The data which links pupil characteristics with pupil performance has been important for every single school leader in pinpointing underperformance by gender, ethnicity, free school meals and so on. We are now mining the same data to identify patterns of progress over time.

Our first investigations were into patterns of progress among pupils below expectations at each key stage. The first big surprise was how many pupils who reach national expectations in Key Stage 2 are still stuck at Level 4 three years later at the end of Key Stage 3. In English, this happens to 5 per cent of all pupils; in mathematics the figure is 2 per cent; and in science it is 11 per cent. We were surprised and puzzled. Why, despite our best efforts, do so many children stall in Key Stage 3, and what can we to re-engage them?

To solve this puzzle, we assembled a small team of experienced advisers to speak to pupils to whom this has happened, and to those still in the middle of the key stage who are predicted a similar trajectory. We met pupils in focus groups, and talked with their teachers and a senior leader in each school. A strong, clear picture emerged of a group of pleasant, ordinary pupils who have become rather bored and disengaged, who feel that learning is something done to them and not something they do for themselves.

They like secondary school but miss the primary teacher who knew them well. They express resentment about pupils who get the teacher’s attention by misbehaving, and also Gifted and Talented students who get special classes, and the least able who get the attention of teaching assistants. They long for one-to-one attention for themselves in the form of a personal tutor or mentor. They do not want pastoral support but they do want academic encouragement

Alas, if they do not get support, the evidence is that during Year 8 they begin to join in low level disruption and become truly disengaged. And by the way, they do know they are ‘stuck’ and are mortified by it.

When we repeated this exercise in Key Stage 2 we found few stuck pupils, but many who made slow progress over the four years of the key stage, and slipped back from the upper half of the class to the bottom 20 per cent. This includes six per cent of all pupils who reached Level 2 at the end of Key Stage 1 (of whom half were at Level 2a).

Our advisers discovered that these ‘slow moving’ underperformers were typically amiable pupils who kept a low profile in class: ‘invisible’ children as one teacher termed them. They say they rarely put up their hands to answer questions in class, or if they do, they give limited one-word answers and do not unpack their thinking. They also have conservative learning styles, and are afraid of taking risks. In mathematics, they are keen to be neat and correct and a little afraid of open-ended tasks. They are poor at planning work, especially written work, and they lack self-help strategies. When they are stuck, they simply freeze and wait undemandingly for the teacher to come and sort them out.

Looking ahead at their GCSE performance, we find a large number of pupils who reach or exceed expectations at Key Stage 3 then get a D. In GCSE English, they account for 11 per cent of all pupils; in mathematics and science 12 per cent. School standards advisers are currently interviewing these pupils about their experiences. Most of them have been at or above expectations throughout their school careers and failure comes as a late shock.

One of the most revealing findings of the surveys is that traditional underperformers from underprivileged groups are not trailing helplessly behind from the start. If anything, a child’s background exerts greater influence in secondary school. That’s when many white working class boys become disaffected and lose ground. The traditional image of working class children struggling against their background from the very start is not always: the ‘class’ factor can kick in later on.

One of the thrills of working on progression is
the new perspective it throws on schools and local authorities. It credits schools with successes not revealed by threshold scores, though the reverse is also true: it exposes weak progress among children who should be doing better. There will be new stars in the firmament.

We have, meanwhile, completed similar field studies of primary schools who secure excellent rates of progress and secondary schools which come close to closing the attainment gaps between boys and girls. We are also examining patterns of progression among different types of pupils and schools. Every school leader should read the findings when they are published in the Making Good Progress series.

Personalisation is, of course, the rough answer to the question of how we accommodate the needs of these pupils once we know who they are. Happily, our findings are that their needs are not unusual or irremediable, and our reports point to the main things that schools should stitch into their practice.

You can relax – our recommendations don’t call
for 30 different teaching plans per class or armies of private tutors. The findings are offered as recognisable portraits of pupils that will ring bells for your staff. They will suggest what you can do, and none of it will be rocket science. We are, however, utterly convinced that every school should have robust, school-wide, criteria-based pupil tracking systems and more timely attention to pupils who fall off trajectory.