# Maths attainments for children aged 10 to 11 (key stage 2)

Published

Last updated 14 May 2019 - see all updates

## 1. Main facts and figures

• overall, in 2016/17, 75% of pupils met the expected standard in maths by the end of key stage 2 (when they are usually aged 10 or 11 years), and 23% met the higher standard
• pupils from the Chinese ethnic group were most likely out of all ethnic groups to meet both the expected standard and higher standard; they also made the most progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2, and had the highest average ‘scaled score’
• Gypsy/Roma children were least likely to meet both the expected standard and higher standard; they also had the lowest average scaled score
• children from a Mixed White and Black Caribbean background made the least progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2
• in most ethnic groups, a higher percentage of boys than girls met the higher standard
• the local authorities with the highest percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard were the City of London (where 92% did so) and Kensington and Chelsea (89%); the data for the City of London is based on small numbers of pupils and is therefore highly variable over time
Things you need to know

In 2016/17, there were 599,683 pupils in key stage 2 at state-funded schools in England, and ethnicity was known for 593,776 (99%) of them.

Of those whose ethnicity was known, 75% were White, 11% were Asian, 6% were Black, 6% were Mixed, 2% belonged to the Other ethnic group and 0.4% were Chinese.

The Department for Education (DfE) has 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 2 vary between measures of attainment for different subjects. This is because pupils who don't have a valid result for a particular subject are excluded from the total. For more about valid results, see the Methodology section.

What the data measures

This data measures the maths attainment of children at the end of key stage 2 (year 6) when children are aged 10 to 11 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.

Standards in maths are divided into 2 categories:

• expected standard – to meet this, pupils must have achieved a ‘scaled score’ of 100 or more
• higher standard – to meet this, pupils must have achieved a ‘scaled score’ of 110 or more

For each ethnic group, there are also figures for:

• average scaled score
• progress score

The average scaled score measures the average attainment of pupils in key stage 2 maths tests. Results range from 80 to 120. A scaled score allows for variations in test difficulty year on year by standardising each pupil’s test results. This allows a clearer comparison between years. You can read more about scaled scores at key stage 2.

The progress score measures the progress that pupils make between the end of key stage 1 (primary school year 2) and the end of key stage 2 (year 6). A pupil’s results are compared with the actual achievements of other pupils nationally with similar key stage 1 attainment.

This data shows an average progress score for each ethnic group. A progress score of 0 (the national average) means pupils are making the expected amount of progress. A positive score (0.1 and above) means they are making more progress than expected, and a negative score (-0.1 and below) less progress than expected.

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:

Asian/Asian British:

• Indian
• Pakistani
• Sri Lankan
• Other Asian background

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British:

• Black African
• Black Caribbean
• Other Black background

Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups:

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

White:

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

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

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standards in mathematics, and average scaled score and progress score, by ethnicity
Ethnicity Expected standard Higher standard Average scaled score Progress score
All 75 23 104 0.0
Asian 80 31 106 1.9
Indian 86 42 108 2.5
Pakistani 74 22 104 1.1
Asian other 84 39 107 2.9
Black 74 21 104 0.6
Black African 77 24 105 1.2
Black Caribbean 67 13 102 -0.9
Black other 71 19 103 0.3
Chinese 92 56 110 4.6
Mixed 75 24 104 0.0
Mixed White/Asian 81 32 106 0.7
Mixed White/Black African 75 21 104 -0.1
Mixed White/Black Caribbean 68 15 102 -1.2
Mixed other 77 26 105 0.4
White 74 21 104 -0.4
White British 75 21 104 -0.5
White Irish 80 29 106 0.8
White Irish Traveller 34 5 97 -0.3
White Gypsy/Roma 31 3 96 -0.7
White other 74 24 104 2.2
Other 76 25 105 2.4

### Summary of Maths attainments for children aged 10 to 11 (key stage 2) By ethnicity Summary

The data shows that:

• overall in 2016/17, 75% of pupils met the expected standard in maths by the end of key stage 2 (when they are usually aged 10 to 11 years), and 23% met the higher standard
• 92% of pupils from the Chinese ethnic group met the expected standard and 56% met the higher standard (the highest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 31% of Gypsy/Roma pupils met the expected standard and 3% met the higher standard (the lowest percentages of any ethnic group); Gypsy/Roma pupils also had the lowest average scaled score (96)
• pupils from the Chinese ethnic group had the highest average scaled score (110), and made the most progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2 (with a progress score of 4.6 points)
• pupils from a Mixed White and Black Caribbean background made the least progress in maths between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a progress score of -1.2

