Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1)

Published 4 May 2018

Last updated 14 May 2019 - see all updates

This page has been archived.
It has been replaced by School results for 5 to 7 year olds.

There is a new version of this page. View the latest version.

Contents

1. Main facts and figures

• overall, 75% of pupils finishing year 2 in 2016/17 met the expected standard in mathematics and 21% of pupils met the higher standard (making these figures the national averages)
• Chinese pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard and Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to do so, at 91% and 30% respectively
• Chinese pupils were most likely to meet the higher standard and Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to do so, at 46% and 2% respectively
• overall, a higher percentage of girls than boys met the expected standard, but a higher percentage of boys than girls met the higher standard
• within every ethnic group, pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) were less likely to meet the expected standard than those who were not eligible

Things you need to know

In 2016/17, there were 653,945 pupils at the end of year 2, and ethnicity was known for 646,520 (99%) of them.

Of those whose ethnicity was known, 75% were White, 11% were Asian, 6% were Black, 6% were Mixed, 2% were from the Other ethnic group and 0.5% were Chinese.

The 2015/16 key stage 1 assessments were the first to assess the new, more challenging national curriculum. The expected standard was raised to be higher than the old level 2. As a result, figures for 2015/16 and 2016/17 are not comparable to those for earlier years.

Teacher assessments for year 2 pupils studying the national curriculum are collected and reported by the Department for Education (DfE), but test results for those pupils are not collected.

School level data is not published for key stage 1. Results for the Isles of Scilly and the City of London, which have only one school each, have been excluded from local authority breakdowns.

The Department for Education (DfE) has also excluded, or ‘suppressed’, very small numbers (for example, values of 1 or 2, a percentage based on 1 or 2 pupils who achieved, or 0, 1 or 2 pupils who did not achieve a particular standard).

This is because, where the size of the ethnic group population is small enough that an individual’s identity could be revealed, information is suppressed to preserve confidentiality. This is consistent with DfE’s statistical policy statement on confidentiality (PDF opens in a new window or tab) (PDF).

Pupil numbers for key stage 1 vary between measures of attainment for different subjects. This is because pupils who don't have a valid teacher assessment for a particular subject are excluded from the total. For more about valid teacher assessments, see the Methodology section.

What the data measures

This data measures the mathematics attainment of children at the end of key stage 1 (year 2) when pupils are aged 6 to 7.

The data covers the academic year 2016/17 (September 2016 to July 2017). Data for the academic year 2015/16 is available in the download file.

The standards for this measure are divided into 2 categories:

• expected standard
• higher standard

To reach the expected standard, pupils must have been assessed by a teacher as 'working at the expected standard' or 'working at a greater depth within the expected standard'.

To reach the higher standard, pupils must have have been assessed by a teacher as 'working at a greater depth within the expected standard'.

The ethnic categories used in this data

This data uses categories from the Department for Education’s school census, which is broadly based on the 2001 national Census, with 3 exceptions:

• Traveller of Irish Heritage and Gypsy/Roma children have been separated into 2 categories
• Sri Lankan has been added to the Asian/Asian British group but is not reported separately
• Chinese pupils have been assigned a separate category

These changes were made after consultations with local authorities and lobby groups.

The categories in the school census are as follows:

White:

• White British
• White Irish
• Traveller of Irish Heritage
• Gypsy/Roma
• Other White

Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups:

• White and Black Caribbean
• White and Black African
• White and Asian
• Other Mixed background

Asian/Asian British:

• Indian
• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Sri Lankan
• Other Asian background

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British:

• Black African
• Black Caribbean
• Other Black background

Chinese

Other ethnic group

Information is provided for both detailed and broad ethnic groups where possible and when the data is available.

The 6 broad categories used are as follows:

• Asian/Asian British
• Black/African/Caribbean/Black British
• Chinese
• Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups
• White
• Other ethnic group

However, local authority data is only provided for 5 broad ethnic groups. Information about the specific ethnic categories is excluded to preserve confidentiality and ensure individuals cannot be identified. Information about the Other ethnic group is not given because DfE does not publish data for this group at the local authority level.

The 5 broad categories are as follows:

• Asian/Asian British
• Black/African/Caribbean/Black British
• Chinese
• Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups
• White

2. By ethnicity

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standards in mathematics by ethnicity

Ethnicity	Expected standard	Higher standard
All	75	21
Asian	77	23
Bangladeshi	76	20
Indian	85	32
Pakistani	72	17
Asian other	79	27
Black	73	18
Black African	75	20
Black Caribbean	68	14
Black other	70	16
Chinese	91	46
Mixed	76	21
Mixed White/Asian	80	27
Mixed White/Black African	75	19
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	70	15
Mixed other	77	23
White	75	20
White British	76	20
White Irish	75	23
White Irish Traveller	35	5
White Gypsy/Roma	30	2
White other	75	20
Other	72	18

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity Summary

This data shows that:

• overall, 75% of pupils met the expected standard in mathematics and 21% met the higher standard, making these the national averages in 2016/17
• 91% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard and 46% met the higher standard (the highest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 30% of Gypsy/Roma pupils met the expected standard and 2% met the higher standard (the lowest percentages of any ethnic group)
• 76% of White British pupils met the expected standard and 20% met the higher standard

3. By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard in mathematics by ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals

Ethnicity	FSM	Non-FSM
	%	%
All	60	78
Asian	67	79
Bangladeshi	69	77
Indian	73	85
Pakistani	64	73
Asian other	69	81
Black	67	75
Black African	69	77
Black Caribbean	60	71
Black other	65	72
Chinese	85	91
Mixed	63	79
Mixed White/Asian	64	83
Mixed White/Black African	67	78
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	61	74
Mixed other	64	80
White	58	78
White British	58	78
White Irish	45	80
White Irish Traveller	30	40
White Gypsy/Roma	29	30
White other	63	75
Other	65	73

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals Summary

Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is used as an indicator of deprivation by the Department for Education. For more about who qualifies for FSM, see the Methodology section.

The data shows that:

• in 2016/17 there were 92,319 pupils eligible for free school meals in year 2 (14% of all pupils)
• overall, 60% of pupils eligible for FSM met the expected standard in mathematics, compared with 78% of those not eligible (a gap of 18 percentage points)
• in every ethnic group, FSM-eligible pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard than those not eligible
• 58% of FSM-eligible White British pupils met the expected standard, compared with 78% of those not eligible (a gap of 20 percentage points)
• 85% of FSM-eligible Chinese pupils met the expected standard (the highest percentage of any ethnic group)
• the largest gap in attainment between FSM-eligible pupils and those not eligible was found in the White Irish group, where 45% and 80% met the expected standard respectively (a gap of 35 percentage points)

4. By ethnicity and area

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard for mathematics by ethnicity and area

Local authority	All	Asian	Black	Chinese	Mixed	White
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Barking and Dagenham	77	84	77	100	74	74
Barnet	77	81	68	92	77	80
Barnsley	74		71		68	74
Bath and North East Somerset	75	68	75		81	75
Bedford	71	69	66	100	65	73
Bexley	82	88	87		79	80
Birmingham	71	74	71	93	72	70
Blackburn with Darwen	74	77	58		78	73
Blackpool	75	79		100	82	74
Bolton	73	77	61		77	74
Bournemouth	77	79		100	84	76
Bracknell Forest	76	84	70		77	76
Bradford	72	74	72		69	72
Brent	75	76	74		77	78
Brighton and Hove	75	66	74		72	76
Bristol, City of	73	70	63		72	76
Bromley	80	83	78	88	78	80
Buckinghamshire	76	72	65	100	75	78
Bury	72	65	68		65	74
Calderdale	70	61	65		68	73
Cambridgeshire	73	74	58	93	76	73
Camden	75	71	71		77	78
Central Bedfordshire	77	86	80	100	81	77
Cheshire East	75	88	73	100	72	75
Cheshire West and Chester	73	75	60	60	79	73
City of London
Cornwall	72	75			74	72
County Durham	78	73			76	78
Coventry	72	79	70		71	71
Croydon	76	81	73		75	77
Cumbria	73	69		69	72	73
Darlington	76	67	73	100	85	76
Derby	72	72	74	85	69	72
Derbyshire	75	79	71	83	75	75
Devon	75	85	71	80	79	75
Doncaster	74	73	71		74	74
Dorset	74	79	75		74	74
Dudley	72	70	66	79	69	73
Ealing	75	77	67		78	79
East Riding of Yorkshire	76	88			79	76
East Sussex	76	77	61		78	77
Enfield	74	84	73		75	72
Essex	76	86	78	93	78	76
Gateshead	76	82	64		83	76
Gloucestershire	74	78	68		76	74
Greenwich	81	89	82		84	79
Hackney	81	83	77	83	85	84
Halton	65		N/A*		66	66
Hammersmith and Fulham	79	85	74	100	79	84
Hampshire	79	84	75	87	84	79
Haringey	79	84	75	88	82	80
Harrow	78	85	62	100	82	73
Hartlepool	75	75		100		75
Havering	77	80	78		80	77
Herefordshire, County of	77				82	77
Hertfordshire	77	83	72	96	77	77
Hillingdon	78	84	73		80	75
Hounslow	81	86	73		83	81
Isle of Wight	68				66	68
Isles of Scilly
Islington	77	77	74	100	76	79
Kensington and Chelsea	82	65	78	100	81	86
Kent	78	83	84		81	78
Kingston upon Hull, City of	72	73	51		73	72
Kingston upon Thames	80	84	71		75	80
Kirklees	71	69	63	69	68	73
Knowsley	71	81		100	62	71
Lambeth	79	85	76	100	80	82
Lancashire	75	73	56	85	73	76
Leeds	68	69	60		65	69
Leicester	72	79	69	58	74	66
Leicestershire	75	81	69	100	72	74
Lewisham	78	79	74	89	77	82
Lincolnshire	73	91	72	87	73	73
Liverpool	66	62	62	90	67	67
Luton	71	72	71		71	71
Manchester	72	71	74	91	73	72
Medway	79	86	85		83	77
Merton	78	82	76	79	77	78
Middlesbrough	70	70	69		63	71
Milton Keynes	76	86	73		78	75
Newcastle upon Tyne	75	72	77	85	78	76
Newham	80	81	78		82	78
Norfolk	73	78	58		68	73
North East Lincolnshire	74	83		100	81	73
North Lincolnshire	78	88	58	100	85	77
North Somerset	78	77			79	78
North Tyneside	79	66	61		84	79
North Yorkshire	74	78	81		74	74
Northamptonshire	75	78	70	91	76	75
Northumberland	79	87			83	79
Nottingham	71	74	71		72	70
Nottinghamshire	74	74	71	80	77	74
Oldham	69	66	63	100	79	72
Oxfordshire	75	71	74		73	75
Peterborough	70	68	70		74	71
Plymouth	72	79	69		74	72
Poole	80	89	100	100	71	80
Portsmouth	73	73	71		81	74
Reading	75	80	70	100	76	74
Redbridge	79	83	72	90	74	76
Redcar and Cleveland	78			N/A*	82	78
Richmond upon Thames	82	85	67	84	80	82
Rochdale	72	71	71	100	77	72
Rotherham	75	75	78	80	73	75
Rutland	78	100	44	N/A*	100	79
Salford	75	85	76		81	74
Sandwell	71	75	70		71	70
Sefton	74	81	73		71	75
Sheffield	76	74	74		76	76
Shropshire	72	82	70	100	77	72
Slough	78	83	77		72	74
Solihull	77	81	77		75	77
Somerset	77	78	74		78	77
South Gloucestershire	80	83	66		78	80
South Tyneside	78	88	60		76	78
Southampton	75	81	73	84	74	75
Southend-on-Sea	77	83	77		77	77
Southwark	78	77	76	79	80	80
St. Helens	71	64			79	71
Staffordshire	78	80	75		79	78
Stockport	76	74	74	74	77	76
Stockton-on-Tees	77	77	85		74	77
Stoke-on-Trent	71	76	65	80	72	71
Suffolk	74	82	68		73	74
Sunderland	78	75	89		75	78
Surrey	78	80	73	80	80	78
Sutton	79	88	77		76	77
Swindon	77	77	79		78	77
Tameside	72	72	70	76	68	72
Telford and Wrekin	77	80	73		81	77
Thurrock	77	81	84	100	81	75
Torbay	75	71			80	75
Tower Hamlets	77	79	74		76	75
Trafford	79	78	69		78	81
Wakefield	73	75	56		80	73
Walsall	73	78	75		73	72
Waltham Forest	81	84	77		81	81
Wandsworth	81	83	71	78	80	85
Warrington	78	85			84	78
Warwickshire	76	81	75	100	78	76
West Berkshire	75	90	81	100	76	74
West Sussex	70	68	62		70	71
Westminster	78	73	78		79	82
Wigan	75	82	74		81	75
Wiltshire	72	74	68	73	68	73
Windsor and Maidenhead	79	79	67	100	80	79
Wirral	72	71	100		76	72
Wokingham	81	87	68	100	74	81
Wolverhampton	74	78	76		75	73
Worcestershire	76	69	56		72	77
York	77	77			78	76

^* Not applicable Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity and area Summary

Except for the information for White pupils, the statistics quoted for attainment by ethnicity and local authority are based on small numbers of pupils and are highly variable over time.

This data shows that:

• in 2016/17, 100% of Asian pupils met the expected standard in mathematics in Rutland in the East Midlands, compared with 61% in Calderdale in Yorkshire and the Humber (a gap of 39 percentage points)
• 100% of Black pupils met the expected standard in Wirral in the North West and Poole in the South West, compared with 44% in Rutland in the East Midlands (a gap of 56 percentage points)
• 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in 28 out of the 65 local authorities for which data for Chinese pupils is available, compared with 58% in Leicester in the East Midlands (a gap of 42 percentage points)
• 100% of pupils with Mixed ethnicity met the expected standard in Rutland in the East Midlands, compared with 62% in Knowsley in the North West (a gap of 38 percentage points)
• 86% of White pupils met the expected standard in Kensington and Chelsea in London, compared with 66% in Halton in the North West and Leicester in the East Midlands (a gap of 20 percentage points)

5. By ethnicity and gender

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected and higher standards in mathematics by ethnicity and gender

	Boys		Girls
Ethnicity	Boys Expected standard	Boys Higher standard	Girls Expected standard	Girls Higher standard
All	74	22	76	19
Asian	76	25	79	22
Bangladeshi	74	22	77	19
Indian	84	33	86	31
Pakistani	70	18	73	15
Asian other	78	28	81	26
Black	71	19	76	18
Black African	73	21	77	19
Black Caribbean	66	14	71	13
Black other	68	16	72	16
Chinese	90	49	91	43
Mixed	74	23	78	20
Mixed White/Asian	79	29	82	25
Mixed White/Black African	73	21	78	18
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	69	17	72	13
Mixed other	75	24	79	21
White	74	22	76	18
White British	74	22	77	18
White Irish	75	26	74	20
White Irish Traveller	32	5	37	5
White Gypsy/Roma	29	3	31	2
White other	74	23	75	18
Other	72	19	72	16

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity and gender Summary

This data shows that:

• overall, 76% of girls and 74% of boys met the expected standard in mathematics in 2016/17; 22% of boys and 19% of girls met the higher standard
• girls were more likely to meet the expected standard than boys in all ethnic groups except for White Irish pupils and pupils from Any Other ethnic background
• boys were more likely to meet the higher standard than girls in all ethnic groups except for Traveller of Irish Heritage and Any Other Black background pupils, where they were equally likely to meet it
• among White British pupils, 77% of girls and 74% of boys met the expected standard, while 22% of boys and 18% of girls met the higher standard
• Chinese girls were most likely to meet the expected standard, at 91%, and Chinese boys were most likely to meet the higher standard, at 49%
• Gypsy/Roma boys were least likely to meet the expected standard, at 29%, and Gypsy/Roma girls were least likely to meet the higher standard, at 2%
• the biggest gap between girls and boys in the expected standard was in the White Irish Traveller, Black Caribbean, and Mixed White and Black African ethnic groups (at 5 percentage points)
• the biggest gap between boys and girls in the higher standard was in the White Irish and Chinese ethnic groups (at 6 percentage points)

6. By ethnicity, gender, and eligibility for free school meals

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard for mathematics by ethnicity, gender, and eligibility for free school meals

	Boys		Girls
Ethnicity	Boys FSM	Boys Non-FSM	Girls FSM	Girls Non-FSM
All	59	77	61	79
Asian	67	77	67	80
Bangladeshi	68	75	71	79
Indian	73	84	72	87
Pakistani	64	71	64	75
Asian other	69	79	69	83
Black	64	73	70	77
Black African	66	75	72	79
Black Caribbean	55	69	65	74
Black other	63	70	66	74
Chinese	82	91	89	91
Mixed	61	78	66	81
Mixed White/Asian	60	82	67	84
Mixed White/Black African	64	76	70	80
Mixed White/Black Caribbean	59	73	63	75
Mixed other	61	78	67	82
White	56	77	59	79
White British	57	77	59	79
White Irish	45	79	45	80
White Irish Traveller	29	36	30	45
White Gypsy/Roma	26	30	33	30
White other	62	75	63	76
Other	67	73	64	74

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity, gender, and eligibility for free school meals Summary

Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is used as an indicator of deprivation by the Department for Education. For more about who qualifies for FSM, see the Methodology section.

