but when drawing conclusions, it should be remembered that not all eligible parents apply for FSM. Families who don’t quite reach the eligibility threshold for FSM may still be suffering deprivation.

Any pupils who do not have a valid key stage 1 outcome for a subject are excluded from the calculations for that subject and do not appear in the number of eligible pupils or in the outcome percentages. For reading, writing and mathematics, the valid outcomes are:

• below the pre-key stage standard
• foundations for the expected standard
• working towards the expected standard
• working at the expected standard
• working at greater depth within the expected standard
• absent
• disapplied

For science, the valid outcomes are:

• has not met the expected standard
• working at the expected standard
• absent
• disapplied

Pupils with an outcome of ‘absent’ or ‘disapplied’ are included to ensure complete coverage of the cohort.

Suppression rules and disclosure control

Values of 1 or 2 or a percentage based on 1 or 2 pupils who achieved, or did not achieve, a particular standard are suppressed. Some additional figures may be suppressed to prevent the possibility of a suppressed figure being revealed. This suppression is consistent with DfE’s statistical policy statement on confidentiality (PDF opens in a new window or tab) (PDF) .

Figures for the Isles of Scilly and City of London are suppressed in DfE’s key stage 2 provisional Statistical First Release as these local authorities have a single school and DfE do not publish school-level information in the performance tables at the time of the provisional release. These figures are unsuppressed in the revised release as school-level figures are already published in the performance tables.

Regional eligible pupil figures are rounded to the nearest 10 so that it is not possible to derive figures for these local authorities by summing the figures for the other local authorities in the region.

In the school-level data, any figures relating to a cohort of 5 pupils or fewer are suppressed. This applies to sub-groups of pupils as well as the whole cohort. For example, if there were five boys and three girls in a school, DfE would not publish attainment for boys or girls separately but would publish attainment for all pupils as this is based on 8 pupils. The Code of Practice for Official Statistics requires DfE to take reasonable steps to ensure that their published or disseminated statistics protect confidentiality.

For more information about DfE’s disclosure control procedures for its statistical releases please see DfE’s statistical policy statement on confidentiality (PDF opens in a new window or tab) (PDF).

Rounding

Percentages given in charts, tables and downloads are rounded to the nearest whole number. For this reason some figures may not exactly match those published by the Department for Education.

Related publications

Schools, pupils and their characteristics: June 2017

Quality and methodology information

9. Data sources

Source

Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Type of data

Administrative data

Type of statistic

National Statistics

Publisher

Department for Education

Publication frequency

Yearly

Purpose of data source

This data provides results for the 2017 phonics screening checks and key stage 1 national curriculum assessments for pupils in schools in England. The results are used to monitor pupils’ attainment and progress in reading, writing, science and mathematics.

10. Download the data

Expected and higher standard in writing for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) - national - Spreadsheet (csv) 58 KB

This file contains the following variables: Measure, Ethnicity, Ethnicity_Type, Time, Time_Type, Geography (England), Geography_Code, Gender, FSM, Value, Value_Type, Denominator

Expected standard in writing for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) - local authority - Spreadsheet (csv) 564 KB

This file contains the following variables: Measure, Ethnicity, Ethnicity_Type, Time, Time_Type, Region, Local_Authority, Local_Authority_Code, Gender, Value, Value_Type, Denominator

Publication release date: 4 May 2018

Updated: 14 May 2019

full page history

1. 14 May 2019 Some headings have been changed. No data or commentary has been updated.
2. 1 August 2018 fixed formatting issue in the section 'The ethnic categories used in this data'
3. 4 May 2018 Updated to include new data (for 2016/17)

From: Department for Education

Previous edition:

1. 4 March 2018

---

Share this page

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn