No Progress 8 in 2026: What Should School Leaders Learn from GCSE Results?

No Progress 8 in 2026: What Should School Leaders Learn from GCSE Results?

By Amy Rose, Director of Learning Loft | October 2026

There’s a familiar scene that plays out in secondary schools every autumn.

GCSE results have arrived. Departments have reviewed their outcomes. Senior leaders are examining performance measures, comparing figures and considering priorities for the year ahead.

There are spreadsheets, percentages, grades and discussions about which subjects performed particularly well.

And, inevitably, questions about where improvement is needed.

Having spent almost two decades working in education, including school improvement across 47 schools, I’ve been involved in plenty of these conversations.

Some have been genuinely valuable.

Others have involved an enormous amount of data without necessarily producing a clear plan for improving teaching.

This year, however, there’s an important difference.

Schools do not have a Progress 8 score for their 2026 GCSE cohort.

The government has confirmed that Progress 8 cannot be calculated for 2025 or 2026 because the relevant pupils did not complete Key Stage 2 assessments during the pandemic.

That leaves school leaders with an interesting challenge.

How do we evaluate outcomes fairly when one of our familiar accountability measures is unavailable?

And perhaps more importantly, how do we make sure that the information we do have actually helps the pupils sitting in our classrooms today?

Because, for me, that’s where the real value of assessment lies.

Not simply understanding what happened last summer.

Understanding what needs to happen next.

Why Is There No Progress 8 Score in 2026?

Progress 8 is designed to measure the progress pupils make between the end of primary school and the end of Key Stage 4.

It compares their GCSE attainment with that of pupils nationally who had similar prior attainment at Key Stage 2.

However, the pupils completing their GCSEs in 2025 and 2026 were affected by the cancellation of primary assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without the necessary Key Stage 2 results, the government cannot calculate Progress 8 using its established methodology.

The Department for Education has therefore confirmed that Progress 8 will not be published for either academic year.

There is no replacement measure for these two cohorts.

This doesn’t mean schools have stopped measuring progress.

It means that a particular national accountability measure cannot be produced.

Teachers can still assess what pupils know, identify gaps, review learning over time and evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching.

The absence of Progress 8 shouldn’t prevent meaningful school improvement.

But it should make us think carefully about the conclusions we’re drawing from the information available.

What GCSE Performance Measures Are Available in 2026?

The Department for Education published its provisional Key Stage 4 performance statistics in October 2026.

The three headline measures for the academic year are:

• Attainment 8: Achievement across eight qualifications, including English and mathematics.
• English and mathematics attainment: The percentage of pupils achieving grade 5 or above in both subjects.
• Pupil destinations: The percentage of pupils sustaining education, employment or training after Key Stage 4.

The destinations measure relates to an earlier cohort because sustained destinations can only be established after pupils have left Year 11.

Additional information is available about attainment at grades 4 and 7, subject outcomes and pupil characteristics.

The government has also removed EBacc performance measures from 2025–26, although the relevant subjects continue to contribute to Attainment 8.

These measures provide useful information.

They help schools understand attainment patterns, identify differences between groups and consider how their outcomes compare with wider benchmarks.

However, they don’t answer every question.

And that is where I think school leaders need to exercise particular care.

Attainment Is Not the Same as Progress

Imagine two secondary schools.

School A has a relatively high-attaining intake.

Many pupils arrive in Year 7 already working confidently above age-related expectations.

School B serves a community where more pupils begin secondary education with gaps in their learning.

Both schools work incredibly hard.

Both have dedicated teachers.

Both support pupils to develop academically and personally.

Yet School A may achieve higher average GCSE grades simply because its pupils started from a different position.

That doesn’t automatically mean School A provided better teaching.

Nor does it mean School B was less effective.

Attainment tells us what pupils achieved. It doesn’t necessarily tell us how far they’ve travelled.

This is why Progress 8 has historically been an important part of the accountability conversation.

And it’s why the absence of the measure in 2026 makes contextual interpretation particularly important.