The data shows that:

• in 2016/17 there were 92,319 pupils eligible for FSM in year 2 (14% of all pupils)
• overall, 61% of FSM-eligible girls met the expected standard in mathematics compared with 59% of FSM-eligible boys
• among White British FSM-eligible pupils, 59% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 57% of boys
• 89% of FSM-eligible Chinese girls met the expected standard (the highest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible pupils)
• 26% of FSM-eligible Gypsy/Roma boys met the expected standard (the lowest percentage of any group of FSM-eligible pupils)
• the largest gap in attainment between FSM-eligible boys and girls was found among Black Caribbean pupils, where 55% and 65% met the expected standard respectively (a gap of 10 percentage points)

7. By ethnicity, area and gender

• Location: England
• Time period: 2016/17
• Source: Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Percentage of pupils meeting the expected standard for mathematics by ethnicity, area and gender

	All		Asian		Black		Chinese		Mixed		White
Local authority	All Boys	All Girls	Asian Boys	Asian Girls	Black Boys	Black Girls	Chinese Boys	Chinese Girls	Mixed Boys	Mixed Girls	White Boys	White Girls
Barking and Dagenham	76	78	85	83	76	78	100	100	71	78	73	76
Barnet	76	78	77	86	64	73	90		73	82	80	79
Barnsley	72	76						N/A*	66	71	72	76
Bath and North East Somerset	75	76	60	77			100		79	83	75	75
Bedford	70	72	67	71					66	64	72	75
Bexley	80	84	90	86	84	90		100	76	81	78	82
Birmingham	70	73	73	75	69	73	94	91	70	75	69	71
Blackburn with Darwen	73	76	77	77	55		N/A*		77	78	71	75
Blackpool	72	77	74						86	77	72	77
Bolton	72	74	77	77	59	63			76	78	72	75
Bournemouth	76	77	72	85			100	100	83	85	75	77
Bracknell Forest	75	77	78	89	64	76	N/A*	100	83	70	75	76
Bradford	70	75	72	77					65	74	70	74
Brent	73	77	74	79	71	77					78	77
Brighton and Hove	75	75	57	76	75	74	100		70	73	76	75
Bristol, City of	74	73	69	71	64	61		100	70	74	76	75
Bromley	79	80	84	82	75	82	88	88	79	77	80	80
Buckinghamshire	77	76	71	73	66	64	100	100	74	76	78	77
Bury	73	71	67	62	75	63	100		62	69	75	74
Calderdale	71	70	65	56					66	71	73	73
Cambridgeshire	73	74	73	75	58	59			76	76	73	74
Camden	74	75	70	73	70	72		100	79	74	78	79
Central Bedfordshire	75	79	92	82	71	87	100	100	82	81	75	78
Cheshire East	74	76		83			100	100	65	78	74	76
Cheshire West and Chester	71	75	64	84			58	63	73	84	71	75
City of London
Cornwall	71	73			N/A*				71	77	71	73
County Durham	76	79	70	77					67	84	76	79
Coventry	70	74	78	80	68	73		100	68	74	69	73
Croydon	74	78	78	84	69	76		100	72	78	76	78
Cumbria	72	74	70	68					71	73	72	74
Darlington	73	80	60	76							72	80
Derby	71	72	74	70	74	75		77	70	67	71	74
Derbyshire	73	78	71	86	64	79			68	82	74	77
Devon	74	76	86	85					78	79	74	76
Doncaster	72	77	63	85	67	75	100		67	82	73	76
Dorset	73	76	71	86					71	78	73	76
Dudley	70	74	69	73	65	67			70	69	71	75
Ealing	74	76	78	77	65	69	100		78	78	78	81
East Riding of Yorkshire	74	78		100			N/A*		71	86	74	77
East Sussex	75	78	77	76	68		100		77	79	75	78
Enfield	73	74	82	86	70	76	100		72	78	74	71
Essex	75	77	89	84	78	77			76	81	75	77
Gateshead	75	77	79				100		81	84	75	77
Gloucestershire	73	75	75	80	71	66	100		73	78	73	75
Greenwich	79	84	88	89	79	86		100	81	87	78	80
Hackney	80	83	84	81	74	80	71	100	80	89	83	85
Halton	64	66			N/A*	N/A*		N/A*	63		65	66
Hammersmith and Fulham	76	83			69	81			75	83	82	86
Hampshire	78	80	86	82	73	79	80		82	86	78	80
Haringey	77	81	84	84	71	79			82	82	78	82
Harrow	77	80	84	87	57	66	100	100	80	84	73	74
Hartlepool	72	77	69	80							72	77
Havering	77	77	79	81	75	80			78	83	77	76
Herefordshire, County of	75	79						N/A*	71	90	76	78
Hertfordshire	76	79	81	85	67	77	93	100	75	79	76	78
Hillingdon	77	79	82	86	70	75			80	79	74	77
Hounslow	79	84	82	89	70	77	100		84	82	79	84
Isle of Wight	66	71							52	78	66	71
Isles of Scilly
Islington	76	78	73	84	72	75	100	100	73	79	80	78
Kensington and Chelsea	84	80	75	57	81	73	100	N/A*	84	78	87	85
