1

Educational inequality in England’s schools

Address to “Narrowing the Achievement Gap” National Conference, Jeffrey Hall, UCL-Institute of

Education, 18 June 2015

Professor Steve StrandUniversity of Oxford, Department of Education

steve.strand@education.ox.ac.uk01865 611071

2

Purpose of presentation

• To present a picture of inequalities in educational achievement in England and how they have changed over the last 25 years

• Considering the current gaps (particularly the socio-economic gap) what does the evidence suggest about policy for closing gaps further?

3

Trends over 25 years

• Gaps - Race, sex and class

• Focus on nationally representative data

• Age 16

• Two broad segments: – 1988-2006 (Youth Cohort Study - YCS)

• 13,000 sample age 16+, every two years (approx), self reported data, broad ethnic groups ...

– 2004-2014 (National Pupil Database - NPD)• Whole population, annually, complete background

4

Gender (YCS)

1988 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 20060

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2831

33

3740

4244

46

50

54

31

3840

4649

5154

5659

63

1.16 1.36 1.35 1.45 1.44 1.44 1.49 1.49 1.44 1.45

Boys Girls

% a

ch

iev

ing

5+

A*-

C G

CS

E g

rad

es

or

eq

uiv

ale

nt

Source: DCSF (2008). YCS & LSYPE: The activities and experiences of 16 year olds: England 2007

5

Ethnicity (YCS)

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 20060

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2.0 2.8 2.72.2 1.6 1.9 2.4

1.4

BlackIndianPakistaniBangladeshiOther Asian%

ac

hie

vin

g 5

+ A

*-C

GC

SE

gra

de

s o

r e

qu

iva

len

t

Source: DCSF (2008). YCS & LSYPE: The activities and experiences of 16 year olds: England 2007

6

Socio-economic (YCS)

1988 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 20060

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

52

5860

6668 69 69

71 71

77

14

1820

21

27 26

3033

37

44

6.7 6.5 6.2 7.3 5.9 6.3 5.1 5.0 4.1 4.3

Mangerial & ProfessionalSemi-skilled & Unskilled

% a

ch

iev

ing

5+

A*-

C G

CS

E g

rad

es

or

eq

uiv

ale

nt

Note: SEG then NS-SEC from 1999. England only from 1999. SEC Lower supervisory, semi-routine and routine. Source: DCSF (2008). YCS & LSYPE: The activities and experiences of 16 year olds: England 2007

7

Gender (NPD)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201410

20

30

40

50

60

70

37.138.4

39.741.4

43.8

47.1

51.1

54.6 54.255.6

51.6

44.846.7

48.049.6

51.9

54.4

58.6

61.963.7

65.7

61.7

BoysGirls

% 5

+ G

CS

E A

*-C

(in

cl E

ng

lish

& M

ath

s)

8

Ethnicity (NPD)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201410

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

41.642.9

44.346.1

48.450.9

55.0

58.2 58.960.5

56.4

23.2

27.129.5

33.2

36.4

39.4

43.5

48.649.8

53.3

47.0

White British White Other groups IndianPakistani Bangladeshi ChineseBlack Caribbean White and Black Caribbean Black African

% 5

+G

CS

E A

*-C

gra

de

s (

Inc

l En

glis

h &

Ma

ths

)

9

FSM (NPD)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201410

20

30

40

50

60

70

16.818.0

19.621.4

23.8

26.6

30.9

34.636.3

37.9

33.5

44.846.4

47.749.3

51.7

54.2

58.5

62 62.664.6

60.5

FSMNot FSM

% 5

+ G

CS

E A

*-C

(in

cl E

ng

lish

& M

ath

s)

10

Relative gaps over 25 years

19881990

19911993

19951997

19992001

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00 Gender

Ethnic

SES

Od

ds

Ra

tio

s

Source: Strand (2015)

1988-2003 = YCS (%5AC, Black-White, SEG/SEC, 13,000 sample) 2004-2014 = NPD (%5EM, WBRI-BCRB, FSM, full population)

11

Key messages• Things can change over 25 years

– Most BME achieving better than White British– Biggest ethnic gap now no larger than gender gap– Even the residual ethnic gaps explained by SES

12

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-1 SD 0 +1SD

Mea

n to

tal p

oint

s sc

ore

(nor

mal

ised

)

Socio-economic Status (SES) normal score

White BritishMixed heritageIndianPakistaniBangladeshiBlack CaribbeanBlack African

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-1 SD 0 +1SD

Mea

n to

tal p

oint

s sc

ore

(nor

mal

ised

)

Socio-economic Status (SES) normal score

White BritishMixed heritageIndianPakistaniBangladeshiBlack CaribbeanBlack African

Achievement age 16 by ethnicity, SES & genderBoys Girls

Note: SES is first factor from a PCA of household SEC, parent highest educational qualifications, home ownership, FSM and neighbourhood deprivation. Source: Strand (2014a).

13

FSM by ethnic 2004-2014

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 20140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90FSM - Boys

White British White Other groupsIndian PakistaniBangladeshi ChineseBlack Caribbean Mixed White & CaribbeanBlack African

% a

chie

vin

g 5

+G

CS

E A

*-C

(In

cl E

ng

lish

& M

ath

s)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90FSM - Girls

White British White Other groupsIndian PakistaniBangladeshi ChineseBlack Caribbean Mixed White & Caribbean

% a

chie

vin

g 5

+G

CS

E A

*-C

gra

des

(In

cl E

n &

Ma)

14

Key messages• Things can change over 25 years

– Most BME achieving better than White British– Biggest ethnic gap now no larger than gender gap– Even the residual ethnic gaps explained by SES– SES gap reduced 7:1 to 3:1 (but still large)

• Funding matters– EMAG (£200M pa) / Excellence in Cities / National

Strategies BCAP / MEAP / NAEP– PPG: £2.50 Billion

• Change is gradual– No evidence big changes associated with school

structures (GM schools, specialist schools, academies)

15Guardian, 3 June 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/03/education-bill-loopholes-academies-schools

3 June 2015

16

The wider context beyond school• Formulation as “failing schools” deeply problematic

– SES gaps are observed from age 3, long before children start school (EPPE, MCS, GUS)

– Only 10%-15% of variation between pupils in England is associated with schools (e.g. Strand et al, 2015)

– Within-school FSM gap is consistent regardless of school ‘quality’ (Strand, 2014d)

– Schools succeeding against the odds laudable but not replicable/scaleable (see Wrigley, 2012)

• Need to recognise context in evaluating performance & best practice (Burton, 2014)

• If school structures are the issue, why not the charitable status of private schools?

17

ReferencesStrand, S. (2010). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity,

gender, poverty and prior attainment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 289-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243451003732651

Strand, S. (2011). The limits of social class in explaining ethnic gaps in educational attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2),197-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920903540664

Strand, S. (2014a). Ethnicity, gender, social class and achievement gaps at age 16: Intersectionality and ‘Getting it’ for the white working class. Research Papers in Education, 29, (2), 131-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.767370

Strand, S. (2014b). School effects and ethnic, gender and socio-economic gaps in educational achievement at ag e 11. Oxford Review of Education, 40, (2), 223-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.891980

Strand, S. (2014d). Even at best schools, kids on free school meals are performing worse than their peers. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/even-at-best-schools-kids-on-free-school-meals-are-performing-worse-than-their-peers-32006

Strand, S., Malmberg, L. & Hall, J. (2015). English as an additional language and educational achievement in England: An analysis of the National Pupil Database. London: Educational Endowment Fund. http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/EAL_and_educational_achievement2.pdf

Strand, S. (2015). Ethnicity, deprivation and educational achievement at age 16 in England: Trends over time. London: DFE.

18

END OF PRESENTATION

19SMCPC (2014). Elitist Britain? London: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

20SMCPC (2014). Elitist Britain? London: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

21

FSM gap by OFSTED rating

Source: Ofsted (2013). Unseen Children: Access and achievement 20 years on (P53). Breakdown by school overall effectiveness judgement.

22

OFSTED grades strongly predicted by Intake

Note: KS2 points of the 2013 Y11 group & most recent OFSTED grade. KS2<26 (25% schools) = 9% outstanding; KS2>=29 (17% schools) 62% outstanding. Source: Trevor Burton (2014).  https://jtbeducation.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/whats-the-easiest-way-to-a-secondary-ofsted-outstanding/

23

Foundation Stage (age 5): England 2013

White

other

groups-F

SM

Pakist

ani-F

SM

White

British

-FSM

Chinese-FS

M

Asian oth

er gro

ups-FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Caribbea

n-FSM

Bangla

deshi-F

SM

Mixed W

hite &

Africa

n-FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Asian-FS

M

Indian-FS

M

Mixed an

y oth

er bac

kgro

und-FSM

Pakist

ani-N

ot FSM

Black C

aribbea

n-FSM

Black o

ther

groups-F

SM

Black A

frica

n-FSM

Bangla

deshi-N

ot FSM

Asian oth

er gro

ups-Not F

SM

Mixed W

hite &

Caribbea

n-Not F

SM

Black A

frica

n-Not F

SM

Black o

ther

groups-N

ot FSM

Chinese-N

ot FSM

White

other

groups-N

ot FSM

Black C

aribbea

n-Not F

SM

Mixed W

hite &

Africa

n-Not F

SM

White

British

-Not F

SM

Mixed an

y oth

er bac

kgro

und-Not F

SM

Mixed W

hite &

Asian-N

ot FSM

Indian-N

ot FSM

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

% w

ith

a 'g

ood

leve

l of d

evel

opm

ent'

Source: DFE SFR 47/2013

24

Key Stage 2 (age 11): England 2013

White

Other-

FSM

White

British

-FSM

White

Irish

-FSM

Black C

aribbea

n-FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Caribbea

n-FSM

Black o

ther-

FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Asian-FS

M

Pakist

ani-F

SM

Any Oth

er gro

up-FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Africa

n-FSM

Asian oth

er-FS

M

Mixed Oth

er heri

tage-F

SM

Black A

frica

n-FSM

White

Other-

Non FSM

Indian-FS

M

Bangla

deshi-F

SM

Pakist

ani-N

on FSM

Any Oth

er gro

up-Non FS

M

Black C

aribbea

n-Non FS

M

Black o

ther-

Non FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Caribbea

n-Non FS

M

Mixed W

hite &

Africa

n-Non FS

M

Bangla

deshi-N

on FSM

Black A

frica

n-Non FS

M

White

British

-Non FS

M

Asian oth

er-Non FS

M

Mixed Oth

er heri

tage-N

on FSM

Mixed W

hite &

Asian-N

on FSM

Indian-N

on FSM

Chinese-N

on FSM

White

Irish

-Non FS

M

Chinese-FS

M

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

% L

evel

4+

in R

eadi

ng, W

riting

& M

aths

(RW

M)

Source: DFE SFR 51/2013

25

White British FSM lowest achieving

Whit

e Brit

ish-F

SM

Mixe

d W

hite

& Car

ibbea

n-FSM

Black

Caribb

ean-

FSM

Black

othe

r gro

ups-

FSM

Whit

e ot

her g

roup

s-FSM

Pakist

ani-F

SM

Mixe

d W

hite

& Asia

n-FSM

Mixe

d W

hite

& Afri

can-

FSM

Black

Africa

n-FSM

Any o

ther

Asia

n-FSM

Black

Caribb

ean-

NOT F

SM

Whit

e ot

her g

roup

s-NO

T FSM

Pakist

ani-N

OT F

SM

Ban

glade

shi-F

SM

Black

othe

r gro

ups-

NOT F

SM

Mixe

d W

hite

& Car

ibbea

n-NO

T FSM

India

n-FSM

Whit

e Brit

ish-N

OT F

SM

Black

Africa

n-NO

T FSM

Any o

ther

Asia

n-NO

T FSM

Ban

glade

shi-N

OT F

SM

Mixe

d W

hite

& Afri

can-

NOT F

SM

Mixe

d W

hite

& Asia

n-NO

T FSM

Chines

e-FSM

India

n-NO

T FSM

Chines

e-NO

T FSM

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

32%

38%

42% 43% 44%

47% 48% 49%

51%52%

57% 58%59% 59% 60%

61% 61%

65%66% 67% 67% 68%

74%

77% 77%78%

5+A*-C EM by ethnic group and entitlement to FSM: England 2013

% 5

+ A

*-C

gra

des

in

clu

din

g E

ng

& M

ath

s

Source: Strand (2015)

26

The mechanisma) Funding Pupil Premium Grant (PPG)

b) School’s decide on the intervention/s– http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/– OfSTED best practice WWC updated & PPG annual report

c) Accountable through performance tables / OfSTED / school website– Progress 8 to remove perverse incentives of 5EM– Publication of PPG gap, including 3-year rolling averages

27

School success against the odds• DfE Extra Mile Project – visited 45 primary & 50

secondary schools that had raised attainment in some of the most deprived wards in England.

• 12 key practices identified: High participatory/active learning in lessons Value local people & culture, high levels of engagement Broaden pupils horizons Offer a more relevant curriculum Build pupils’ language repertoire Track pupil progress and intervene Effective reward and sanctions schemes Develop SEAL, etc.

• See case studies:• http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/?y=0&where=text&x=0&query=extra+mile+case+studies&x=0&y=0

28

Regional trends GCSE 2002-2012

Source: Greaves et al. (2014). Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps. SMCPC, p12.

29

SES and progress age 11-16Bottom SES Quintile Top SES quintile

Source: LSYPE (Strand, 2014a)

• Low SES: White British decline, most BME improve particularly during KS4. High SES: gaps close but WBRI stay ahead.

30

Implications for policy/practice• FSM gap does not result from a small no. ‘failing schools’

– Floor targets, new academies/free schools overemphasised– ‘Success against the odds’ exceptions & not easily replicable

• Beyond the school gates– Home / parental factors, access to social & economic capital,

poor health, peer groups, crime or neighbourhood deprivation– Cumulative impact of early Home Learning Environment (HLE)

age 0-3 and ”Matthews’ effect”

• Pupil premium positive influence by focussing schools attention on the FSM gap within their schools – Evaluate setting allocation / flexibility (e.g. Oakes, 2005)– Distribution of teachers across classrooms within schools (e.g.

Clotfelter et al, 2005)– Working with parents (e.g. Parent Support Advisor pilot, 2009)– Early intervention (PPG weighting revised, new EYPP)

31

Overall conclusions• Focus on low attainment of White British Working Class (WC)

pupils is valid – but (i) also Black Caribbean WC, and (ii) Black Caribbean underachieve from middle/high SES homes.

• Key resilience factors are often individual/family but schools can and do make a difference (though there are limits to what schools alone can achieve).

• Pupil Premium Grant offers substantial redistributive funding, real chance to make a difference, need to focus on within-school resource deployment, parental involvement etc.

• If government seriously wants to ‘break the cycle’ of social reproduction of inequality will need more radical action (remove the charitable status of private schools, do they help the most needy and vulnerable in society? (SMCPC, 2014, Elitist Britain).