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

Published

Contents
  1. 1. Main facts and figures
  2. 2. By ethnicity
  3. 3. By ethnicity and area
  4. 4. By ethnicity and gender
  5. 5. Methodology
  6. 6. Data sources
  7. 7. Download the data

1. Main facts and figures

  • overall, in 2016/17, 76% of pupils met the expected standard in writing by the end of key stage 2 (when they are usually aged 10 or 11 years), and 18% met the higher standard
  • pupils from the Chinese ethnic group were most likely out of all ethnic groups to meet both the expected standard (jointly with pupils from the Indian ethnic group) and the higher standard
  • Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely out of all ethnic groups to meet both the expected standard, and the higher standard (jointly with Irish Traveller pupils)
  • pupils from the Chinese ethnic group made the most progress in writing between key stage 1 and key stage 2, while Irish Traveller pupils made the least progress
  • within every ethnic group, girls were more likely than boys to meet both the expected and the higher standards in writing
  • 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 (86%); 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 599,061 pupils in key stage 2 at state-funded schools in England in year 6 (the final year of key stage 2), 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).

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 writing 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 writing are divided into 2 categories:

  • expected standard – to meet this, pupils must have been assessed as ‘working at the expected standard’ or ‘working at a greater depth within the expected standard’
  • higher standard – to meet this, pupils must have been assessed as ‘working at a greater depth within the expected standard’

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
  • Bangladeshi
  • 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 writing, and progress score, by ethnicity
Ethnicity Expected standard Higher standard Progress score
All 76 18 0.0
Asian 80 19 1.0
Bangladeshi 81 20 1.6
Indian 85 26 1.2
Pakistani 75 13 0.7
Asian other 81 23 1.1
Black 77 16 0.8
Black African 79 18 1.2
Black Caribbean 72 12 -0.2
Black other 75 15 0.7
Chinese 85 34 1.9
Mixed 78 19 0.2
Mixed White/Asian 82 25 0.5
Mixed White/Black African 77 18 0.4
Mixed White/Black Caribbean 73 14 -0.5
Mixed other 79 21 0.6
White 76 18 -0.3
White British 77 18 -0.4
White Irish 80 23 0.2
White Irish Traveller 36 2 -0.8
White Gypsy/Roma 31 2 -0.4
White other 70 16 1.6
Other 72 15 1.4

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary

The data shows that:

  • overall, in 2016/17, 76% of pupils met the expected standard in writing by the end of key stage 2 (when they are usually aged 10 to 11 years), and 18% met the higher standard
  • 85% of pupils from the Chinese and Indian ethnic groups met the expected standard in writing, and 34% of pupils from the Chinese ethnic group met the higher standard (the highest percentages of any ethnic group)
  • 31% of Gypsy/Roma pupils met the expected standard in writing and 2% of both Gypsy/Roma and Irish Traveller pupils met the higher standard (the lowest percentages of any ethnic group)
  • between key stage 1 and key stage 2, pupils from the Chinese ethnic group made the most progress in writing, with a progress score of 1.9 points; Irish Traveller pupils made the least progress, with a progress score of -0.8 points

3. By ethnicity and area

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in writing by ethnicity and area
Local authority All Asian Black Chinese Mixed White
% % % % % %
Barking and Dagenham 76 84 80 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 71
Barnet 79 84 73 91 79 81
Barnsley 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 57 N/A* 86 76
Bath and North East Somerset 76 79 54 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 76
Bedford 71 72 69 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 71
Bexley 80 88 83 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 78
Birmingham 73 75 72 80 73 71
Blackburn with Darwen 76 79 64 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 75
Blackpool 77 76 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 86 77
Bolton 77 81 67 withheld to protect confidentiality 82 76
Bournemouth 80 93 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 80 79
Bracknell Forest 72 85 84 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 71
Bradford 74 78 69 67 70 72
Brent 75 78 73 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 77
Brighton and Hove 78 71 83 80 79 79
Bristol, City of 77 79 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 77
Bromley 84 90 83 withheld to protect confidentiality 87 84
Buckinghamshire 76 77 72 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 76
Bury 77 74 73 100 72 78
Calderdale 70 65 57 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 71
Cambridgeshire 73 72 62 93 75 73
Camden 78 78 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 78
Central Bedfordshire 74 81 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 74
Cheshire East 76 86 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 80 75
Cheshire West and Chester 74 82 63 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 74
City of London 92 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality N/A* withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality
Cornwall 76 78 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 84 76
County Durham 79 85 70 100 82 79
Coventry 77 84 78 100 75 75
Croydon 78 83 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 77
Cumbria 77 87 57 withheld to protect confidentiality 86 77
Darlington 76 90 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 89 75
Derby 73 77 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 71
Derbyshire 76 80 79 76 77 76
Devon 76 93 57 70 76 76
Doncaster 74 80 72 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 73
Dorset 72 72 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 77 72
Dudley 74 75 64 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 74
Ealing 78 80 73 100 76 81
East Riding of Yorkshire 78 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 82 78
East Sussex 75 77 67 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 75
Enfield 78 88 78 100 82 76
Essex 78 89 81 83 80 78
Gateshead 82 80 83 100 90 82
Gloucestershire 74 78 62 78 72 74
Greenwich 83 91 85 100 82 79
Hackney 85 89 83 withheld to protect confidentiality 87 85
Halton 72 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 82 72
Hammersmith and Fulham 81 78 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 84 79
Hampshire 81 91 83 87 83 80
Haringey 81 89 78 79 83 81
Harrow 83 88 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 84 79
Hartlepool 81 82 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 81
Havering 85 88 91 82 84 84
Herefordshire, County of 76 100 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 79 76
Hertfordshire 79 85 80 86 80 79
Hillingdon 78 85 73 withheld to protect confidentiality 80 75
Hounslow 82 86 77 withheld to protect confidentiality 85 78
Isle of Wight 72 77 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 78 72
Isles of Scilly 41 N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* 41
Islington 80 87 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 82 80
Kensington and Chelsea 86 81 81 100 87 86
Kent 81 92 84 87 85 80
Kingston upon Hull, City of 77 84 62 withheld to protect confidentiality 90 77
Kingston upon Thames 77 76 70 withheld to protect confidentiality 80 78
Kirklees 74 76 62 withheld to protect confidentiality 66 75
Knowsley 71 86 withheld to protect confidentiality N/A* 78 71
Lambeth 83 87 81 83 84 83
Lancashire 77 79 71 86 78 77
Leeds 70 72 67 88 67 71
Leicester 75 82 79 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 66
Leicestershire 77 84 78 86 79 77
Lewisham 78 86 77 89 81 76
Lincolnshire 73 95 86 84 85 73
Liverpool 71 78 72 88 75 71
Luton 72 71 74 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 72
Manchester 75 77 78 76 75 73
Medway 76 89 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 75
Merton 76 83 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 72
Middlesbrough 76 75 75 N/A* 67 76
Milton Keynes 78 87 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 80 75
Newcastle upon Tyne 78 80 87 83 82 77
Newham 84 86 85 100 84 76
Norfolk 75 90 68 88 76 74
North East Lincolnshire 79 80 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 92 79
North Lincolnshire 78 90 54 withheld to protect confidentiality 86 78
North Somerset 76 88 75 100 78 76
North Tyneside 80 90 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 89 80
North Yorkshire 75 79 81 82 81 75
Northamptonshire 75 79 74 86 75 75
Northumberland 77 87 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 78 77
Nottingham 74 77 76 78 76 72
Nottinghamshire 78 79 68 91 76 78
Oldham 74 72 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 75
Oxfordshire 74 77 69 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 74
Peterborough 68 73 67 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 67
Plymouth 75 100 58 75 85 75
Poole 76 91 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 80 76
Portsmouth 74 83 85 33 77 73
Reading 76 81 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 71 76
Redbridge 81 84 76 78 82 79
Redcar and Cleveland 81 withheld to protect confidentiality N/A* withheld to protect confidentiality 86 80
Richmond upon Thames 84 83 68 75 84 85
Rochdale 76 78 69 withheld to protect confidentiality 84 75
Rotherham 77 78 79 withheld to protect confidentiality 84 77
Rutland 80 100 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 79
Salford 77 94 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 77
Sandwell 75 82 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 72
Sefton 77 89 77 63 78 77
Sheffield 77 82 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 74 77
Shropshire 76 82 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 84 76
Slough 81 86 83 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 72
Solihull 78 85 73 withheld to protect confidentiality 72 77
Somerset 75 82 60 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 75
South Gloucestershire 78 88 76 100 75 78
South Tyneside 82 87 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 88 82
Southampton 78 82 82 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 78
Southend-on-Sea 79 88 90 withheld to protect confidentiality 82 78
Southwark 78 83 77 82 79 80
St. Helens 77 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 78 76
Staffordshire 78 82 79 83 78 78
Stockport 77 78 71 81 78 77
Stockton-on-Tees 80 86 85 withheld to protect confidentiality 89 79
Stoke-on-Trent 72 73 72 62 78 72
Suffolk 74 85 83 57 77 74
Sunderland 81 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 80 81
Surrey 79 84 73 84 83 78
Sutton 83 94 87 85 83 80
Swindon 77 82 80 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 76
Tameside 77 77 57 70 79 78
Telford and Wrekin 77 77 76 withheld to protect confidentiality 78 77
Thurrock 79 84 87 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 76
Torbay 75 withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality withheld to protect confidentiality 77 75
Tower Hamlets 82 84 79 78 78 73
Trafford 83 89 79 92 86 82
Wakefield 74 73 73 64 75 74
Walsall 74 80 72 withheld to protect confidentiality 73 72
Waltham Forest 82 84 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 81
Wandsworth 83 84 78 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 85
Warrington 82 91 withheld to protect confidentiality 100 82 81
Warwickshire 78 91 75 83 83 77
West Berkshire 75 80 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 79 74
West Sussex 69 75 61 81 76 68
Westminster 80 83 80 100 83 81
Wigan 79 88 81 withheld to protect confidentiality 80 79
Wiltshire 75 86 61 withheld to protect confidentiality 76 75
Windsor and Maidenhead 77 81 71 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 76
Wirral 74 82 100 withheld to protect confidentiality 85 73
Wokingham 82 91 86 withheld to protect confidentiality 81 80
Wolverhampton 78 85 84 withheld to protect confidentiality 75 75
Worcestershire 74 74 81 100 75 74
York 76 70 75 withheld to protect confidentiality 77 76