Kent	77	80	80	87	82	87	100		76	85	76	80
Kingston upon Hull, City of	70	74	71	75	52	50			69	79	71	74
Kingston upon Thames	80	80	83	85	76	68	100		71	78	80	80
Kirklees	70	72	67	70	56	69			68	69	72	73
Knowsley	69	72	67	100					57	67	70	72
Lambeth	77	81	82	88	73	78			77	82	81	83
Lancashire	74	77	69	77	65	50	100	77	75	72	75	77
Leeds	67	69	67	71	60	61			64	67	68	70
Leicester	71	73	79	78	68	70	56		73	76	65	68
Leicestershire	74	75	80	83	54	83	100	100	70	75	74	75
Lewisham	77	78	75	84	74	73		81	75	79	81	82
Lincolnshire	72	74	92	90	79	67	80	100	73	74	72	74
Liverpool	65	68	59	67	59	65	85	94	66	68	66	68
Luton	70	73	70	73	68	75			66	79	71	71
Manchester	69	74	69	73	71	78	90	91	72	74	69	75
Medway	76	81	75	95	84	87			82	84	75	80
Merton	78	79	80	85	74	78			78	75	78	77
Middlesbrough	69	70	65	75					59	68	72	69
Milton Keynes	75	78	82	90	71	76		100	75	80	74	75
Newcastle upon Tyne	74	76	69	75	74	80	83		78	77	75	76
Newham	78	81	80	83	76	80	100		80	84	76	80
Norfolk	73	73	80	75	55	62			65	70	73	73
North East Lincolnshire	74	73							88	77	73	73
North Lincolnshire	76	79	86	90							75	79
North Somerset	76	79							78	81	76	79
North Tyneside	76	81	60	73			100		79	88	77	81
North Yorkshire	74	75	81	77		80			70	79	74	74
Northamptonshire	74	76	73	83	67	74			75	77	74	76
Northumberland	78	79		100	N/A*				81	84	79	79
Nottingham	69	72	71	76	71	72	100		71	73	68	72
Nottinghamshire	72	75	73	75	71	70	80	79	75	80	72	75
Oldham	68	71	66	66	61	64			79	79	70	74
Oxfordshire	74	75	72	70	75	74	100		72	73	75	76
Peterborough	68	72	65	72	68	72		100	70	77	70	72
Plymouth	70	74	74	84	57				70	77	71	74
Poole	80	81	77	100					72	70	80	80
Portsmouth	71	76	72	75	68	74		100	80	83	70	77
Reading	75	76	80	81	66	74	100	100	73	79	74	73
Redbridge	76	81	81	86	73	72			70	79	74	77
Redcar and Cleveland	76	81				N/A*	N/A*	N/A*			76	81
Richmond upon Thames	83	80	85	84	75	61		86	84	76	84	81
Rochdale	70	74	69	74	68	73			72	83	71	73
Rotherham	73	76	77	74	76	78			73	73	73	77
Rutland	82	75					N/A*	N/A*			82	76
Salford	74	76	86	84	73	78		100	79	83	73	76
Sandwell	69	74	72	78	67	75		100	68	74	68	72
Sefton	73	76	76					100	71	70	73	76
Sheffield	75	77	73	74	73	76			76	75	75	77
Shropshire	71	73							77	77	71	73
Slough	75	80	80	85					75	69	71	76
Solihull	77	77	81	82	72				75	76	76	77
Somerset	74	79	79	78					72	85	75	79
South Gloucestershire	78	82	85	80	76	59	100		70	86	78	83
South Tyneside	76	80	84						75	76	76	79
Southampton	74	77	81	80	69	80			68	80	73	76
Southend-on-Sea	75	79	73	91	77	77	100		83	71	74	80
Southwark	76	79	73	81	73	79	77	82	78	82	81	80
St. Helens	70	73						100	75	84	70	73
Staffordshire	77	79	79	80	68	83	100		81	77	77	79
Stockport	74	78	72	76	73	75			70	85	74	78
Stockton-on-Tees	76	79	75	79					68	82	76	79
Stoke-on-Trent	69	73	74	78	64	65			65	78	69	73
Suffolk	73	74	77	86	72	65			71	74	73	74
Sunderland	76	80	73	76					80	72	76	80
Surrey	77	78	79	82	68	77	82	77	79	81	77	78
Sutton	78	79	86	89	80	73			79	74	76	78
Swindon	76	78	76	78	83	76	100		76	79	76	79
Tameside	70	74	70	74	72	68			61	75	70	74
Telford and Wrekin	74	80	76	85	68	80			75	87	74	80
Thurrock	75	79	84	78	76	92	100	100	77	85	74	76
Torbay	76	75				N/A*			77	84	76	74
Tower Hamlets	76	79	77	80	72	76	100		77	74	75	76
Trafford	78	80	79	77	69	69			75	82	79	82
Wakefield	71	74	77	72	52	61			82	79	71	74
Walsall	71	75	76	80	74	76		100	67	80	70	73
Waltham Forest	79	82	85	83	74	81		100	81	81	79	84
Wandsworth	80	82	83	84	70	72			81	80	85	85
Warrington	79	78	84	86					94	74	79	78
Warwickshire	75	77	79	84	81	67	100	100	78	77	75	77
West Berkshire	74	75	88	91					74	78	74	74
West Sussex	70	71	67	70	63	61		100	73	67	70	71
Westminster	76	80	73	73	74	83		100	75	82	81	83
Wigan	75	76	77	88	67			100	87	76	74	76
Wiltshire	72	73	80	69	64	72			67	69	72	74
Windsor and Maidenhead	78	81	81	78					75	83	77	81
Wirral	72	72	60	81					70	82	72	72
Wokingham	82	80	88	87	64	73	100	100	72	77	83	80
Wolverhampton	73	76	77	78	73	80		100	76	74	72	75
Worcestershire	76	76	71	68	53		100		72	71	77	76
York	75	78	78	75					72	85	75	78

