The Department for Education will change the methodology for its new headline secondary accountability measure, Progress 8, following mounting pressure from schools. 

Earlier this year, Tes revealed that a growing number of heads have raised fears about how much a school’s overall Progress 8 score can be distorted by poor performance from just a handful of pupils. 

And a policy document released by the Department for Education (DfE) today reveals that it intend to make a change to the Progress 8 methodology from next year in light of these concerns. 

Meanwhile, this year the DfE has said it will: 

• Work with the sector on the best approach in the autumn;
• Ensure that those working with school data - including Ofsted, regional schools commissioners and local authorities - are aware of the potential impact on a school’s Progress 8 score of pupils with extremely negative progress scores;
• Ensure that the impact of pupils with extremely negative scores on Progress 8 will be taken into account where a school is below the floor standard or coasting.

Progress 8 was designed by the government to be fairer by taking into account the achievements of pupils of all abilities, not just those who achieve five or more A*-C grades at GCSE - and is used for high-stakes secondary school floor targets.

But the measure, based on average progress across a school, means that pupils who take no exams, or hardly any, can do significantly more damage to the school’s overall score than under previous measures.

Disproportionately negative effect

New research commissioned by the DfE, released today, reveals that school leaders were concerned about the disproportionately negative effect that pupils who may have been absent due to illness or bereavement have on their Progress 8 score.

This was a worry for all schools, but particularly those with small cohorts and with negative Progress 8 scores, the research shows. 

Senior leaders who were interviewed also felt that the current Progress 8 calculation does not allow for contextualisation/variation in cohorts - for example, special educational needs, English as an additional language, small schools and areas of deprivation.

It was felt that these additional factors needed to be more clearly recognised in the calculation. 

In January, Education Datalab shared with Tes the findings of a study showing that schools that were significantly affected by a few pupils with extremely low scores were overwhelmingly those that had more disadvantaged intakes.

Education Datalab researchers suggested that the problem could be solved by capping P8 to ensure that no pupil could fall below -2.5 or rise above +2.5 on the measure.

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook