A review and evaluation of secondary school accountability in England: Statistical strengths, weaknesses and challenges for ‘Progress 8’ raised by COVID‐19

Abstract

School performance measures are published annually in England to hold schools to account and to support parental school choice. This article reviews and evaluates the ‘Progress 8’ secondary school accountability system for state‐funded schools. We assess the statistical strengths and weaknesses of Progress 8 relating to: choice of pupil outcome attainment measure; potential adjustments for pupil input attainment and background characteristics; decisions around which schools and pupils are excluded from the measure; presentation of Progress 8 to users, choice of statistical model, and calculation of statistical uncertainty; and issues related to the volatility of school performance over time, including scope for reporting multi‐year averages. We then discuss challenges for Progress 8 raised by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Six simple recommendations follow to improve Progress 8 and school accountability in England.

Student mobility: Extent, impacts and predictors of a range of movement types for secondary school students in England

“…Therefore, our results suggest that examination of the continued use of a three‐tier school model in some LAs should be considered as it may be putting students in these areas at a disadvantage relative to those within all‐through secondary schools. Additionally, our results support the recommendation that the age range of schools should be considered when using and making inferences from school performance measures (Leckie & Goldstein, 2019; Prior et al, 2021).…”

The role of socioeconomic deprivation in explaining neighborhood and clinic effects in the effectiveness of psychological interventions.

“…Based on the present study’s findings, particularly identifying neighborhood effects and the contributions of deprivation to clinical outcome, we encourage policymakers and commissioners to consider adjusting outcome targets for socioclinical context. In the field of education, there is general consensus that so-called value-added targets are preferable versus universal attainment targets, due in part to concerns that universal threshold targets (such as those affecting clinics in this study) may produce unintended incentives or consequences for outcomes (Prior et al, 2021; Ray et al, 2009). There are similar longstanding arguments in health care (Goldstein & Spiegelhalter, 1996).…”

“…There are similar longstanding arguments in health care (Goldstein & Spiegelhalter, 1996). Despite this, the optimal specification of such contextual/value-added targets continues to be debated (American Statistical Association, 2014; Prior et al, 2021; Ray et al, 2009).…”