^* Not applicable Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Download table data (CSV) Source data (CSV)

Summary of Mathematics attainments for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) By ethnicity, area and gender Summary

Except for the information for White pupils, the statistics quoted for attainment by ethnicity and local authority are based on small numbers of pupils and are highly variable over time.

The data for the expected standard shows that:

• overall in 2016/17, a higher percentage of girls than boys met the expected standard in mathematics 132 out of the 150 local authorities for which data is available
• for Asian pupils, the largest attainment gap was in Knowsley in the North West, where 100% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 67% of boys
• for Black pupils, the biggest attainment gap was in Leicestershire in the East Midlands, where 83% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 54% of boys
• for pupils of Mixed ethnicity, the biggest attainment gap was in Isle of Wight in the South East, where 78% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 52% of boys
• for White pupils, the biggest attainment gap was in Darlington in the North East, where 80% of girls met the expected standard, compared with 72% of boys

8. Methodology

The key stage 1 dataset is compiled using information matched together from 2 data sources:

• key stage 1 teacher assessment results
• school census records

Key stage 1 results received from local authorities are combined with pupil characteristics from the school census. Records are matched using identifiers such as surname, forename, date of birth, unique pupil number, gender and postcode. This successfully matches around 98% of results.

Key stage 1 assessment results are not published at school level. The coverage of the local authority and regional statistics is for state-funded mainstream schools only in England. This includes schools and academies but excludes hospital schools, pupil referral units and alternative provision.

