School Connection / Flagship analysis
Progress 8 is absent, but the attainment gaps are not
The provisional 2026 KS4 release gives schools a richer attainment picture but no Progress 8. The disadvantage gap narrowed slightly while gaps involving pupils with EHC plans widened. Leaders need to compare carefully without turning provisional attainment into a verdict on school effectiveness.
The answer in brief
The performance judgment
The 2026 provisional release reports Attainment 8 and English-and-maths attainment, but it cannot report Progress 8. The cohort did not have the KS2 prior-attainment assessments needed for the calculation because primary tests were cancelled during the pandemic. There is no replacement progress measure for 2024/25 or 2025/26.12
The characteristic gaps do not all move together. The disadvantage gap index narrowed from 3.92 to 3.82 and the Attainment 8 gap narrowed from 15.5 to 15.1 points. Meanwhile, the Attainment 8 gap between pupils with an EHC plan and those receiving SEN support widened from 19.0 to 19.6 points. A single recovery story cannot hold both patterns honestly.2
- Do not invent a proxy Progress 8 or present attainment as progress under another name.
- Show movements for different pupil groups separately; one narrowing gap does not settle equity.
- Use school-level provisional data for inquiry, with curriculum and cohort evidence beside it.
01 / 01
The missing progress measure is an evidence limit, not an invitation to improvise
Progress 8 requires a prior-attainment baseline. For this cohort, the necessary KS2 test data do not exist for most pupils. DfE therefore reports no Progress 8 and confirms that earlier tools relying on it have not been updated. Schools should not create a lookalike measure and allow it to inherit the authority of the national methodology.2
Leaders can still examine subject outcomes, grade distributions, prior school evidence, internal assessment, destinations and pupil work. Each has its own limitations. The right response to a missing national measure is a more explicit evidence basket, not a disguised single score.
02 / 02
A narrowing disadvantage gap sits beside widening SEND differences
The disadvantage gap index reached 3.82, lower than the previous year but above its 2019 level. The proportion of the KS4 cohort recorded as disadvantaged also rose from 28.2% to 29.8%, which DfE says is likely related to transitional protections during Universal Credit rollout. Both movement and cohort definition matter when interpreting the comparison.2
For SEND, pupils with an EHC plan had substantially lower attainment than those on SEN support, and the gaps widened for both grade 5 or above in English and maths and Attainment 8. These national figures do not judge a school's provision, but they require leaders to test access to curriculum, qualifications, specialist provision and attendance rather than allowing an improving overall average to end the inquiry.2
03 / 03
Read the denominator before reading the direction
Changes in cohort composition can alter a gap without any single pupil's outcome changing. Definitions, coverage and the proportion of pupils in each group should therefore appear beside the measure. Where a school analyses small groups, multi-year aggregation or secure case review may be more responsible than publishing unstable percentages that risk identifying pupils.
Cross-year attainment comparisons also carry pandemic and grading-methodology effects. DfE cautions that observed changes may reflect methodology and grading conditions rather than a direct change in standards. Gap movements can still be examined, but the release does not support a simple claim that the national cohort learned more or less than the one before it.2
04 / 04
Use school-level data to ask a better question, not award a verdict
School and local-authority data are provisional. Approved amendments may not yet be incorporated, and one year's results can be affected by cohort size, subject entry, mobility and individual circumstances. Compare patterns across subjects and groups, check the underlying pupil list and retain the correction process before using the figure in public or board judgments.3
Contextual comparison can help locate an unusual pattern, but it cannot prove teaching quality or cause. A school outperforming a comparator may still have an excluded group; one below it may have strong provision not visible in a headline measure. Inspection, governance and improvement planning require direct evidence alongside data.
05 / 05
Year 9 choices still need educational reasons while future rules remain unsettled
The release describes the current 2026 outcomes; the separate accountability consultation concerns future measures. Schools should not redesign options as though consultation proposals are final. They should test breadth, sequencing, staffing, access for pupils with SEND and disadvantage, qualification suitability and likely destinations using the best evidence currently available.4
Record which decisions are robust under several plausible accountability outcomes and which depend on a future government response. That allows schools to act for pupils now while preserving the ability to adapt. Accountability uncertainty should not become either paralysis or permission for premature curriculum narrowing.
Leadership questions
Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.
Board test
Where have we accidentally treated attainment, an internal proxy or a comparator as evidence of progress?
Board test
Which pupil-group movements remain hidden inside the school headline?
Board test
Are Year 9 choices supported by curriculum and pupil evidence that remains valid under more than one future measure?
Evidence boundary
What this analysis does not prove.
- The 2025/26 data are provisional and may not include later approved amendments.
- Progress 8 is unavailable for this cohort; attainment measures must not be relabelled as progress.
- National and school-level associations do not establish cause or assess the quality of provision for an individual pupil.
What we are monitoring next
Publication is the beginning of the watch.
- The revised February 2027 release, approved school-level amendments, the government response on future KS4 measures and Ofsted's use of refreshed contextual data.
Approved public intelligence
What the live evidence is showing now.
School Connection continues to monitor standards, curriculum & accountability evidence. New machine-detected signals remain private editorial candidates until a human editor investigates and approves them for publication.
This panel reads only the editor-approved School Connection public feed. It never exposes raw Observatory records, private candidates, contacts, commercial opportunities or internal scores.
Continue the evidence trail
How this develops our earlier coverage
Sources and methodology
Evidence used in this analysis
School Connection links to the primary source behind each material claim. Source status, period and limitations are stated so readers can reproduce the evidence trail.
- 01
Department for Education · Published 15 October 2026
Key stage 4 performance 2026 (provisional)
Accredited official statistics landing page for national KS4 attainment and pupil-characteristic analysis. - 02
Department for Education · Explore Education Statistics · Published 15 October 2026; provisional
Key stage 4 performance: 2025/26
Detailed release, including comparability warnings, disadvantage, EAL, SEND and sex breakdowns and the absence of Progress 8. - 03
Department for Education · Published 15 October 2026
Secondary school performance data in England: 2025 to 2026 (provisional)
School and local-authority level provisional data. Approved amendments may not yet be reflected. - 04
Department for Education · Consultation status reviewed 16 October 2026
Key stage 4 performance measures and targeted RISE extension
Policy-development context for future measures. Consultation proposals must not be treated as settled accountability rules.