## 3. By ethnicity and area

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in maths by ethnicity and area
Local authority All Asian Black Chinese Mixed White
% % % % % %
Barking and Dagenham 81 87 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 78
Barnet 82 87 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 84
Barnsley 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 57 N/A* 76 75
Bath and North East Somerset 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 23 withheld to protect confidentiality 68 76
Bedford 68 67 66 withheld to protect confidentiality 70 68
Bexley 77 92 79 100 75 74
Birmingham 73 76 71 92 67 71
Blackburn with Darwen 76 79 61 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 74
Blackpool 78 86 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 86 77
Bolton 76 81 68 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 76
Bournemouth 77 93 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 81 75
Bracknell Forest 71 87 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 69
Bradford 73 75 64 withheld to protect confidentiality 68 70
Brent 78 82 73 100 75 81
Brighton and Hove 75 76 68 85 78 75
Bristol, City of 74 77 64 withheld to protect confidentiality 67 75
Bromley 86 92 86 91 85 85
Buckinghamshire 76 77 71 100 69 76
Bury 79 78 71 100 74 79
Calderdale 74 72 57 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 74
Cambridgeshire 73 77 66 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 72
Camden 82 84 82 100 79 83
Central Bedfordshire 73 81 72 100 72 73
Cheshire East 77 90 64 100 70 77
Cheshire West and Chester 74 88 63 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 73
City of London 92 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality N/A* withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality
Cornwall 71 70 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 77 71
County Durham 78 89 70 100 91 78
Coventry 73 81 72 100 71 70
Croydon 78 87 71 88 76 79
Cumbria 74 90 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 84 73
Darlington 78 92 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 82 77
Derby 71 75 68 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 69
Derbyshire 74 81 84 82 73 74
Devon 74 87 64 70 70 75
Doncaster 70 70 61 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 70
Dorset 72 76 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 75 71
Dudley 71 73 68 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 71
Ealing 81 82 76 100 78 84
East Riding of Yorkshire 74 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 80 74
East Sussex 70 80 58 100 71 70
Enfield 75 87 73 100 79 74
Essex 77 88 79 87 77 76
Gateshead 80 78 71 100 87 80
Gloucestershire 76 86 68 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 75
Greenwich 82 91 82 withheld to protect confidentiality 82 79
Hackney 83 87 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 84 85
Halton 70 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 74 70
Hammersmith and Fulham 86 84 85 withheld to protect confidentiality 86 85
Hampshire 77 88 81 90 78 77
Haringey 79 86 73 88 78 82
Harrow 85 90 73 100 82 83
Hartlepool 81 77 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 withheld to protect confidentiality 81
Havering 83 86 85 82 84 82
Herefordshire, County of 72 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 68 72
Hertfordshire 77 85 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 76
Hillingdon 80 87 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 75
Hounslow 81 86 76 100 81 77
Isle of Wight 69 77 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 73 69
Isles of Scilly 71 N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* 71
Islington 79 82 76 100 78 81
Kensington and Chelsea 89 81 84 100 90 91
Kent 76 89 82 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 75
Kingston upon Hull, City of 76 88 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 86 75
Kingston upon Thames 82 85 74 100 84 81
Kirklees 73 74 61 withheld to protect confidentiality 64 74
Knowsley 74 82 withheld to protect confidentiality N/A* 64 74
Lambeth 83 89 81 100 82 86
Lancashire 76 74 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 76
Leeds 71 71 66 91 66 72
Leicester 75 82 79 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 66
Leicestershire 75 80 73 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 74
Lewisham 74 86 70 93 74 77
Lincolnshire 71 93 79 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 71
Liverpool 73 84 73 92 76 72
Luton 73 74 70 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 73
Manchester 75 76 76 89 71 76
Medway 71 84 82 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 69
Merton 81 92 75 100 79 78
Middlesbrough 76 75 67 N/A* 68 77
Milton Keynes 76 90 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 74
Newcastle upon Tyne 79 83 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 82 78
Newham 83 85 83 100 84 80
Norfolk 69 85 50 88 67 69
North East Lincolnshire 73 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 78 73
North Lincolnshire 76 83 46 withheld to protect confidentiality 83 75
North Somerset 73 64 58 100 74 73
North Tyneside 78 83 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 84 78
North Yorkshire 72 80 62 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 72
Northamptonshire 71 72 67 88 72 71
Northumberland 73 87 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 80 72
Nottingham 75 80 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 73
Nottinghamshire 76 81 63 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 76
Oldham 74 74 82 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 74
Oxfordshire 76 74 67 77 77 76
Peterborough 68 71 72 100 67 67
Plymouth 73 100 63 75 77 73
Poole 72 84 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 75 72
Portsmouth 71 79 77 67 83 70
Reading 73 78 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 64 74
Redbridge 81 85 69 withheld to protect confidentiality 80 79
Redcar and Cleveland 83 100 N/A* withheld to protect confidentiality 83 83
Richmond upon Thames 87 88 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 86 88
Rochdale 71 73 66 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 71
Rotherham 76 78 74 100 82 76
Rutland 78 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 78
Salford 75 84 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 69 75
Sandwell 73 80 68 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 71
Sefton 80 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 63 75 80
Sheffield 74 78 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 68 73
Shropshire 75 65 50 100 82 75
Slough 77 82 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 70
Solihull 78 86 77 withheld to protect confidentiality 71 77
Somerset 72 80 67 withheld to protect confidentiality 71 72
South Gloucestershire 73 84 63 withheld to protect confidentiality 68 73
South Tyneside 79 82 79 withheld to protect confidentiality 88 79
Southampton 75 81 82 100 76 74
Southend-on-Sea 77 86 85 withheld to protect confidentiality 86 75
Southwark 79 88 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 81
St. Helens 73 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 72 73
Staffordshire 76 78 73 87 77 76
Stockport 77 78 79 81 80 77
Stockton-on-Tees 78 83 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 87 78
Stoke-on-Trent 72 73 70 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 71
Suffolk 70 82 72 withheld to protect confidentiality 71 70
Sunderland 80 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 80 80
Surrey 79 87 76 92 81 78
Sutton 84 97 84 88 83 80
Swindon 76 86 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 75
Tameside 74 73 57 70 72 74
Telford and Wrekin 73 75 78 100 72 73
Thurrock 76 84 84 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 74
Torbay 73 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 70 73
Tower Hamlets 81 83 79 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 77
Trafford 83 90 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 82
Wakefield 71 68 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 71
Walsall 68 74 72 100 65 65
Waltham Forest 80 81 77 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 82
Wandsworth 80 82 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 85
Warrington 84 91 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 86 83
Warwickshire 74 84 65 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 73
West Berkshire 73 80 77 withheld to protect confidentiality 71 73
West Sussex 71 82 59 86 74 71
Westminster 84 84 80 100 83 85
Wigan 79 84 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 83 79
Wiltshire 72 91 49 withheld to protect confidentiality 71 72
Windsor and Maidenhead 76 85 67 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 75
Wirral 71 78 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 84 71
Wokingham 82 92 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 80
Wolverhampton 76 82 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 73
Worcestershire 70 68 81 100 74 70
York 76 75 67 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 76

