Dinnington High School Results 2020
Key Stage 4
Almost all our students are in our mainstream setting. Results in 2020, for these students, were a further improvement on the results for 2019, and a significant improvement on 2018.
As per changes in the summer 2020, we do not have to report these results and there are no published national comparators. The reason why we are still reporting them is because of the robustness of our processes (see below) that lead us to believe that these results are very close to the results we think students would have achieved if they had sat their exams.
* For all the Progress data, we have used we have used SISRA’s 2020 Collaboration Data (set 2).
The figures have been calculated using the anonymised data of 211,904 students from 1,277 opted in schools.
Note on DHS national data linked to on-site special Resource Base: A small number of students are in or linked to our Trust-funded Segrave SEMH Resource Base. The curriculum diet, and thus the qualifications these students study is very particular to them as individual and is not driven by National league tables. The effect of this, is that is skews our nationally reportable results downwards. Thus, it is important that we concurrently report our mainstream data to give a clear picture of how students achieve compared to students in other schools. [Please see ** below for more details.]
** We pride ourselves on not giving up on children; we do not off-roll them, we do not persuade parents to home educate. We try very hard to avoid permanent exclusions. As part of this, we have an on-site Trust-funded Special Resource Base for students with significant SEMH needs (as well as other learning needs). In many schools, these students would have been permanently excluded for the behaviours they exhibit. However, we believe these students have such significant underlying issues that we have either successfully gained EHCPs for them or they are on the SEND register at K while we apply for EHCPs. Our LA SEND lead agrees with us that they all should have EHCPs. Thus, this provision is very much about meeting individual students’ needs to keep them in school, ensuring they progress post-16, and ensuring they do not become lost in education. For many of them, a traditional route full of exams will not meet their needs. They have bespoke timetables. An important focus for these students is ensuring they are not NEETs at the end of Y11. We have a very high success rate with this.
These students still count in our school data as the Resource Base is funded by our Trust (LEAP MAT) and the students are still on our roll so our national data unfairly represents the work done in our main school, and similarly downgrades the other successes in our Resource Base, which will never show up in a league table.
Why we think this KS4 data set has significant level of reliability
• We collect robust, honest, data through the year that looks at worst case scenarios for grades with significant buffers to allow for data changes.
• This data comes from:
o Departmental detailed, moderated & standardised assessments that includes mocks conducted in full exam conditions, use of past questions, nationally standardised materials, internal moderation that includes some external moderation if necessary
o In-class on-going assessment, checking and quick testing
o Teachers’ knowledge of student work over time.
• In compiling the Centre Assessed Grades, departments worked collaboratively to review each student and all available information to both rank them and award grades.
• The Heads of Department and another member of the department (examiners where we had them), then reviewed the whole cohort again looking for anomalies or any data that did not triangulate with the big picture
• The resulting data set was then scrutinised by at least two members of SLT who also made comparisons to previous year groups and across subjects, challenging departments where queries arose.
• Our Heads of Department are very reliable and we have additional confidence in them given the accuracy of their predictions in the previous year compared to final results
• We consistently applied the principle that the grades must be as accurate as possible to ensure no students ended up on a post-16 pathway that was inappropriate compared to their ability.
• Our whole ethos was based on awarding the CAGs with integrity and honesty.
Key Stage 5
We have a relatively small sixth form and a broad range of courses, so we have small numbers. On the KS5 academic pathway, we try very hard with students that other sixth form colleges would in all likelihood remove to help fulfil their ambitions of going to university in an area where there is a low percentage of graduates.
We have huge success getting students onto their next pathway – typically most to university but an increasing number to high-level apprenticeships including degree apprenticeships.
• Overall APS 86.67
• Applied General Qualifications Level 3 Value Added: +37 +0.9
• Academic Level 3 Value Added: +0.41 +0.87
• A small number of students also study Tech Levels but these are not awarded Value Added.
Given the group sizes are small, we think there is some upward movement with these results over and above what we would have expected. Put simply, this is because for Centre Assessed Grades, you may have 4 students who are all capable of a B, all worked for a B but in reality, in actual exams might not have all got a B for a range of reasons. Because these cohorts are small, this would not balance out in the same way it would for the large Y11 cohort. Thus, we think there is some upwardness over and above what we expected.