Reading attainments for children aged 7 to 11 (key stage 2)
Published
Last updated 5 March 2018 - see all updates
This page has been archived.
It has been replaced by
School results for 10 to 11 year olds.
There is a new version of this page. View the latest version.
- 1. Navigate to Main facts and figures section
- 2. Navigate toReading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity section
- 3. Navigate toReading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area section
- 4. Navigate toReading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender section
- 5. Navigate to Methodology section
- 6. Navigate to Data sources section
- 7. Navigate to Download the data section
1. Main facts and figures
-
in 2015/16, there were 586,177 pupils in state-funded mainstream schools in England in key stage 2, and ethnicity was known for 581,298 (99%) of them
-
76% of pupils were White, 11% were Asian, 6% were Black, 5% were Mixed, 2% belonged to the Other ethnic group and 0.4% were Chinese
-
across all ethnic groups, 66% of pupils reached the expected standard for reading and 19% met the higher standard
-
Irish pupils were most likely to reach the expected standard, and Chinese pupils were most likely to reach the higher standard
-
Irish pupils and Chinese pupils shared the highest average scaled score, but Irish pupils made the most progress in reading between key stage 1 and key stage 2
-
Gypsy/Roma children were least likely to meet both the expected and higher standards, and had the lowest average scaled score
-
children from a Traveller of Irish Heritage background made the least progress in reading between key stage 1 and key stage 2
-
across all ethnic groups, girls were more likely to meet the expected and higher standards in reading, had a higher average scale score and made more progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2 than boys
Things you need to know
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 test result for a particular subject are excluded from the total. For more about valid test results, see Methodology.
What the data measures
This data measures the reading attainment of children in key stage 2 (years 3 to 6, when pupils are aged between 7 and 11).
The data covers the academic year 2015/16 (September 2015 to July 2016).
Key stage 2 test results range from 80 to 120 on a ‘scaled score’. (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.)
Standards in reading are divided into 2 categories:
- expected standard
- higher standard
To reach the expected standard, pupils must have achieved a scaled score of 100 or more in their key stage 2 reading tests.
To reach the higher standard, pupils must have achieved a scaled score of 110 or more in their key stage 2 reading tests.
The measure also looks at:
- average scaled score
- progress score
The average scaled score measures the average attainment of pupils in key stage 2 reading tests. This data compares the average scaled score for all children in England with the score for particular ethnic groups.
The progress score measures the progress that pupils make from the end of key stage 1 to the end of key stage 2, when they leave primary school.
A pupil’s results are compared to the actual achievements of other pupils nationally with similar key stage 1 attainment. This data compares the average progress score of all children in England with the score for particular ethnic groups.
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:
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. Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity
Ethnicity | Expected standard | Higher standard | Average scaled score | Progress score |
---|---|---|---|---|
All | 66 | 19 | 103 | 0.0 |
Asian | 63 | 16 | 102 | -0.1 |
Bangladeshi | 64 | 14 | 102 | 0.3 |
Indian | 71 | 22 | 104 | 0.1 |
Pakistani | 56 | 11 | 100 | -0.6 |
Asian other | 67 | 20 | 103 | 0.4 |
Black | 62 | 13 | 102 | 0.1 |
Black African | 64 | 14 | 102 | 0.3 |
Black Caribbean | 58 | 10 | 101 | -0.5 |
Black other | 60 | 12 | 101 | 0.1 |
Chinese | 75 | 33 | 105 | 1.4 |
Mixed | 69 | 21 | 103 | 0.4 |
Mixed White/Asian | 74 | 27 | 104 | 0.8 |
Mixed White/Black African | 67 | 18 | 103 | 0.5 |
Mixed White/Black Caribbean | 63 | 15 | 102 | -0.3 |
Mixed other | 70 | 23 | 104 | 0.8 |
White | 67 | 19 | 103 | 0.0 |
White British | 68 | 20 | 103 | -0.1 |
White Irish | 77 | 31 | 105 | 2.1 |
White Irish Traveller | 28 | 5 | 96 | -1.8 |
White Gypsy/Roma | 21 | 2 | 94 | -1.5 |
White other | 57 | 16 | 101 | 1.3 |
Other | 58 | 13 | 101 | 0.5 |
Unknown | 55 | 16 | 102 | 0.2 |