### Summary of Maths attainments for children aged 10 to 11 (key stage 2) By ethnicity and area Summary

Except for the information for White pupils, the statistics quoted for attainment by ethnicity and local authority are often based on small numbers of pupils and are therefore highly variable over time. The number of pupils from different ethnic groups varies considerably between local authorities, and data isn't published for some local authorities where the number of pupils is 5 or fewer. For these reasons, you should avoid comparing differences in attainment between local authorities.

The Isle of Scilly had 17 pupils in year 6, and the City of London had 26 – results for these local authorities are particularly variable, and any comparisons with them are not recommended.

The data shows that:

• in 2016/17, 92% of pupils in the City of London local authority met the expected standard in maths by the end of key stage 2 – this was the highest percentage out of all local authorities, followed by Kensington and Chelsea (also in London), where 89% of pupils met the standard
• the local authorities where the lowest percentage of pupils met the expected standard were Peterborough (in the East of England), Bedford (East of England) and Walsall (West Midlands) – 68% of pupils met the standard in these local authorities
• 100% of Asian pupils met the expected standard in Redcar and Cleveland (North East) and Plymouth (South West), while 64% did so in North Somerset (South West) – these were the highest and lowest percentages of Asian pupils meeting the standard out of all local authorities
• 86% of Black pupils met the expected standard in Wokingham (South East), North Tyneside (North East) and Bromley (London), while 23% did so in Bath and North East Somerset (South West)
• 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in maths in 36 local authorities (out of the 62 for which data was available), while 63% did so in Sefton (North West)
• 91% of pupils with Mixed ethnicity met the expected standard in County Durham (North East), while 64% did so in Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber), Knowsley (North West) and Reading (South East)
• 91% of White pupils met the expected standard in Kensington and Chelsea (London), while 65% did so in Walsall (West Midlands)