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

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 writing 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 86% of pupils met the standard
  • 100% of Asian pupils met the expected standard in County of Herefordshire (West Midlands), Plymouth (South West) and Rutland (East Midlands), while 65% did so in Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) – these were the highest and lowest percentages of Asian pupils meeting the standard out of all local authorities
  • 100% of Black pupils met the expected standard in Wirral in the North West, while 54% did so in North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and The Humber) and Bath and North East Somerset (South West)
  • 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in 16 local authorities (out of the 63 local authorities for which data was available), while 33% did so in Portsmouth (South East)
  • 92% of pupils with Mixed ethnicity met the expected standard in North East Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and The Humber), while 66% did so in Kirklees (also Yorkshire and The Humber)
  • 86% of White pupils in Kensington and Chelsea (London) met the expected standard, while 41% did so in the Isles of Scilly (South West)

4. By ethnicity and gender

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standards in writing by ethnicity and gender
Boys Girls
Ethnicity Expected standard Higher standard Progress score Expected standard Higher standard Progress score
All 70 13 -0.8 82 23 0.8
Asian 75 14 0.4 85 24 1.7
Bangladeshi 76 14 1.0 86 26 2.3
Indian 82 20 0.6 89 32 1.8
Pakistani 69 9 0.1 81 17 1.4
Asian other 77 18 0.6 85 28 1.7
Black 71 12 0.2 83 21 1.5
Black African 73 14 0.6 84 22 1.7
Black Caribbean 64 8 -1.0 80 16 0.7
Black other 69 10 -0.1 81 21 1.6
Chinese 80 27 1.2 90 40 2.6
Mixed 72 14 -0.6 84 25 1.1
Mixed White/Asian 77 19 -0.2 87 31 1.3
Mixed White/Black African 71 13 -0.6 83 23 1.2
Mixed White/Black Caribbean 65 9 -1.5 81 18 0.6
Mixed other 74 15 -0.2 85 26 1.5
White 70 13 -1.1 82 22 0.6
White British 70 13 -1.2 83 23 0.5
White Irish 74 18 -0.7 85 29 1.2
White Irish Traveller 27 withheld to protect confidentiality -2.5 45 withheld to protect confidentiality 0.9
White Gypsy/Roma 24 1 -1.7 38 2 0.7
White other 65 12 0.9 76 20 2.4
Other 67 12 0.7 78 19 2.2

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary

The data shows that:

  • overall, in 2016/17, 82% of girls and 70% of boys met the expected standard in writing by the end of key stage 2 (when they are aged 10 to 11 years), while 23% of girls and 13% of boys met the higher standard; girls were more likely to meet the expected and higher standards than boys in every ethnic group
  • overall, girls made above average progress in writing between key stage 1 and key stage 2 (with a progress score of 0.8 points), while boys made below average progress (with a progress score of -0.8 points); this pattern was seen in every ethnic group
  • 90% of girls from the Chinese ethnic group met the expected standard and 40% met the higher standard, the highest percentages in any ethnic group across boys and girls; Chinese girls also made the most progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a progress score of 2.6 points
  • 24% of Gypsy/Roma boys met the expected standard, the lowest percentage in any ethnic group across boys and girls
  • Traveller of Irish Heritage boys made the least progress between key stage 1 and key stage 2, with a progress score of -2.5 points

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).

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

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

Source

Type of data

Administrative data

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.

Publication frequency

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.

7. Download the data

Writing attainments for children aged 10 to 11 (key stage 2) -national - Spreadsheet (csv) 88 KB

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

Writing attainments for children aged 10 to 11 (key stage 2) -local authorities - Spreadsheet (csv) 324 KB

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