Download table data for ‘Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity’ (CSV) Source data for ‘Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity’ (CSV)
Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 7 to 11 (key stage 2) Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity Summary
The data shows that:
-
Irish children were most likely, and Gypsy/Roma children were least likely, to meet the expected standard in reading, with 77% and 21% doing so respectively
-
Chinese children were most likely, and Gypsy/Roma children were least likely, to meet the higher standard in reading, with 33% and 2% doing so respectively
-
Irish and Chinese pupils shared the highest average scaled score (105), and Gypsy/Roma children had the lowest average scaled score (94), compared with the national average of 103
-
between key stage 1 and key stage 2, Irish children made the most progress (scoring 2.1), and children from a Traveller of Irish Heritage background made the least progress (scoring -1.8) against a national average score of 0
3. Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area
Local Authority | All | Asian | Black | Chinese | Mixed | White |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | % | % | % | |
County Durham | 70 | 80 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 81 | 72 | 70 |
Darlington | 69 | 73 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 76 | 68 |
Gateshead | 72 | 65 | 80 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 73 | 72 |
Hartlepool | 66 | 62 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 50 | 73 | 66 |
Middlesbrough | 62 | 56 | 71 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 63 |
Newcastle upon Tyne | 68 | 65 | 53 | 60 | 71 | 69 |
North Tyneside | 70 | 64 | 57 | 100 | 64 | 70 |
Northumberland | 67 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 63 | 67 |
Redcar and Cleveland | 72 | 72 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 82 | 72 |
South Tyneside | 68 | 71 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 70 | 68 |
Stockton-on-Tees | 66 | 57 | 78 | 100 | 76 | 65 |
Sunderland | 71 | 63 | 77 | 43 | 63 | 71 |
Blackburn with Darwen | 62 | 60 | 70 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 68 | 64 |
Blackpool | 61 | 73 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 70 | 60 |
Bolton | 65 | 66 | 56 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 70 | 65 |
Bury | 66 | 56 | 49 | 70 | 66 | 68 |
Cheshire East | 71 | 81 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 58 | 69 | 71 |
Cheshire West and Chester | 69 | 59 | 69 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 76 | 69 |
Cumbria | 68 | 76 | 57 | 71 | 76 | 68 |
Halton | 63 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 64 |
Knowsley | 62 | 74 | 50 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 74 | 61 |
Lancashire | 65 | 57 | 54 | 82 | 69 | 66 |
Liverpool | 61 | 64 | 57 | 73 | 61 | 62 |
Manchester | 63 | 59 | 64 | 72 | 68 | 64 |
Oldham | 59 | 50 | 51 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 65 |
Rochdale | 62 | 55 | 55 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 55 | 65 |
Salford | 66 | 73 | 56 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 67 |
Sefton | 70 | 65 | 67 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 74 | 70 |
St. Helens | 65 | 50 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 43 | 74 | 65 |
Stockport | 69 | 62 | 37 | 79 | 73 | 70 |
Tameside | 68 | 63 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 78 | 68 |
Trafford | 77 | 73 | 79 | 88 | 78 | 77 |
Warrington | 71 | 72 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 80 | 71 |
Wigan | 69 | 62 | 62 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 68 | 70 |
Wirral | 64 | 67 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 72 | 67 | 64 |
Barnsley | 62 | 73 | 80 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 62 |
Bradford | 57 | 54 | 57 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 62 | 59 |
Calderdale | 65 | 59 | 58 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 75 | 66 |
Doncaster | 56 | 49 | 63 | 58 | 60 | 56 |
East Riding of Yorkshire | 66 | 83 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 58 | 66 |
Kingston upon Hull, City of | 64 | 80 | 59 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 67 | 64 |
Kirklees | 62 | 55 | 52 | 70 | 61 | 65 |
Leeds | 61 | 56 | 50 | 58 | 64 | 63 |
North East Lincolnshire | 59 | 63 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 69 | 59 |
North Lincolnshire | 57 | 58 | 45 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 50 | 58 |
North Yorkshire | 65 | 70 | 64 | 69 | 76 | 65 |
Rotherham | 64 | 61 | 67 | 57 | 68 | 64 |
Sheffield | 62 | 56 | 54 | 76 | 61 | 64 |
