This is not the fault of the teams. In fact, it is often the opposite: capable, dedicated in‑house staff doing everything they can within the limits of capacity and time. But the environment around them has changed faster than any one‑ or two‑person team can realistically keep pace with.

1. The single point of failure problem

For many trusts, the biggest operational risk sits in plain sight: staffing levels that create unavoidable single points of failure.

A technician responsible for multiple primary schools may provide excellent support—right up until the day they are on leave, unwell, or pulled into an urgent issue elsewhere. Unlike other functions, IT incidents often can’t wait. A failed server, a wireless outage, a compromised account—any of these can halt learning, disrupt safeguarding processes or take key systems offline.

When teams are this lean, even minor absences can reduce reactive capacity to zero. Central teams are then forced to shuffle priorities, often abandoning longer-term digital improvements to address immediate firefighting. Over time, this creates an organisational pattern where important but invisible work—patching, monitoring, testing backups, reviewing logs—simply cannot happen.

This is where the risk lies: not in the tasks you see, but in the ones that aren’t being done because there is no time or additional capacity to do them.

2. The automation gap

Modern IT environments in private sector rely heavily on automation—particularly Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools—to keep devices secure, patched and compliant. These platforms are widely used in other sectors, yet remain inaccessible or unaffordable for many trusts operating with small teams.

Without automation, core maintenance becomes a manual process:

• Patching hundreds of devices
• Checking system health
• Monitoring alerts
• Ensuring antivirus and firmware are current
• Tracking backup status

When these tasks depend on someone being physically available, the workload quickly exceeds the hours available. This leads to what many experts refer to as “security debt”—a silent but growing backlog of updates and maintenance that weakens resilience over time.

In an era of rising cyberattacks on schools, this is an exposure MAT leaders cannot ignore.

3. The skill-level treadmill

Technology now evolves monthly. Cloud platforms, cybersecurity standards, safeguarding requirements, data protection obligations—each demands a level of ongoing professional development that is increasingly difficult for small internal teams to maintain.

The expectation on an in-house technician today is vast:

• Deep understanding of Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 administration
• Networking and firewall configuration
• Cybersecurity and threat detection
• Device management at scale
• Backup and disaster recovery
• Support for curriculum technology
• Compliance and data protection

But small teams rarely have the time or headroom to step away from day‑to‑day tasks of reactively resolving IT issues for long enough to develop this breadth of expertise. The result is often role fatigue, burnout and the risk of high turnover—leaving trusts even more exposed.

The issue isn’t capability. It’s capacity.

4. A shifting risk profile for trust leaders

Understaffing IT is no longer just a technical issue—it is a governance and strategic risk.

Reports such as the Kreston UK Academies Benchmark Report highlight a continued move toward trust‑wide digital centralisation as MATs grow. But centralisation without investment in resilience, tooling and specialist support can unintentionally amplify risk rather than reduce it.

What was manageable five years ago is no longer sufficient today. The shift from on‑premise servers to cloud identity, the rise in cyber threats, and the need for automation mean that the traditional “one technician per 2-3 schools” model cannot keep pace with the complexity of modern digital estates.

Trust leaders increasingly recognise that resilience now requires:

• A team larger than one technician per 2 primary schools or two technicians per secondary school
• Access to wider pools of technical expertise
• Automation platforms that reduce manual workload
• Specialist escalation paths when complex issues arise

This doesn’t replace internal staff—far from it. It strengthens them.

5. Building a more resilient model by partnering with external MSPs to minimise cost while also reducing risks of failure

Many trusts are now adopting hybrid models that combine strong internal teams with access to external specialist support, additional capacity and enterprise‑grade tools. This approach helps address the challenges of:

• Cover for sickness and holiday
• Access to niche expertise that doesn’t justify a full-time post
• Reducing the manual burden on internal staff
• Improving strategic planning and governance oversight
• Ensuring resilience during growth or digital change programmes

For Trust executives, this is fundamentally a risk‑reduction strategy—one that aligns operational capability with the increasing demands of a modern digital education environment.

Support can be brokered through partnerships with IT Managed Service Providers (MSP) such as HfL’s own Technology in Schools. MSPs can bring bespoke wrap-around support and capacity through access to helpdesk facilities, cover for sickness and holidays, reduced cost of Automation, RMM and other tools and support for specialist projects and maintenance. Having an MSP on a retainer can add resilience to your trust and mitigate the ever growing risk that the skeleton crew is carrying.

Conclusion

Lean IT teams have served trusts well for many years. But the digital environment in which Trusts now operate has changed dramatically over the last 5 years. Complexity has increased, cyber risk has risen and many essential tasks now depend on expertise and tooling that a small in‑house team simply cannot sustain alone.

For CEOs and COOs, the question is no longer whether the current team is capable—they often are. The question is whether the environment around them has become too complex, too high‑risk and too fast‑moving for a small team, however talented, to manage in isolation.

Strengthening resilience is no longer about scale for its own sake.
It’s about protecting learning, safeguarding, data and operational continuity in a world where digital stability is now essential.

If you are interested to find out more or how HfL can help your Trust, reduce cost of licenses, provide holiday and sickness cover and elevate your internal IT Teams with expertise or RMM and Automation tools, please send us an email to itsales@hfleducation.org

As digital expectations for schools continue to evolve, we have undertaken a major transformation of our Technology in Schools service to ensure we can provide a value for money offer that fully aligns with the DfE’s Digital and Technology Standards. These standards set clear expectations for secure, resilient, well‑governed and future‑proofed IT systems, covering broadband, cyber security, wireless networks, monitoring, cloud solutions and, more recently IT support provision. They also emphasise that IT support must be proactive, strategic and capable of maintaining reliable, secure digital environments rather than simply responding to issues reactively. 

For many years, schools have operated under intense financial pressure, and with staff costs at typically 80% unlike commercial organisations, they are often unable to refresh equipment at the pace required to keep technology efficient and affordable. As a dedicated education provider, we recognised that this “perfect storm” of rising technical demand and declining investment was creating an unsustainable model where technology was becoming more expensive to maintain. Schools simply could not pay more for support—yet the risks associated with outdated infrastructure, particularly in areas such as cyber security, were increasing year on year.

In response, we redesigned our entire operating model. We moved away from the traditional scheduled on-site engineer for break‑fix approach—where support was triggered only after something went wrong often waiting for scheduled engineer to come to site thus delaying resolution—and replaced it with unlimited escalation visits and a service focused on prevention, resilience and security. This shift directly aligns with the DfE’s emphasis on proactive IT support that maintains systems, prevents disruption and supports ongoing improvements. 

A cornerstone of this transformation has been significant investment in an advanced remote monitoring and management (RMM) platform, now enhanced with AI‑driven automation to reduce costs. This technology allows us to detect and resolve issues before they impact learning, automate essential maintenance, strengthen cyber security and ensure systems remain aligned with DfE expectations for safe, reliable digital learning environments. The DfE’s guidance highlights the importance of stable networks, resilient infrastructure and actively maintained systems—principles directly supported by our new IT Support model for Schools.  

We also restructured our team to ensure deeper expertise and more efficient support. By shifting from a larger Tier 1 workforce needed for scheduled on-site visits to more efficient and significantly higher skilled Tier 2 and Tier 3 technicians, we’ve created a team capable of handling complex environments, navigating cyber security requirements and supporting strategic digital development. This aligns with the DfE’s expectation that IT support must have the expertise and qualifications to help schools meet the digital standards. 

Through these changes, we have created a flexible support model that is affordable for schools, fit for the future and fully aligned with national expectations—ensuring that schools’ digital learning estate remains safe, secure and functional in an increasingly challenging digital landscape. The offer incorporates all aspects of IT Support that can wrap around in-house IT provision and a fully managed service applicable to Schools and Academies both maintained and independent and even more importantly Multi Academy Trusts as a complimentary service to address their specific requirements for holiday cover for MAT employed IT support staff, Automation, Cybersecurity as well as Training. We also offer flexible projects service whereby schools and MATs can commission HFL to work alongside in-house teams on specific projects requiring broader skillsets.

If you are interested to find out more and how HfL can help you align your school with DfE Digital Standards and with your IT Support provision and Cybersecurity, please send an email to ITsales@hfleducation.org or visit our web site and let us know what area is of most interest to you. 

Across our schools, pupils of all ages are increasingly expressing worry, anger and despair about the climate crisis. This is not a passing trend. It is a safeguarding, wellbeing and educational concern and therefore one that boards must understand and support their schools to address at a strategic level.

Understanding some contributors to climate anxiety

From a governance perspective, climate anxiety is best understood as a convergence of factors, some conventional and others unrestrained in their influence.

Young people are exposed to a constant stream of climate-related messaging, often amplified by mainstream and social media and shaped using alarming language. As an example, mainstream weather forecasting often talks about weather ‘bombs’, approaching storms and almost continuous weather warnings. Unlike previous generations, pupils are witnessing environmental disruption more frequently, alongside predictions that frame their adult lives with warnings about impending climate catastrophe. Governors should recognise that this information landscape is largely unfiltered and often emotionally charged resulting in pupils sensing that ‘no one is doing anything about it’ and feeling powerless. So, it’s hardly surprising, with this drumbeat of climate news, that for many pupils’ questions around fairness and future safety concerns lead to anxiety, frustration and ultimately, as pupils mature, outright anger or helplessness.

As pupils progress through school, they will be increasingly aware that the power to change the course of climate change rests far beyond their influence and, with the impact of climate change both nationally and internationally all too clear to see, it’s understandable that anxiety will be one manifestation of this.

Why this matters to governors

For governors, this raises an important question: does our school’s approach to climate education and sustainability support pupils’ wellbeing as well as increasing understanding? There is a strategic risk that if schools only address climate change by way of ‘dramatic’ curriculum content, or avoid it entirely to avoid unnecessary distress, they risk disengaging pupils or eroding trust with what we know should be a ‘trusted source’. Schools that model a constructive approach, who acknowledge the concerns that are raised, will help build understanding, resilience and the critical thinking to give pupils hope rather than despair.

The governor’s role

Clearly, we are not here to be directive in how climate change challenges are addressed via the curriculum, enrichment activities or other related sources of information. However, we are responsible for ensuring that the school’s vision, policies and culture are fit for purpose for an age where climate (and geo-political) challenges are front and centre in people’s lives. Climate anxiety should therefore be considered within strategic discussions around curriculum intent, pupil wellbeing, school premises and grounds and how the school wishes to engage with parents and the wider community on this challenge.

Boards should ask:

• How is climate change addressed across/ woven through the curriculum, and how is pupil wellbeing considered?
• Are staff confident in responding to climate-related concerns, are there any training resources to support staff?
• Do pupils contribute to sustainability ideas and decisions within the school?
• Does the school have a sustainability lead and have a climate action plan in place (both are a ‘clear expectation’ from the DfE Sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education - GOV.UK and whilst not statutory are embedded within the DfE’s Estate Management Standards School estate management standards - GOV.UK)
• Is the school’s operational approach consistent with its climate change ambitions?
• How is climate anxiety considered through the lenses of safeguarding, pupil wellbeing and pupil voice?

Here are some suggestions on positive action

Governors can support leaders to prioritise positive approaches where pupils feel invested and are able to both influence thinking and realise the benefits:

• Taking a whole-school approach to sustainability and climate change through the appointment of a sustainability lead, putting in place a climate action plan and maybe have a link governor to monitor. A great starting point is the online tool ‘Count Your Carbon’ which can help shape your initial plan Home - Count Your Carbon
• Ensuring there are nature-based activities and areas in the school grounds to encourage engagement with the natural world. Examples of support can be found  in the excellent work of the National Education Nature Park programme (Home | Education Nature Park) and the Forest School programme Forest School Association | What is Forest School? | Forest Schools | Nature Premium)
• Embedding in the curriculum not only the causes/ challenges of climate change but also emphasising the positive solutions, adaptations and changes that are being made both at home and abroad
• Consider  setting up a climate working party with staff, pupil, governor & senior leader representation to coordinate progress and monitor implementation and impact of any actions taken
• That pupil voice is front and centre – pupils must be heard and see that their concerns are respected, answered or addressed through positive action

A combination of the above (but not limited to this list!) will help reframe concerns and anxiety into a shared challenge involving the whole school community to resolve collectively.

The worries and concerns of the pupils in our care are multitude and manifest and, as with so many of these concerns, they are rooted in the pupil’s perceptions about what their future holds. Clearly an approach of offering false reassurance or minimising the seriousness of climate risk would serve no purpose whereas acknowledging the challenges, taking action at a school level and advocating more widely for change will model courage, belief and resilience which can only help with pupil anxiety.

As governors we oversee our school’s role in preparing pupils as best we can for the future they will embark upon. If we get it right, then maybe climate anxiety will morph into climate hope, with pupils equipped with the knowledge and tools to gain agency in not only their own futures, but also the future of the planet.

When we think about high-quality Early Years provision, our minds often jump straight to the children: their learning, development, and wellbeing. But just as important is the support, guidance, and reflection given to the adults who work with them. That’s where supervisions come in.

Supervision is more than just a casual chat with staff, and it should not be confused with appraisals, they are entirely separate processes. Supervision is a vital aspect of professional practice in the Early Years and a statutory requirement under the EYFS Statutory Framework. When carried out effectively, it can transform practice, boost staff confidence, and improve outcomes for children.

What are supervisions?

The EYFS  statutory framework states that:

3.34 Providers must put appropriate arrangements in place for the supervision of staff who have contact with children and families. Effective supervision provides support, coaching, and training for the practitioner and promotes the interests of children. Supervision should foster a culture of mutual support, teamwork, and continuous improvement, which encourages the confidential discussion of sensitive issues.

3.35 Supervision should provide opportunities for staff to:

• Discuss any issues – particularly concerning children’s development or wellbeing, including child protection concerns.
• Identify solutions to address issues as they arise.
• Receive coaching to improve their personal effectiveness.

Early years foundation stage statutory framework - For group and school-based providers - September 2025

3.40 Childminders must put appropriate arrangements in place for the supervision of

assistants who have contact with children, families, and carers. Effective supervision

provides support, coaching, and training for the assistant and promotes the best

interests of children. Supervision should foster a culture of mutual support,

teamwork, and continuous improvement, which encourages the confidential

discussion of sensitive issues.

3.41 Supervision should provide opportunities for staff to:

• Discuss any issues – particularly concerning children’s development or wellbeing, including child protection concerns.
• Identify solutions to address issues as they arise.
• Receive coaching to improve their personal effectiveness.

Early years foundation stage statutory framework - For childminders - September 2025

This means every member of staff working directly with children should take part in regular supervisions.

A supervision is a planned, recorded, and supportive meeting between a practitioner and their manager or senior leader and is an opportunity to:

• reflect on practice and professional development
• discuss the needs, interests, and progress of key children
• identify any concerns about children’s safety or wellbeing
• support staff wellbeing and workload
• agree on next steps for practice and development

What supervisions are not

It’s important to be clear about what supervisions are not. They are not the same as appraisals. Appraisals are usually annual, formal reviews of performance against objectives. Whereas supervisions are more regular, ongoing professional conversations, typically focused on reflection, professional development safeguarding, and support.

While both processes are valuable, supervisions are not about judging performance, they are about supporting staff in their day-to-day practice and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children.

Why are supervisions important?

Supervisions are essential for a number of reasons:

1. Safeguarding Children

The EYFS highlights that supervision should foster a culture of “mutual support, teamwork and continuous improvement” while also ensuring “confidential discussion of sensitive issues.” This includes safeguarding concerns*. Supervisions create a safe, structured space to share worries about children, families, or practice that might not be raised in day-to-day conversations.

*If you have a safeguarding concern about a child or adult, you must follow your school’s or setting’s policy and procedures and must not wait for your supervision meeting to share this concern but share it with the DSL/ DSO immediately.

2. Professional Development

For staff, supervisions are a chance to talk openly about strengths, areas for growth, and aspirations. They can be used to identify training needs, support career progression, and help practitioners reflect on how they put theory into practice.

3. Staff Wellbeing

Working in the Early Years is rewarding but demanding. Supervisions give leaders the opportunity to check-in on staff wellbeing, workload, and stress levels. This proactive approach helps to ensure team members are supported and feel listened to and valued.

4. Consistency and Quality of Practice

Regular supervisions support staff to work towards shared goals, understand and implement key policies, and reflect on how to meet children’s individual needs. This consistency is key to delivering high-quality provision.

What should supervisions include?

While the content of a supervision will vary depending on staff roles, some common elements could include:

• discussion of key children: their development, interests, challenges, and next steps
• reflection on practice: what’s going well, what could be improved, and how staff are supporting learning through play
• safeguarding: reviewing any issues and exploring understanding of safeguarding policies
• professional development: identifying training needs or sharing feedback from recent CPD
• wellbeing check-in: offering space for staff to share how they’re feeling about their role and workload
• goal setting: agreeing on clear, achievable actions for the practitioner to take forward.

Making supervisions effective

Supervisions can sometimes feel like a tick-box exercise if they’re not thoughtfully planned.

To make them more effective:

• schedule them regularly: build them into the calendar so staff know when to expect them
• create a safe, confidential space: staff need to feel they can speak honestly without judgment or someone walking in!
• keep records: document key discussion points and agreed actions, ensuring both parties have access
• follow up: check progress against actions in the next supervision
• tailor to the individual: one size doesn’t fit all so consider the staff member’s role, experience, and confidence.

Final thoughts

Supervisions are not just about compliance with the EYFS statutory framework, they are about creating a culture of reflection, growth, and support. When done well, they build stronger teams, empower practitioners, and, most importantly, improve outcomes for children.

As leaders, investing time in high-quality supervisions is one of the most powerful things you can do to support staff and ensure the very best provision for the children in our care.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I do love a good look at the end of KS2 assessment Question Level Analysis (QLA) when it is published on the DfE’s Analyse School Performance (ASP) site. It interests me to dig into questions where pupils have scored well nationally, but more so, where pupils have been less successful. As a former maths subject leader and Year 6 teacher, I found this a useful tool and point of reflection. Even though the data relates to children who have moved into KS3 by this point, the QLA can provide a powerful lens to consider implications for supporting teaching and strengthening fluency across school for the current cohorts we have.

In Ben Fuller’s blog Using Question Level Analysis to inform your curriculum evaluation, Ben goes into more detail about what the QLA is, how to access it, and lines of enquiry that might be useful for both maths and English. It is well worth a read.

The focus of this blog is digging into the QLA data from the 2025 arithmetic paper and considering the implications. The aim with the timing is to support our current cohort of Year 6 children to secure learning over the coming term, based on knowledge of the challenges faced by previous cohorts. 

So, how did children get on in 2025 with the KS2 arithmetic paper in maths? Let’s begin with who attempted the questions and the overall success rate:

Perhaps unsurprisingly (as the arithmetic paper tends to build in complexity) the average success rate for the first 10 questions in the paper was 90%* with an average of 99%* of children attempting them.  Even for the first 15 questions of the paper, the average of correct answers remains high at 89%* with 99%* still attempting.

And again, unsurprisingly, if we look at the other end of the paper, questions 27 to 36, we see a drop in the average success rate to 57%* with the average number of children attempting to answers these questions also dropping a little, to 86%*. Although we see a more significant drop in the accuracy rate, I do think that it is encouraging that a good proportion of children are getting to the end of this 30-minute, 36 question paper.

To me, this suggests that the majority of children manage to maintain stamina. However, within your current cohort of Year 6 pupils, this might still be worth reflecting on: Do all the children manage to maintain focus and keep their stamina up over the 30 minutes? This takes effort and resilience to do. And, what is their accuracy like toward the end of the paper? If it dips, looking at the individuals, is this more about the challenge of the calculations required or test fatigue?

We know that the KS2 SATs are designed to test learning from across Key Stage 2. Knowing that the arithmetic paper focuses on number, including place value and calculation, plus fractions decimals and percentages, there is some level of predictability to the questions. The Primary Maths Team at HFL Education have been able to summarise this. The document groups questions by their focus and allows us to explore them by area of focus.

Analysing the arithmetic papers initially in this way then allows us to build in rehearsal with current Year 6 in a more strategic way. Based on these question types and groups, what do your pupils need more rehearsal of?

Both of the above points – the stamina required and the broad groups of questions that have previously come up, we can design some rehearsal opportunities that target these and make the most efficient use of the time available.

Going deeper, we then need to look at the challenge that some specific questions posed – what made them tricky and how can we use this to ensure we design precise teaching and rehearsal that targets this understanding.

So, let’s now pick some high value areas of the paper to delve into – fractions and percentages and what this might mean for teaching and learning. Of the 2025 arithmetic paper, 40%* of the total marks come under the domain of FDP (fractions, decimals and percentages). Last summer, across the 16 questions, children scored on average 79%* with 91%* of pupils attempting them. This ranged from question 11, with great 85%* success rate to question 33, which had a much lower success rate of 43%* (the lowest of all questions in this paper).

A spotlight on percentages

Each year, we’ve come to expect a couple of questions in the arithmetic paper which assess children’s understanding of calculating with percentages – in 2023 there were 4 questions, in 2024 there were 2 and in 2025 there were 3.

The national average for success across all 3 questions was 64%*. For question 25 this was 74%* (93%* attempting), for question 27 this was 61%* (89%* attempting) and for question 32 this was 57%* (84%* attempting). These numbers possibly indicate that for some children, stamina may have played a part, as the attempt rate drops as we move towards the end of the paper.

It might be worth considering how the majority of your Year 6 children last year might have gone about tackling these. For question 25; finding 5% of 860, would they have made the link between finding 10% and then halving this to find 5%? Or, would they divide by 100 to find 1% and then multiply up? Of course, the second strategy would work for any percentage question however there is much more room for error and more demand on stamina at a point in the paper when reserves might have been dwindling.

I wonder, when finding 19% of a number, how many children would consider the closeness of 19 to 20. And then what strategies would they use to find 20% before then taking away 1%? Would they find 10% and double? Or would they have used ÷5 to find , understanding that this is the same as finding 20%? Again, if children used a strategy of finding 1% and multiplying by 19, or, finding 10%, then 1% x9 and adding these together, are errors going to be more likely?

And what about question 32? The least successfully answered question of the set of percentage of amounts? How would you find 65% of 540? Below is my offering! 

A reflection point: Are our Year 6 children really confident with flexible regrouping and do they see the usefulness of this when calculating with percentages? If, for example, we regroup 65% into 50%, 10% and 5%, I would argue that this is a fairly simple question to solve!

Would it be useful to build opportunities into our planned rehearsal for children to regroup percentages into manageable parts and use known facts. If 1%, 10%, 50%, 5% and 20% are easier to find, can we use and combine these to find other percentages, such as 49% or 61%.

A spotlight on fractions

Here are 2 of the questions which came up in 2025:

A reminder from earlier in the blog that for question 11, there was an 85%* success rate, but for question 33, there was just a 43%* success rate (the lowest of all questions in this paper).

Before we celebrate the success of question 11 however, it might be worth considering why nationally, 15%* of children did not get this question correct. This is tricky to do without seeing the exact answers of course. This question is fairly early on in the paper and if children remember the generalisation that we can ‘multiply the top, multiply the bottom’ then they’ll find these are ‘friendly’ numbers to multiply; 2x5 and 5x6.

But what if they forget this process? If we have taught multiplying pairs of fractions using a process alone (without any concrete or pictorial representations), then the children who forget the process might not have a visual that they can fall back on. However, if we have spent time exploring how to find a fraction of another fraction, two fifths of five sixths in this example, and link this to previous learning with arrays and multiplication, plus visual representations and use this alongside the process, we are likely to create a stronger understanding and connection to the learning. This might support children who may forget a numerical process on its own.

Both of these representations show how sixths and fifths can be represented in an array and how 2/5 of 5/6 is 10/30, and so also 2/5 x 5/6 = 10/30. For this question, children could have simplified the answer to 1/3, however they don’t need to do this to get the mark; 10/30 would be acceptable. Do see the screen shot below from the 2025 Key Stage 2 mathematics test mark schemes Paper 1 for clarity:

Now let’s turn our attention to question 33. This question had an average success rate of just 43%* with 83%* of children attempting it. So, what made this question much trickier? I wonder how many children did the following: 

The mark scheme is quite clear that this answer unfortunately cannot be accepted:

However, even to arrive at the answer 120/3 there is lots that the pupil would need to have understood: 

• the conversion is correct; 3 1/3converts to 10/3
• the multiplication is correct; 10/3 x 12 = 120/3
• the understanding that the denominator remains 3 (we are still working with thirds) is also correct. 

But, we know that 120/3 does not achieve a mark.

So, for the children that did reach this point of 120/3, we can only guess that a number of the children either did not then convert 120/3 to 40, or that in attempting to make the conversion they made an error. 

So, why is 120/3 not acceptable? Below is a screenshot from page 7 of the 2025 Key Stage 2 mathematics test mark schemes Paper 1 which explains using the example of 80/4, showing that this would not be awarded a mark. This is because 80/4 results in an integer answer because 80 ÷ 4 = 20.

Children need to be able to notice when an improper fraction will convert to a whole number - my hunch would be that this is where a lot of children made errors. Is this a small point that your pupils would benefit from some practice with: identifying improper fractions that convert to whole numbers. 

Is there an easier way to tackle this question? I wonder what you think of the following strategy:

If the children understand that ‘x’ and ‘of’ mean the same thing that 3 1/3 x 12 can become 3 1/3 of 12. No converting required!

The penultimate question in the paper assesses similar concepts to those  discussed already. Again, fractions are involved. Again, multiplication is involved. Children were slightly more successful with this question than question 33 with an average of 49%* getting it correct – however, that is just slightly less than half of last year’s Year 6 pupils.

Here are 2 ways children might have solved this: 

How often in our rehearsal opportunities are children (and adults) discussing different strategies and assessing efficiencies? And following these discussions, are additional examples provided so that different strategies can be ‘tested’ out for their efficiency in different contexts?

Wrapping this together

I hope that it has been useful and interesting, seeing how the QLA can be used to gain insights into children’s strengths and possible misconceptions. This might also serve as a prompt to revisit how we build conceptual understanding and make explicit links to prior learning as well as strategy development and choice.

Some final reflection questions:

• Are we using what we know about the arithmetic paper structure and coverage to design practice for our pupils, when and where appropriate?
• Are we focusing on concepts and understanding, as well as processes and methods?
• Are we narrating the possible strategy choices, highlighting ‘efficient’ ways but referring to context to decide what makes it efficient?
• Are we looking at the current cohort and their needs, whilst using what we have learned from previous groups of pupils?

Resource: Key Stage 2 Arithmetic Paper Question Summary 2018-2025. This support might be useful if planning rehearsal opportunities in lessons, arithmetic quizzes or maths fluency sessions.

*Percentage data rounded to the nearest whole number.