Appendix 3: Success with targets and actions across the sample

Three main criteria were used to judge whether schools were setting clear targets:

  1. Effective scanning of achievement data to focus on underachievement
  2. Targets that built on the previous year’s outcomes
  3. Targets that had ‘buy in’ from teachers and students

Table 1: Target setting for achievement in 2015

More effective target setting, defined as the target set meeting two or three of the criteria for effective targets

Less effective target setting,defined as the target set meeting none or one criterion for effective targets

School had all three criteria: 27%

School had two of the three criteria: 37%

School target met one criteria: 20%

School target met none of criteria: 16%

Table 2: Overall school actions: planning and implementation in 2014

More effective actions, defined as having (i) a focused plan (ii) and more than 40% of students in the target group made accelerated progress

Less effective actions, defined as having no specific actions planned; or actions planned but less than 40% making accelerated progress

Actions planned and implemented resulting in more than 70% of students achieving the target 

25 % of schools in the sample

Actions planned and less than 40% of students accelerated:

32% of schools in the sample

Actions planned and implemented resulting in 40% to 69% of students in the target group achieving the target.

20% of schools in the sample

No specific actions planned

23% of schools in the sample

(Note: six percent of schools were unsuccessful, with neither effective targets nor effective actions)