## 4. By ethnicity and gender

 Boys Expected standard Boys Higher standard Boys Average scaled score Boys Progress score Girls Expected standard Boys Girls Ethnicity 75 24 104 0.6 75 21 104 -0.7 80 33 106 2.6 80 29 105 1.1 80 30 106 2.7 80 25 105 1.0 86 43 108 3.1 86 40 107 1.9 74 24 104 1.9 74 19 104 0.2 84 40 108 3.5 84 38 107 2.2 73 21 104 1.1 76 21 104 0.2 76 24 105 1.7 79 23 105 0.8 65 14 102 -0.6 69 13 102 -1.3 70 18 103 0.6 73 19 104 0.0 91 58 111 5.3 93 54 110 3.9 74 25 104 0.6 76 22 104 -0.6 80 33 106 1.3 82 30 106 0.0 74 23 104 0.5 75 19 104 -0.7 67 16 102 -0.7 69 14 102 -1.7 76 28 105 1.0 77 24 104 -0.2 74 23 104 0.3 74 19 104 -1.0 74 23 104 0.1 75 19 104 -1.2 80 32 106 1.4 80 25 105 0.1 37 5 98 0.5 31 5 96 -1.0 31 3 96 -0.4 31 3 96 -1.0 74 25 105 2.9 74 22 104 1.5 76 27 105 3.0 77 23 105 1.7

### Summary of Maths attainments for children aged 10 to 11 (key stage 2) By ethnicity and gender Summary

This data shows that:

• overall, in 2016/17, 75% of both boys and girls met the expected standard in maths by the end of key stage 2 (when they are aged 10 to 11 years); 24% of boys and 21% of girls met the higher standard
• 93% of girls from the Chinese ethnic group met the expected standard, and 58% of boys from the Chinese ethnic group met the higher standard; these were the highest percentages in any ethnic group across boys and girls
• 31% of Gypsy/Roma girls, Irish Traveller girls and Gypsy/Roma boys met the expected standard, the lowest percentages in any ethnic groups across boys and girls; the same groups also had the lowest average scaled score, at 96
• boys from the Chinese ethnic group made the most progress in maths between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a progress score of 5.3 points; they also had the highest average scaled score (111), compared with an overall average of 104
• girls from the Mixed White and Black Caribbean group made the least progress in maths between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a progress score of -1.7

## 5. Methodology

The key stage 2 datasets are compiled using information matched together from 3 data sources:

• prior attainment records (key stage 1 results)
• school census records
• qualification entries and results collected from awarding bodies

Key stage assessment data received from the Standard Testing Agency (STA) is combined with information on pupil's characteristics from the school census and prior attainment. Records are matched, using fields such as surname, forename, date of birth, UPN (unique pupil number), gender and postcode. This successfully matches around 60% to 75% of pupils.

Additional, more complex, routines are then applied to match as many of the remaining pupils as possible, up to around 98%. The coverage of the local authority and regional statistics is state-funded mainstream schools only in England. This includes schools and academies but excludes hospital schools, pupil referral units and alternative provision.

Any pupils who do not have a valid result 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 that subject.

Valid results for the national test figures are:

• achieved the expected standard
• not achieved the expected standard
• special consideration
• absent
• working below the standard of the test
• unable to access the test

Confidence intervals:

Confidence intervals are available for the ‘progress score’ if you download the data. These confidence intervals are calculated for a school based on a specific group of pupils. A school may have been just as effective, but have performed differently with a different set of pupils. Similarly, some pupils may be more likely to achieve high or low results, independently of which school they attend. To account for this natural uncertainty, it is best to interpret these school scores alongside their associated confidence intervals.

A 95% confidence interval around progress scores means that if the progress scores of 100 random schools were taken, then 95 times out of 100 their progress score would fall between the upper and lower confidence interval. But 5 times out of 100 it would fall outside this range.

School scores are interpreted alongside their associated confidence intervals in the following manner: If the lower confidence interval is greater than zero, it can be interpreted as meaning that the school has achieved greater than average progress compared to pupils with similar starting points nationally. Similarly, if the upper confidence interval is below zero, then the school has made less than average progress. Where the 95% confidence intervals overlap zero, this means that the school’s progress score is not significantly different from the national average.

Changes to assessment:

Because of a change in the way pupils are assessed, data published before 2016 is not comparable to 2015/16 and 2016/17 data.

The system of national curriculum levels is no longer used by the government to report on end of key stage assessment.

This measure has been replaced by 'value added' progress measures in reading, writing and mathematics.

There is no 'target' for the amount of progress an individual pupil is expected to make, and any amount of progress a pupil makes contributes towards the school's progress scores.

### 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).

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.

### Rounding

Percentages given in charts, tables and downloads are rounded to the nearest whole number. Progress scores are given to 1 decimal place.

### Related publications

Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2017

Quality and methodology information

## 6. Data sources

### Type of statistic

National Statistics

### Publisher

Department for Education

### Note on corrections or updates

The Department for Education (DfE) published an updated version of these statistics on 25 January 2018.

Yearly

### Purpose of data source

The main purpose is to measure schools' and pupils' progress and performance from key stage 1 to key stage 2, in order to monitor and improve standards and inform parental choice when applying to local schools.