Wakefield | 61 | 49 | 49 | 57 | 60 | 61 |
York | 66 | 79 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 67 | 76 | 65 |
Derby | 61 | 59 | 58 | 64 | 70 | 60 |
Derbyshire | 66 | 61 | 79 | 71 | 68 | 66 |
Leicester | 59 | 63 | 58 | 56 | 60 | 56 |
Leicestershire | 65 | 68 | 66 | 76 | 66 | 65 |
Lincolnshire | 64 | 72 | 58 | 100 | 65 | 64 |
Northamptonshire | 63 | 58 | 56 | 63 | 61 | 64 |
Nottingham | 61 | 62 | 63 | 76 | 60 | 62 |
Nottinghamshire | 65 | 66 | 54 | 73 | 65 | 65 |
Rutland | 71 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 75 | 71 |
Birmingham | 59 | 58 | 55 | 81 | 62 | 61 |
Coventry | 61 | 62 | 58 | 56 | 61 | 62 |
Dudley | 62 | 61 | 57 | 50 | 64 | 62 |
Herefordshire, County of | 68 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 68 | 68 |
Sandwell | 61 | 63 | 55 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 62 | 61 |
Shropshire | 68 | 70 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 76 | 68 |
Solihull | 70 | 73 | 60 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 69 | 70 |
Staffordshire | 67 | 61 | 53 | 63 | 64 | 67 |
Stoke-on-Trent | 59 | 57 | 57 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 53 | 59 |
Telford and Wrekin | 70 | 64 | 59 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 71 |
Walsall | 61 | 61 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 64 | 60 |
Warwickshire | 69 | 73 | 63 | 81 | 69 | 69 |
Wolverhampton | 65 | 65 | 68 | 63 | 66 | 65 |
Worcestershire | 64 | 62 | 58 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 69 | 64 |
Bedford | 59 | 48 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 61 | 61 |
Cambridgeshire | 66 | 72 | 53 | 58 | 74 | 66 |
Central Bedfordshire | 65 | 66 | 59 | 47 | 72 | 65 |
Essex | 67 | 76 | 66 | 78 | 69 | 67 |
Hertfordshire | 72 | 76 | 69 | 83 | 73 | 72 |
Luton | 56 | 52 | 55 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 63 | 60 |
Norfolk | 64 | 75 | 53 | 64 | 67 | 64 |
Peterborough | 55 | 54 | 56 | 57 | 55 | 55 |
Southend-on-Sea | 67 | 68 | 58 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 67 | 67 |
Suffolk | 63 | 59 | 69 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 64 | 63 |
Thurrock | 63 | 63 | 73 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 61 | 60 |
Camden | 72 | 70 | 64 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 78 |
City of London | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 100 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 100 |
Hackney | 71 | 68 | 66 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 80 | 77 |
Hammersmith and Fulham | 74 | 77 | 70 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 77 | 77 |
Haringey | 64 | 61 | 56 | 57 | 74 | 69 |
Islington | 68 | 66 | 63 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 67 | 72 |
Kensington and Chelsea | 79 | 81 | 82 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 74 | 83 |
Lambeth | 73 | 80 | 69 | 81 | 77 | 76 |
Lewisham | 67 | 71 | 61 | 76 | 70 | 73 |
Newham | 69 | 73 | 67 | 64 | 63 | 64 |
Southwark | 67 | 72 | 65 | 76 | 66 | 73 |
Tower Hamlets | 72 | 71 | 68 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 77 | 73 |
Wandsworth | 70 | 68 | 60 | 64 | 71 | 78 |
Westminster | 66 | 70 | 64 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 73 |
Barking and Dagenham | 65 | 73 | 68 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 62 | 60 |
Barnet | 73 | 74 | 65 | 84 | 73 | 76 |
Bexley | 70 | 75 | 73 | 88 | 71 | 69 |
Brent | 64 | 66 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 68 |
Bromley | 79 | 90 | 77 | 87 | 80 | 78 |
Croydon | 66 | 71 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 69 | 67 |
Ealing | 65 | 62 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 72 | 71 |
Enfield | 61 | 73 | 56 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 60 |
Greenwich | 73 | 77 | 76 | 93 | 72 | 70 |
Harrow | 72 | 75 | 61 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 72 | 73 |
Havering | 73 | 76 | 73 | 82 | 71 | 73 |
Hillingdon | 70 | 69 | 66 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 74 | 70 |
Hounslow | 67 | 73 | 63 | 100 | 70 | 66 |
Kingston upon Thames | 75 | 72 | 62 | 83 | 79 | 76 |
Merton | 70 | 74 | 65 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 62 | 72 |
Redbridge | 68 | 71 | 59 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 77 | 62 |
Richmond upon Thames | 81 | 80 | 59 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 85 | 82 |
Sutton | 74 | 81 | 71 | 100 | 76 | 71 |
Waltham Forest | 65 | 64 | 61 | 71 | 70 | 66 |
Bracknell Forest | 65 | 73 | 49 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 76 | 65 |
Brighton and Hove | 75 | 64 | 52 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 74 | 76 |
