Writing attainments for children aged 7 to 11 (key stage 2)

Published

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

1. Main facts and figures

  • in 2015/16, there were 585,577 pupils in key stage 2 at state-funded mainstream schools in England, and ethnicity was known for 580,730 (99%) of them

  • 76% were White, 11% were Asian, 6% were Black, 5% were Mixed, 2% belonged to the Other ethnic group and 0.4% were Chinese

  • overall, 74% of pupils reached the expected standard for writing, and 15% met the higher standard

  • the Chinese ethnic group had the highest percentage of children reaching both the expected and higher standard, at 84% and 29% respectively

  • Gypsy/Roma children did least well, with 29% reaching the expected standard and 1% reaching the higher standard

  • within every ethnic group, girls were more likely than boys to meet both the expected and the higher standard in writing

  • Bangladeshi children made the most progress in writing between key stage 1 and key stage 2, whereas pupils from a Traveller of Irish Heritage background made the least progress

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).

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 the Methodology section.

What the data measures

This data measures the writing 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).

Standards in writing are divided into 2 categories:

  • expected standard
  • higher standard

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

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

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. Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standard in writing, and progress score, by ethnicity
Ethnicity Expected standard Higher standard Progress score
All 74 15 0.0
Asian 77 16 1.1
Bangladeshi 80 17 2.0
Indian 82 21 1.0
Pakistani 73 11 0.8
Asian other 79 19 1.4
Black 75 14 1.2
Black African 77 16 1.5
Black Caribbean 70 10 0.2
Black other 73 13 1.3
Chinese 84 29 1.8
Mixed 76 16 0.3
Mixed White/Asian 81 21 0.5
Mixed White/Black African 76 15 0.5
Mixed White/Black Caribbean 72 12 -0.2
Mixed other 77 18 0.6
White 73 15 -0.3
White British 74 15 -0.4
White Irish 79 21 0.4
White Irish Traveller 35 3 -1.4
White Gypsy/Roma 29 1 -0.6
White other 68 13 1.7
Other 71 13 1.6
Unknown 60 11 -0.4

Download table data for ‘Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity’ (CSV) Source data for ‘Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity’ (CSV)

Summary

The data shows that:

  • Chinese pupils were most likely to meet both the expected and higher standards in writing – 84% met the expected standard and 29% met the higher standard

  • Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to meet the expected and higher standards in writing – 29% met the expected standard and 1% met the higher standard

  • Bangladeshi children made the most progress in writing between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a score of 2.0, while Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils made the least progress, with a score of -1.4

3. Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area

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

Download table data for ‘Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area’ (CSV) Source data for ‘Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and area’ (CSV)

Summary

The data for expected standards in writing shows that:

  • pupils in Hackney in London were most likely to meet the expected standard, with 85% doing so, while pupils in Calderdale in Yorkshire and the Humber were least likely to reach the expected standard, with 59% doing so

  • Asian pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in the City of London in the region of London – outside this local authority, which only has one school of 28 pupils, the next best performing area was the City of Kingston upon Hull in Yorkshire and the Humber

  • Asian pupils were least likely to meet the expected standard in Calderdale in Yorkshire and the Humber

  • Black pupils were most likely to reach the expected standard in Cornwall in the South West, Wirral in the North West, and South Tyneside in the North East; they were least likely to meet the expected standard in Devon and in Bath and North East Somerset in the South West, Stockport in the North West, and Hartlepool in the North East

  • 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in 20 local authorities: 7 in London, 4 in the North West, 3 in the West Midlands, 2 in the South West, and 1 each in the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, the East of England, and the South East

  • Chinese pupils performed least well in Worcestershire in the West Midlands, and Bradford in Yorkshire and the Humber

  • pupils from a Mixed ethnic background were most likely to meet the expected standard in Sefton in the North West and least likely meet it in Liverpool in the North West

  • White pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in the City of London – outside this local authority, which only has one school of 28 pupils, the next best performing area was Hackney in London

  • White pupils were least likely to meet the expected standard in Swindon in the South West

4. Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender

Percentage of pupils reaching the expected and higher standard in writing by ethnicity and gender
Boys Girls
Ethnicity Expected standard Higher standard Progress score Expected standard Higher standard Progress score
All 68 11 -0.8 81 19 0.8
Asian 72 12 0.5 83 20 1.8
Bangladeshi 75 12 1.3 85 22 2.6
Indian 77 17 0.4 87 27 1.7
Pakistani 67 8 0.1 79 14 1.5
Asian other 74 15 0.8 83 24 2.0
Black 69 10 0.5 82 18 1.9
Black African 72 12 0.9 83 19 2.2
Black Caribbean 63 7 -0.6 78 13 1.1
Black other 66 9 0.5 81 18 2.1
Chinese 79 21 0.8 89 37 2.7
Mixed 70 12 -0.5 83 21 1.2
Mixed White/Asian 75 16 -0.2 86 26 1.3
Mixed White/Black African 69 12 -0.5 83 19 1.6
Mixed White/Black Caribbean 64 8 -1.2 80 16 0.7
Mixed other 71 13 -0.3 83 22 1.4
White 67 11 -1.1 80 19 0.6
White British 68 11 -1.3 81 19 0.5
White Irish 72 15 -0.5 85 27 1.3
White Irish Traveller 25 withheld to protect confidentiality -2.8 46 withheld to protect confidentiality 0.2
White Gypsy/Roma 22 withheld to protect confidentiality -1.7 36 withheld to protect confidentiality 0.5
White other 62 10 0.9 73 17 2.6
Other 66 10 0.9 77 16 2.3
Unknown 55 8 -1.3 65 15 0.5

Download table data for ‘Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender’ (CSV) Source data for ‘Writing attainment for children aged 7 to 11 by ethnicity and gender’ (CSV)

Summary

The data shows that:

  • overall, more girls than boys met both the expected and higher standard; girls also made more progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2

  • 81% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 68% of boys; and 19% of girls met the higher standard, compared with 11% of boys

  • girls made more progress than boys between key stage 1 and key stage 2; girls scored 0.8 and boys scored -0.8, against a national average of 0

  • Chinese girls were the highest achievers: 89% met the expected standard, 37% met the higher standard, and the group also made the most progress, scoring 2.7

  • Gypsy/Roma boys were the least likely to meet the expected standard (22% did so)

  • the percentage of Gypsy/Roma boys and girls and Traveller of Irish Heritage boys and girls meeting the higher standard has been excluded from the results to protect the identity of individual pupils

  • Traveller of Irish Heritage boys made the least progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2, scoring -2.8

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).

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).

Rounding

All 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 2016

Quality and methodology information

6. Data sources

Source

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

Progress score in writing - Spreadsheet (csv) 11 KB

This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, gender, value and confidence intervals

Expected standard in writing - Spreadsheet (csv) 181 KB

This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, region, local authority, gender, value and denominator

Higher standard in writing - Spreadsheet (csv) 13 KB

This file contains the following: ethnicity, year, gender, value and denominator