The Department for Education cautions against drawing conclusions about school performance from attainment data alone.

For me, this reinforces something I’ve always believed.

School improvement should never be reduced to a single number.

A headline figure might tell us where to investigate.

It shouldn’t be the end of the investigation.

Why Question-Level Information Matters More Than Another Spreadsheet

One of the challenges with school assessment systems is that we often collect information at the wrong level of detail.

We know that a pupil achieved 48%.

We know that their predicted grade is a 5.

We know that they’re currently working below their target.

But do we know why?

Consider a GCSE English Language assessment.

Two pupils achieve the same overall mark.

One performs strongly when retrieving information and analysing language but struggles with extended writing.

The other writes confidently but loses marks when evaluating a writer’s methods.

Their total scores might look identical.

Their learning needs are not.

This is where question-level analysis can become useful.

By examining performance on individual questions and linking those questions to particular skills or assessment objectives, teachers can begin identifying more specific patterns.

However, we need to be careful.

A low score on one question doesn’t automatically prove that a pupil has failed to understand the underlying concept.

The question might have been unusually difficult.

The wording might have caused confusion.

The pupil might have misunderstood the task or run out of time.

A question-level report should therefore be treated as a starting point for professional investigation.

Not a definitive diagnosis.

Five Questions Every School Leader Should Ask About Assessment Data

1. What Are We Actually Trying to Find Out?

Before introducing another assessment, we need to understand its purpose.

Are we checking whether pupils have remembered recently taught knowledge?

Are we identifying misconceptions?

Are we evaluating the effectiveness of a curriculum sequence?

Or are we trying to understand which pupils require additional support?

These are different questions.

And they may require different assessment approaches.

A short retrieval quiz can tell us something useful about retained knowledge.

A carefully designed extended response might reveal much more about reasoning, application or evaluation.

A standardised assessment can provide information about attainment relative to a reference population.

None should automatically replace the others.

Internal classroom assessments should help teachers understand learning within the curriculum being taught.

2. Are We Comparing Information That Is Actually Comparable?

This is particularly important across multi-academy trusts.

Imagine five schools completing different assessments.

One uses a challenging paper.

Another uses an easier assessment.

A third assesses content that hasn’t yet been taught in the other schools.

The results are then combined into a trust-wide dashboard.

It might look impressive.

But what does it actually tell us?

Without common assessment conditions, agreed curriculum expectations and appropriate interpretation, comparisons can become misleading.

This doesn’t mean every school must teach every lesson in exactly the same way.

It means leaders need to understand what can reasonably be compared.

Where schools use common assessments, they should agree on the content being assessed, marking expectations and how the information will be interpreted.

Where assessments differ, leaders should avoid presenting the outcomes as though they were directly equivalent.

3. Are We Looking at the Whole Pupil?

Data can identify patterns.

But it rarely explains everything.

A pupil’s performance may be influenced by attendance, additional learning needs, language development, personal circumstances or gaps in prior knowledge.

We should also remember that SEND and disadvantaged pupils are not homogeneous groups.

Two pupils with the same identified need may have very different strengths and barriers.

I would encourage school leaders to combine assessment information with professional knowledge.

Speak with teachers.

Look at pupils’ work.

Consider attendance and engagement.

And, where appropriate, involve pupils themselves in conversations about their learning.

The numbers should inform our understanding.

They shouldn’t replace it.

4. Does the Analysis Change What Happens in Lessons?

This is probably my biggest question.

I’ve attended meetings where an enormous amount of time has been spent discussing assessment information.

Departments have produced detailed reports.

Leaders have examined percentages.

Action plans have been written.

But when you return to the classroom a fortnight later, very little has changed.

And that raises an uncomfortable question.

What was the purpose of collecting all that information?

For me, the value of assessment is demonstrated through the response.

If a mathematics department identifies that pupils are struggling to interpret ratio problems, what happens next?

Does the teacher revisit the underlying concepts?

Do pupils receive additional modelling?

Are misconceptions addressed explicitly?

Is there an opportunity to practise?

And does the teacher check whether the new approach has worked?

That is where assessment becomes meaningful.

The Education Endowment Foundation emphasises that effective feedback should identify learning gaps, help pupils understand how to improve and provide opportunities to act on the feedback.

The same principle should inform our wider assessment systems.

Information should lead to action.

5. Are We Creating More Work Than Value?

This is another issue I feel strongly about.

Teachers already have considerable demands on their time.

If an assessment system requires hours of data entry, spreadsheet manipulation and report writing, we need to be confident that the information produced justifies that workload.

I’ve seen departments where staff spend longer analysing assessments than planning the teaching response.

That cannot be our aim.

Of course, detailed analysis can be valuable.

But we should be asking whether the process is proportionate.

Could the information be organised more efficiently?

Are we duplicating data that already exists elsewhere?

Do different leaders really need separate versions of the same report?

And are teachers being given enough time to act on what the analysis reveals?

A useful assessment system should make better teaching easier, not create another administrative burden.

How Can Schools Turn GCSE Results Into Better Teaching?

The 2026 GCSE results provide an opportunity to review curriculum strengths and weaknesses.

However, we need to distinguish between two different types of information.

National accountability data tells us about the outcomes achieved by pupils who have completed Key Stage 4.

Internal assessment data can help us understand what current pupils know and what they need to learn next.

Both have value.

But they answer different questions.

A sensible school improvement approach should connect them without confusing them.

Step One: Identify the Broad Patterns

Begin by reviewing your 2026 GCSE outcomes.

Consider attainment across subjects, differences between pupil groups and any significant changes from previous years.

Look carefully at cohort characteristics.

Avoid assuming that a change in results automatically reflects a change in teaching quality.

Where appropriate, examine subject entries, attendance patterns and other contextual information.

This stage should help leaders identify questions worth investigating.

Step Two: Examine Current Pupils’ Learning

Once priorities have been identified, turn to current assessment information.

For example, if GCSE mathematics outcomes suggest a recurring concern about reasoning, examine how current Year 10 and Year 11 pupils are performing on reasoning tasks.

Look at individual questions.

Consider the knowledge and skills being assessed.

Speak with teachers about common misconceptions.

The aim is to move from a broad concern to a more precise understanding of what pupils need.

Step Three: Agree on a Manageable Teaching Response

Avoid creating a lengthy list of interventions.

Instead, identify a small number of priorities that can realistically be addressed.

For example, a department might decide to strengthen how pupils interpret multi-step problems.

Teachers could agree on a common approach to modelling, introduce regular opportunities for independent practice and revisit the skill over several weeks.

This is much more useful than simply recording that reasoning is an area for improvement.

Step Four: Check Whether the Response Worked

This is the stage that makes the process meaningful.

After teaching the identified content, provide pupils with an opportunity to demonstrate what they now understand.

Use an appropriate follow-up assessment.

Compare the evidence with the original difficulty.

Consider whether pupils can apply the learning independently and in different contexts.

If the misconception remains, the department may need to adjust its approach.

If understanding has improved, consider how the learning will be revisited and retained.

The goal isn’t to produce another data report. It’s to establish whether pupils have learned what we intended them to learn.

Where Does LoftTrack Fit Into This?

This is one of the challenges we wanted to address when developing Learning Loft.

As teachers, we know that assessment information can be incredibly valuable.

We also know how much time can disappear into spreadsheets.

That’s why we created LoftTrack.

LoftTrack is our assessment analysis tool, designed to help teachers and school leaders turn assessment results into practical information about pupils’ learning.

Rather than relying solely on overall marks, it supports question-level analysis, helping teachers identify patterns across individual questions, curriculum topics and assessment objectives.

It also provides class, pupil and cohort views, allowing staff to explore areas of strength and difficulty.

For heads of department, this can help identify common learning gaps across teaching groups.

For class teachers, it can support decisions about what to revisit.

For school leaders, it provides a more structured way to review assessment information and discuss curriculum priorities.

LoftTrack can also analyse GCSE mock results and other classroom assessments.

Importantly, it does not calculate or replace the government’s unavailable 2026 Progress 8 measure.

Nor does it remove the need for teachers to interpret assessment information professionally.

It helps organise the evidence.

The teacher still decides what the evidence means and what should happen next.

Schools can explore LoftTrack through Learning Loft to see how the tool could support their existing assessment arrangements.

What Should Multi-Academy Trust Leaders Be Considering?

Having worked across a large multi-academy trust, I know how challenging it can be to develop a clear picture of educational performance across different schools.

Each school has its own context.

Different departments may use different assessments.

Curriculum sequencing can vary.

And the information available to central teams is not always presented consistently.

The temptation can be to introduce more standardised reporting.

But I would encourage trust leaders to begin with a different question.

What information do we actually need to support school improvement?

For example, a trust might want to understand whether pupils across several schools are struggling with a particular mathematical concept.

That could inform professional development, curriculum review or opportunities for departments to work collaboratively.

However, this only becomes meaningful if the assessments being compared are sufficiently aligned.

The purpose should not be to create another league table within the trust.

It should be to identify where support, expertise and resources might make the greatest difference.

This is where shared assessment structures and clear reporting can be particularly valuable.

LoftTrack supports class, teacher and school-level analysis, helping authorised staff examine patterns within their school.

For trusts, the wider opportunity is to establish consistent assessment approaches across schools while respecting their individual contexts.

But whatever system is used, the principle should remain the same.

Data should support professional conversations, not replace them.

Does Ofsted Expect Schools to Produce More Assessment Data?

This is worth addressing because assessment systems are sometimes designed around what schools believe inspectors want to see.

Ofsted considers nationally published performance information as one source of evidence about achievement.

However, inspectors also recognise the limitations of that information.

They consider additional evidence gathered during inspection to develop a fuller understanding of educational provision.

For school leaders, I think the message is clear.

We should be able to explain what pupils are learning, how we know and what we’re doing when learning isn’t secure.

That doesn’t necessarily require more spreadsheets.

It requires a coherent approach to curriculum, assessment and teaching.

If assessment information is genuinely helping teachers identify misconceptions and improve provision, it is serving a useful purpose.

If it exists primarily to demonstrate that a process has been completed, we should question its value.

A Practical Assessment Review for School Leaders

As schools review their autumn assessment arrangements, I would suggest beginning with a straightforward exercise.

Choose one department.

Select one recent assessment.

Ask the department to explain what the results tell them.

Then explore the following questions.

What did pupils do particularly well?

Identify the knowledge and skills that appear secure.

Where did pupils struggle?

Look beyond overall grades and examine particular questions or assessment objectives.

What might explain those difficulties?

Consider curriculum sequencing, prior knowledge, question design and classroom evidence.

What will teachers do differently?

Agree on one or two manageable teaching priorities.

How will we know whether the response worked?

Plan an appropriate opportunity to revisit the learning.

This doesn’t need to become another formal monitoring process.

It could form part of an existing departmental meeting.

The important thing is that the conversation leads somewhere useful.

Over time, schools can develop a more consistent approach across departments.

But I would always begin by ensuring that the process is valuable to the teachers using it.

What Should Schools Prioritise for the Remainder of 2026–27?

With Progress 8 expected to become calculable again for the 2027 GCSE cohort, schools will naturally continue monitoring developments in national accountability.

However, I wouldn’t encourage leaders to spend the next few months concentrating solely on future performance measures.

Instead, I would focus on three priorities.

Strengthen the Quality of Assessment

Make sure assessments are appropriately designed and aligned with what pupils have been taught.

Avoid collecting information simply because it has always been collected.

Improve the Use of Assessment Information

Support teachers to identify patterns, investigate misconceptions and make informed decisions about subsequent teaching.

Evaluate the Impact of Teaching Responses

Return to identified learning needs.

Check whether pupils have improved.

Use that evidence to refine teaching and intervention.

These principles remain valuable regardless of how national accountability measures develop.

And importantly, they apply beyond Key Stage 4.

Whether we’re assessing Year 2 reading, Year 6 mathematics, Year 9 science or GCSE English, the underlying purpose should be the same.

Understanding learning well enough to support it.

Final Thoughts: The Most Important Data Is What We Do With It

The absence of Progress 8 in 2026 has created an unusual moment for secondary school accountability.

It reminds us that no single measure can provide a complete picture of educational effectiveness.

Attainment matters.

Progress matters.

Curriculum quality matters.

And so do the individual circumstances of the pupils we’re teaching.

But after almost two decades in education, I’ve become increasingly convinced that the most valuable assessment information isn’t necessarily the information that produces the most impressive report.

It’s the information that helps a teacher make a better decision.

The question that reveals a misconception.

The pattern that identifies a gap in prior knowledge.

The assessment that shows an intervention has worked.

The conversation that helps a department rethink how something is taught.

These are the moments when assessment makes a difference.

So, as schools continue reviewing their 2026 GCSE results, I would encourage leaders to look beyond the headline figures.

Use the information to ask better questions.

Support teachers to investigate the answers.

And make sure the process leads to something meaningful for pupils.

Because the real measure of an effective assessment system isn’t how much data it produces.

It’s how much better we become at using it.

Amy Rose
Director, Learning Loft

Made by Teachers. Trusted by Schools. Loved by Learners.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why Is There No Progress 8 in 2026?

Progress 8 cannot be calculated for the 2025 and 2026 GCSE cohorts because the relevant pupils did not complete Key Stage 2 assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Department for Education therefore lacks the prior attainment information required for its established Progress 8 calculation.

Will Progress 8 Return in 2027?

The Department for Education expects Progress 8 to be calculable for the 2026–27 academic year because the relevant Key Stage 2 assessment data will be available.

However, schools should monitor confirmed guidance about the future methodology.

What Is the Difference Between Attainment 8 and Progress 8?

Attainment 8 measures pupils’ achievement across eight qualifications, including English and mathematics.

Progress 8 compares pupils’ Key Stage 4 attainment with the performance of other pupils nationally who had similar prior attainment at Key Stage 2.

Attainment 8 describes achievement. Progress 8 provides a relative measure of progress.

How Should Schools Interpret GCSE Results Without Progress 8?

Schools should examine attainment information alongside pupil characteristics, previous assessment evidence, curriculum information and professional knowledge.

Leaders should avoid drawing conclusions about teaching quality from attainment figures alone.

Internal assessment information can also help identify the specific learning needs of current pupils.

What Is Question-Level Analysis?

Question-level analysis examines pupils’ performance on individual assessment questions rather than relying solely on total marks.

It can help teachers identify patterns relating to curriculum topics, knowledge and assessment objectives.

However, findings should be interpreted alongside other evidence before deciding on teaching responses.

Can LoftTrack Calculate Progress 8?

LoftTrack supports assessment analysis, question-level reporting and pupil progress monitoring.

It does not replace the Department for Education’s national Progress 8 calculation.

For 2026, the official measure cannot be produced because the necessary Key Stage 2 assessment information is unavailable.

How Can Schools Reduce Assessment Workload?

Schools can reduce unnecessary assessment administration by reviewing which information is genuinely needed, avoiding duplicate data entry and using consistent reporting arrangements.

Technology can help organise assessment information, but professional interpretation and teaching decisions should remain with educators.

Turn Assessment Information Into Better Teaching

Schools don’t need more spreadsheets. They need assessment information that helps teachers identify learning gaps and plan what happens next.

At Learning Loft, we’ve developed LoftTrack to make question-level analysis, curriculum gap identification and pupil progress monitoring more manageable.

Whether you’re reviewing GCSE mock results, departmental assessments or whole-school progress information, we’d love to show you how LoftTrack could support your school.

Discover LoftTrack and arrange a demonstration with our team.

Learning Loft — Made by Teachers. Trusted by Schools. Loved by Learners.