Buckinghamshire | 73 | 66 | 65 | 79 | 71 | 75 |
East Sussex | 66 | 64 | 61 | 29 | 67 | 66 |
Hampshire | 71 | 72 | 73 | 70 | 70 | 71 |
Isle of Wight | 64 | 33 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 60 | 64 |
Kent | 70 | 75 | 72 | 90 | 77 | 69 |
Medway | 62 | 69 | 77 | 71 | 58 | 61 |
Milton Keynes | 69 | 75 | 66 | 82 | 73 | 69 |
Oxfordshire | 68 | 58 | 52 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 65 | 70 |
Portsmouth | 62 | 71 | 59 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 62 |
Reading | 67 | 69 | 58 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 66 | 67 |
Slough | 64 | 70 | 59 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 57 |
Southampton | 66 | 61 | 76 | 75 | 73 | 66 |
Surrey | 73 | 72 | 67 | 79 | 76 | 74 |
West Berkshire | 70 | 77 | 68 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 69 | 70 |
West Sussex | 65 | 61 | 55 | 63 | 66 | 65 |
Windsor and Maidenhead | 72 | 62 | 67 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 75 | 74 |
Wokingham | 76 | 78 | 80 | 83 | 76 | 75 |
Bath and North East Somerset | 71 | 74 | 57 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 76 | 71 |
Bournemouth | 65 | 63 | 64 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 63 | 66 |
Bristol, City of | 67 | 63 | 52 | 63 | 66 | 70 |
Cornwall | 66 | 57 | 57 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 70 | 67 |
Devon | 71 | 73 | 50 | 56 | 77 | 71 |
Dorset | 67 | 62 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 67 |
Gloucestershire | 70 | 69 | 57 | 71 | 73 | 70 |
Isles of Scilly | 65 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 65 |
North Somerset | 71 | 77 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 67 | 71 |
Plymouth | 67 | 50 | 80 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 76 | 67 |
Poole | 67 | 75 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 71 | 66 |
Somerset | 67 | 74 | 58 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 80 | 67 |
South Gloucestershire | 69 | 76 | 69 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 70 | 69 |
Swindon | 67 | 62 | 75 | withheld to protect confidentiality | 64 | 67 |
Torbay | 68 | 50 | withheld to protect confidentiality | withheld to protect confidentiality | 77 | 68 |
Wiltshire | 68 | 61 | 43 | 67 | 74 | 68 |
Download table data for ‘Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area’ (CSV) Source data for ‘Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area’ (CSV)
Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 7 to 11 (key stage 2) Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area Summary
This data shows that:
-
overall, pupils from Richmond upon Thames in London were most likely to meet the expected standard for reading, with 81% doing so, and pupils from Peterborough in the East of England were least likely to, with 55% doing so
-
both Black pupils and White pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in Kensington and Chelsea in London (not including the City of London, which only has one school of 28 pupils)
-
Black pupils were least likely to meet the expected standard in Stockport in the North West
-
White pupils were least likely to meet the expected standard in Peterborough in the East of England
-
Asian pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in Bromley in London, and least likely to meet it on the Isle of Wight in the South East
-
the top 5 local authorities for Chinese pupils were North Tyneside and Stockton-on-Tees in the North East, Lincolnshire in the East Midlands, Hounslow and Sutton in London; 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in these areas
-
Chinese pupils were least likely to meet the expected standard in East Sussex in the South East
-
pupils from a Mixed ethnic background were most likely to meet the expected standard in Richmond upon Thames in London, and least likely to meet it in North Lincolnshire
4. Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender
Boys | Girls | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ethnicity | Boys Expected standard | Boys Higher standard | Boys Average scaled score | Boys Progress score | Girls Expected standard | Girls Higher standard | Girls Average scaled score | Girls Progress score |
All | 62 | 16 | 102 | -0.3 | 70 | 22 | 103 | 0.4 |
Asian | 59 | 14 | 101 | -0.4 | 67 | 18 | 103 | 0.2 |
Bangladeshi | 61 | 12 | 101 | 0.1 | 68 | 17 | 103 | 0.5 |
Indian | 67 | 19 | 103 | -0.2 | 75 | 25 | 105 | 0.5 |
Pakistani | 52 | 9 | 100 | -0.9 | 60 | 13 | 101 | -0.3 |
Asian other | 64 | 18 | 102 | 0.2 | 70 | 22 | 104 | 0.6 |
Black | 58 | 11 | 101 | -0.2 | 66 | 15 | 102 | 0.4 |
Black African | 60 | 12 | 101 | 0.0 | 68 | 17 | 103 | 0.6 |
Black Caribbean | 53 | 8 | 100 | -0.9 | 63 | 13 | 101 | -0.2 |
Black other | 56 | 9 | 100 | -0.1 | 64 | 14 | 102 | 0.3 |
Chinese | 71 | 29 | 104 | 0.9 | 79 | 36 | 106 | 1.8 |
Mixed | 64 | 17 | 102 | -0.1 | 73 | 24 | 104 | 0.9 |
Mixed White/Asian | 70 | 23 | 104 | 0.4 | 78 | 30 | 105 | 1.2 |
Mixed White/Black African | 62 | 15 | 102 | -0.2 | 72 | 21 | 104 | 1.2 |
Mixed White/Black Caribbean | 58 | 11 | 101 | -0.9 | 70 | 18 | 103 | 0.2 |
Mixed other | 65 | 19 | 103 | 0.3 | 74 | 27 | 105 | 1.3 |
White | 63 | 17 | 102 | -0.4 | 71 | 22 | 104 | 0.3 |
White British | 64 | 17 | 102 | -0.5 | 72 | 23 | 104 | 0.2 |
White Irish | 72 | 27 | 104 | 1.7 | 82 | 36 | 107 | 2.6 |
White Irish Traveller | 26 | 3 | 95 | -2.4 | 31 | 6 | 97 | -1.1 |
White Gypsy/Roma | 19 | 2 | 94 | -1.7 | 23 | 3 | 95 | -1.3 |
White other | 54 | 14 | 101 | 0.8 | 60 | 19 | 102 | 1.7 |
Any other | 54 | 11 | 100 | 0.1 | 62 | 15 | 102 | 0.9 |
Unknown | 52 | 14 | 101 | -0.2 | 58 | 19 | 103 | 0.7 |
Download table data for ‘Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender’ (CSV) Source data for ‘Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender’ (CSV)
Summary of Reading attainments for children aged 7 to 11 (key stage 2) Reading attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender Summary
The data shows that:
-
overall, girls outperformed boys; 70% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 62% of boys, and 22% of girls met the higher standard, compared with 16% of boys
-
Irish girls were most likely to reach the expected standard (82% did so) and Gypsy/Roma boys least likely to (19% did so)
-
Irish girls and Chinese girls were most likely to reach the higher standard (36% of both groups did so) and Gypsy/Roma boys least likely to (2% did so)
-
overall, girls also made more progress than boys in reading between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a score of 0.4 compared with -0.3 for boys
-
Irish girls made the most progress in reading, with a score of 2.6 against a national average of 0; boys from a Traveller of Irish Heritage background made the least progress in reading, with a score of -2.4
-
overall, the average scaled score for girls was 103, compared with 102 for boys
-
Irish girls achieved most highly, with an average scaled score of 107; Gypsy/Roma boys did least well, with an average scaled score of 94
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 70% 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.
Confidence intervals for progress results 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, 95% confidence intervals around progress scores are provided in the data download. This 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 should be interpreted alongside their associated confidence intervals. 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.
The system of national curriculum levels is no longer used by the government to report on end of key stage assessment.
For this reason, the previous 'expected progress' measure, based on pupils making at least two levels of progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2, will not appear in the performance tables or Reporting and Analysis for Improvement through school Self-Evaluation (RAISEonline) in 2016.
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.
Because of the changes to the curriculum, figures for 2016 are not comparable to those for earlier years.
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
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
All charts and tables are rounded to the nearest whole number. Progress scores are given to 1 decimal place.
Related publications
Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2016
Quality and methodology information
6. Data sources
Source
National curriculum assessments: key stage 2, 2016 (revised)
Type of data
Administrative data
Type of statistic
National Statistics
Publisher
Department for Education
Publication frequency
3 times a year
Purpose of data source
The main purpose is to measure schools' and pupils' progress and performance from key stage 1 to key stage 2 to monitor and improve standards and inform parental choice when applying to local schools.
7. Download the data
This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, region, local authority, gender, value and denominator
This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, gender, value and denominator
This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, gender, value and denominator
This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, gender, value and confidence intervals