The information is collected from 16,369 schools (approximately 654,000 pupils).

Pupils are included in the figures for free school meals (FSM) if their families have claimed eligibility for FSM at the time of the annual spring school census. This FSM definition includes all who were eligible to receive FSM, not only those who actually received FSM. Pupils not eligible for FSM or unclassified pupils are described as ‘non-FSM’ or ‘all other pupils’.

Parents are able to claim FSM if they receive a qualifying benefit.

FSM is used as an indicator of disadvantage, but when drawing conclusions, it should be remembered that not all eligible parents apply for FSM. Families who don’t quite reach the eligibility threshold for FSM may still be suffering deprivation.

Any pupils who do not have a valid key stage 1 outcome for a subject are excluded from the calculations for that subject and do not appear in the number of eligible pupils or in the outcome percentages. For reading, writing and mathematics, the valid outcomes are:

• below the pre-key stage standard
• foundations for the expected standard
• working towards the expected standard
• working at the expected standard
• working at greater depth within the expected standard
• absent
• disapplied

For science, the valid outcomes are:

• has not met the expected standard
• working at the expected standard
• absent
• disapplied

Pupils with an outcome of ‘absent’ or ‘disapplied’ are included to ensure complete coverage of the cohort.

Suppression rules and disclosure control

Values of 1 or 2 or a percentage based on 1 or 2 pupils who achieved, or did not achieve, a particular standard are suppressed. Some additional figures may be suppressed to prevent the possibility of a suppressed figure being revealed. This suppression is consistent with DfE’s statistical policy statement on confidentiality (PDF opens in a new window or tab) (PDF) .

Figures for the Isles of Scilly and City of London are suppressed in DfE’s key stage 2 provisional Statistical First Release as these local authorities have a single school and DfE do not publish school-level information in the performance tables at the time of the provisional release. These figures are unsuppressed in the revised release as school-level figures are already published in the performance tables.

Regional eligible pupil figures are rounded to the nearest 10 so that it is not possible to derive figures for these local authorities by summing the figures for the other local authorities in the region.

In the school-level data, any figures relating to a cohort of 5 pupils or fewer are suppressed. This applies to sub-groups of pupils as well as the whole cohort. For example, if there were five boys and three girls in a school, DfE would not publish attainment for boys or girls separately but would publish attainment for all pupils as this is based on 8 pupils. The Code of Practice for Official Statistics requires DfE to take reasonable steps to ensure that their published or disseminated statistics protect confidentiality.

For more information about DfE’s disclosure control procedures for its statistical releases please see DfE’s statistical policy statement on confidentiality (PDF opens in a new window or tab) (PDF).

Rounding

Percentages given in charts, tables and downloads are rounded to the nearest whole number. For this reason some figures may not exactly match those published by the Department for Education.

Related publications

Schools, pupils and their characteristics: June 2017

Quality and methodology information

9. Data sources

Source

Phonics screening check and key stage 1 assessments: England 2017

Type of data

Administrative data

Type of statistic

National Statistics

Publisher

Department for Education

Publication frequency

Yearly

Purpose of data source

This data provides results for the 2017 phonics screening checks and key stage 1 national curriculum assessments for pupils in schools in England. The results are used to monitor pupils’ attainment and progress in reading, writing, science and mathematics.

10. Download the data

Expected and higher standard in Mathematics for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) - national - Spreadsheet (csv) 59 KB

This file contains the following variables: Measure, Ethnicity, Ethnicity_Type, Time, Time_Type, Geography (England), Geography_Code, Gender, FSM, Value, Value_Type, Denominator

Expected standard in Mathematics for children aged 6 to 7 (key stage 1) - local authority - Spreadsheet (csv) 575 KB

This file contains the following variables: Measure, Ethnicity, Ethnicity_Type, Time, Time_Type, Region, Local_Authority, Local_Authority_Code, Gender, Value, Value_Type, Denominator

Publication release date: 4 May 2018

Updated: 14 May 2019

full page history

1. 14 May 2019 Some headings have been changed. No data or commentary has been updated.
2. 1 August 2018 fixed formatting issue in the section 'The ethnic categories used in this data'
3. 4 May 2018 updated with new data for 2016/17

From: Department for Education

Previous edition:

1. 4 March 2018

---

Share this page

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn