Assessment & Data Analysis

It is worth saying plainly, because it shapes how useful any analysis will be.

Most leaders we work with are not short of data. They are short of confidence about what it means, and tired of being asked to explain figures that moved for reasons nobody can fully identify. Teachers often experience data collection as something done to them rather than for them, and a data drop that produces no visible change is simply extra work.

We often see schools where the analysis is technically thorough and nobody acts on it, because it arrives as a wall of numbers with no clear message. We also see schools where a single disappointing figure has taken up months of leadership attention, while a genuine problem sat elsewhere in the data unnoticed.

It is understandable that data has become a source of anxiety. Our starting point is to take the emotional charge out of it, so you can look at what happened without it feeling like a judgement on you or your staff.

Your inspection data summary report, usually called the IDSR, is worth understanding properly, because inspectors use it to prepare for inspection and to guide their conversations with leaders.

It was updated in November 2025 in line with the current inspection toolkits, and now includes greater detail on school context, including cohort stability, levels of disadvantage, and the proportion of pupils with SEND. It also contains a report card data section, showing the data that will eventually appear alongside your inspection report, frozen at the point of inspection.

Two things are worth holding on to. The report is a summary of statistical information, not a judgement or a complete picture of your school, and Ofsted says so explicitly. And it is available to you and your governors year round, through the Ofsted IDSR service or the Department for Education’s Analyse School Performance service.

Many leaders tell us they have looked at it once, found it uncomfortable, and not returned. We would encourage the opposite. Reading it calmly, with someone who can explain what each section is and is not saying, means you are never seeing your own data for the first time in the same room as an inspector.

Headline figures tell you the outcome. Question-level analysis tells you where it came from, and that is where the teaching decisions live.

It can show that pupils understood a concept but lost marks on the way questions were worded. That a topic taught in the autumn was not retained by the summer. That a particular question type defeated a whole cohort, which points at teaching rather than at pupils. Or that a group of pupils performed well across the paper and dropped only on extended writing, which is a different problem again.

The value is that it converts a percentage into something a teacher can actually do something with on Monday. It also tends to be reassuring, because it usually shows that the issue is narrower and more fixable than a headline figure suggests.

Averages conceal. A school can hold a respectable overall figure while a group within it is quietly a long way behind.

We look at attainment and progress by prior attainment, disadvantage, SEND, English as an additional language, gender, attendance, and any grouping that matters in your context. Where numbers allow, we look at combinations, because a disadvantaged pupil with SEND and low attendance is not well described by any of those categories on its own.

We are careful about how this is reported. Group labels are analytical conveniences, not descriptions of children, and a report that reduces pupils to categories tends to produce responses aimed at the category rather than the child. Where we can, we point you toward the specific pupils behind a pattern, because that is where the action actually happens.

National measures assume a certain kind of school, and a great many schools are not that school.

In a small primary, one pupil can move a percentage by five points or more. A cohort that looks like a decline may be a different group of children with different starting points. It is genuinely difficult to lead a school where the headline figures swing for reasons outside your control, and it is worth having someone say clearly which movements are meaningful and which are noise.

In special schools and alternative provision, standard measures often describe very little of what matters. Progress may be real and significant without registering against national expectations at all. We work with settings to identify measures that reflect what they are genuinely achieving, including engagement, attendance, communication, independence, and destinations, so that the story can be told honestly rather than apologetically.

One of the most useful outcomes of this work is often a decision to collect less.

We frequently find schools running assessment cycles that generate more information than anyone has time to use, with data entered by teachers who never see it again. The workload cost is significant and the return is often close to nothing.

We help schools work out what they actually need, how often, and who will use it. Fewer collection points, better used, almost always beats more. That is a change staff notice immediately, and it tends to improve the quality of what is collected as well.

How data is used shapes how staff feel about their work, and it is worth being deliberate about that.

Data used to understand and support tends to strengthen teams. The same data used to hold individuals to account for figures they do not control tends to produce defensiveness, gaming, and eventually resignations. Most schools are somewhere between the two, and often without realising which way they have drifted.

When we report, we frame findings around what the evidence suggests should change rather than who should explain themselves. That is not softness. It produces better decisions, because people describe their classes honestly when they are not braced for blame.

Boards need enough to hold leaders to account and not so much that they lose the point. Getting that balance right is harder than it looks.

We help schools present data honestly and clearly: a small number of measures that matter, context so the board understands what a figure can and cannot bear, trends rather than single points, and a plain account of what leaders are doing about anything concerning.

Governors often tell us they receive a great deal of data and understand very little of it, and they are usually too polite to say so. Fixing that improves challenge, which is what the board is there to provide.

Trusts have the advantage of scale and the difficulty of comparison.

Comparing schools directly is rarely fair, because intakes and contexts differ, and league tables within a trust can do real damage to the culture between headteachers. What is genuinely useful is identifying patterns across schools, understanding where a shared curriculum or approach is landing well and where it is not, and spreading practice from a school that has solved something.

We work with trusts to analyse in a way that supports schools rather than ranking them, while still giving the board the assurance it needs.

Through the Ofsted IDSR service or the Department for Education’s Analyse School Performance service, using a DfE Sign-in account with the right permissions. It is worth checking that your governors have access too, since it is a useful document for board scrutiny.

First, do not draw conclusions from the headline figure alone. In our experience the explanation is usually narrower than it first appears, and often sits in a specific topic, question type, or group of pupils. Analysis tells you which, and that changes what you do next entirely.

Yes, and arguably more so. In small cohorts a great deal of movement is statistical noise, and knowing which changes are meaningful protects you from reacting to something that was never there. It also protects your staff from being asked to explain a swing that one or two pupils caused.

Yes, though the approach differs. National measures often describe very little of what these settings achieve. We work with you to identify measures that reflect real progress, including engagement, attendance, communication, independence, and destinations, so the picture is honest rather than apologetic.

Not by us, and we would advise against it. Data used to understand and support improves teaching. The same data used to hold individuals responsible for figures they do not control produces defensiveness and worse information. We report on what should change, not on who should explain themselves.

It depends on the scope, but typically your assessment outcomes, question-level data where available, contextual information about pupils and cohorts, and access to your IDSR. We will tell you precisely what is needed and keep the request as light as we reasonably can.

We work with the minimum personal data necessary, agree how it will be shared and stored before anything is sent, and report on patterns rather than naming pupils unless you need pupil-level information for action.

Yes. We focus on patterns and shared practice rather than ranking schools against each other, since internal league tables tend to damage the culture between headteachers while telling the board very little it can use.

Autumn term is common, once results are confirmed and there is still a year to act. That said, analysis is useful at any point where a decision is being made, and it is considerably more useful before a plan is written than after.