abcdefghijkl
Using data and performance
indicators to promote equity and
fair comparisons between schools
Bill Maxwell
abcdefghijkl
Focusing attainment analysis and
benchmarking on disadvantaged groups
 Using ‘points scores’ to create a cumulative readout of attainment for all pupils, incorporating all
qualifications
 Focusing on the ‘gap’ between the lowest attaining
pupils and the rest
 Focusing on the ‘scores gap’ between particular
vulnerable groups and the rest
abcdefghijkl
National Qualifications
This document summarises the achievements of
Candidate Sophie
Scottish Candidate Number 049028938
in National Courses first certificated in August 2005
Title
Level
English
Business Management
Drama
French
Mathematics
Music
Geography
History
Standard Grade — Credit
Standard Grade — Credit
Standard Grade — General
Standard Grade — General
Standard Grade — General
Standard Grade — General
Standard Grade — Foundation
Standard Grade — Foundation
Grade
1
1
3
3
3
4
5
6
Points
38
38
22
22
22
16
11
8
Total=177
………End of Qualifications Listed………
abcdefghijkl
250
Average Tariff Scores of S4 pupils
Average tariff score
200
150
100
50
0
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
Year
Lowest 20% of pupils
Highest 80% of pupils
"Gap"
2004/05
abcdefghijkl
250
200
Inequalities in Education
Average Tariff Score
National Average - all S4 pupils = 170
150
161
118
110
100
81
50
54
0
Males
Pupils with IEP/RoN
Looked After Children
Pupils receiving Free
School Meals
Pupils living in most
deprived 10% of areas
abcdefghijkl
‘fair comparisons’ between schools
 ‘raw’ comparisons misleading and
ineffective in driving improvement
 Methodology developed to compare each
secondary school with the 20 other Scottish
schools most similar in terms of pupil intake
characteristics
abcdefghijkl
MAKING FAIRER COMPARISONS BETWEEN SCHOOLS:
SIMILAR SCHOOLS ANALYSIS
comparison with 20 ‘similar’ schools based on a
weighted package of measures including:
• FME
• mother’s level of academic qualifications
• prevalence of long-term unemployment
• levels of attendance
• prevalence of special educational needs
• ‘urban’ factor
Principal components analysis (PCA) methodology
abcdefghijkl
SIMILAR SCHOOLS BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS
AN EXAMPLE
% attaining 5+ awards by end
of S4 (2004)
80
Anytown HS, % of pupils attaining 5+ awards at level
5 by end of S4 (2004), similar schools using PCA
75
70
X
65
X
X
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
2002
2003
2004
abcdefghijkl
bringing the two together
 Benchmarking the ‘points score profile’ of
each school against the profile of its
comparator schools
abcdefghijkl
Points distribution barchart
Anytown High, All Candidates 2006
Distribution of S4 Cumulative Total Points per Pupil,
S4 Total Points per Pupil, Anytown High School
50
40
Pe
rce
nta 30
ge
20
10
0
5
4
3
2
Anytown High School
1
5
Quintiles
4
3
2
PCA Comparators
1