How does place How does place affect education?affect education?

Ruth Lupton, Institute of Education, University of LondonRuth Lupton, Institute of Education, University of London

IPPR Social Mobility and Life Chances ForumIPPR Social Mobility and Life Chances Forum

HM Treasury 14HM Treasury 14thth November 2005 November 2005

OutlineOutline

Theoretical framework:Theoretical framework:– How How mightmight place affect education? place affect education?

Review of evidence:Review of evidence:– What kind of evidence do we have?What kind of evidence do we have?– What does it tell us ? What does it tell us ?

Implications for policyImplications for policy

Neighbourhood Individual

School Individual

Neighbourhood School

Place effects:local labour market, neighbourhood stigma, local facilities

People effects: anti-social peer groups, weak family and social networks to support education and child development, lack of role models.

Schools in some areas are better than in others! School resources (teachers, equipment, facilities), organisation and management, curriculum and pedagogy.

Theft and vandalism, teacher recruitment and retention, impact of school composition on school processes and quality

How might place affect How might place affect motivation and opportunity to motivation and opportunity to learn?learn?

Age matters. Neighbourhood effects in early childhood will be mediated by home and parents, later by schools. For older teenagers, neighbourhood may impact more directly.

Neighbourhood Effects on Neighbourhood Effects on Individuals: The Evidence Individuals: The Evidence BaseBase

– Quantitative area effects literature:Quantitative area effects literature: currently limited in UKcurrently limited in UK data problems:data problems:

– weak definitions of neighbourhoodweak definitions of neighbourhood– can be hard to explore specific mechanisms can be hard to explore specific mechanisms – lack measures of lack measures of placeplace characteristics characteristics

– Qualitative community studies and school Qualitative community studies and school ethnographies:ethnographies:

small scale small scale focus more on experience and outcomes. Do focus more on experience and outcomes. Do

area and school experiences matter area and school experiences matter independently of outcomes?independently of outcomes?

Neighbourhood Effects on Neighbourhood Effects on Individuals: What do we Individuals: What do we know?know? Abundant qualitative evidence of:Abundant qualitative evidence of:

– Labour market effectsLabour market effects– Neighbourhood stigma effects on self-esteemNeighbourhood stigma effects on self-esteem– Alternatives (paid labour, crime, drug selling)Alternatives (paid labour, crime, drug selling)– Parental isolation (low social capital)Parental isolation (low social capital)– Limited educational resources among peersLimited educational resources among peers– Limited social capital affecting higher Limited social capital affecting higher

education choiceseducation choices– Local facilities, services and safety influencing Local facilities, services and safety influencing

parenting and children’s experiences parenting and children’s experiences

Neighbourhood Effects on Neighbourhood Effects on Individuals: What do we Individuals: What do we know?know? Quantitative studies tend to find neighbourhood effects:Quantitative studies tend to find neighbourhood effects:

– Neighbourhood (ward) effects on test scores for children aged 4-5 but not Neighbourhood (ward) effects on test scores for children aged 4-5 but not older children (McCulloch and Joshi 2000 – UK data)older children (McCulloch and Joshi 2000 – UK data)

– Neighbourhood effects on development outcomes aged 4-5 and on school Neighbourhood effects on development outcomes aged 4-5 and on school drop out and teen pregnancy (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1997 – US data)drop out and teen pregnancy (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1997 – US data)

– Moving to better neighbourhoods reduced school drop out and improved Moving to better neighbourhoods reduced school drop out and improved college participation rates (Gautreaux progamme- Chicago) college participation rates (Gautreaux progamme- Chicago)

– Drop-out rates being influenced by availability of unskilled work and by Drop-out rates being influenced by availability of unskilled work and by concentrated neighbourhood poverty (Overman 2000 – Australian data)concentrated neighbourhood poverty (Overman 2000 – Australian data)

– Place effects (eg lack of services and safety) on likelihood of developing Place effects (eg lack of services and safety) on likelihood of developing problem behaviours (Peeples and Loeber 1994)problem behaviours (Peeples and Loeber 1994)

– Families adopting different strategies in high-risk neighbourhoods Families adopting different strategies in high-risk neighbourhoods (Furstenberg et.al 1998 –US data)(Furstenberg et.al 1998 –US data)

– Neighbourhood effects always smaller than individual and household effects.Neighbourhood effects always smaller than individual and household effects.BUTBUT

– Moving to better neighbourhoods reduced delinquent and risky behaviour Moving to better neighbourhoods reduced delinquent and risky behaviour among girls but not boys, and had only very small impact on educational among girls but not boys, and had only very small impact on educational attainment (MTO programme)attainment (MTO programme)

– All the children were 5+ and few children saw significant improvements in All the children were 5+ and few children saw significant improvements in schools attended. Is is schools not neighbourhoods that do the most work?schools attended. Is is schools not neighbourhoods that do the most work?

School Effects on School Effects on Individuals: The Evidence Individuals: The Evidence BaseBase Quantitative school effectiveness Quantitative school effectiveness

literature: asks whether school literature: asks whether school matters and what are the features matters and what are the features of effective schools. of effective schools.

Valuable and influential but:Valuable and influential but:– external effects on schools have tended external effects on schools have tended

to be ignoredto be ignored– different groups of pupils are not different groups of pupils are not

always isolated. School effectiveness always isolated. School effectiveness for whom?for whom?

School Effects on School Effects on Individuals: What do we Individuals: What do we know?know? Better schools make a differenceBetter schools make a difference

– Schools probably account for between 8% Schools probably account for between 8% and 15% of attainment differentials. and 15% of attainment differentials. Home and background factors account for Home and background factors account for the rest. the rest.

– Equivalent to the difference between 6 Bs Equivalent to the difference between 6 Bs at GCSE and 6 Ds (Thomas and Mortimore at GCSE and 6 Ds (Thomas and Mortimore 1996)1996)

Poor neighbourhoods are more likely Poor neighbourhoods are more likely to have poor schools (Lupton 2005).to have poor schools (Lupton 2005).

Neighbourhood Effects Neighbourhood Effects on Schools: The Evidence on Schools: The Evidence BaseBase Qualitative studies of compositional and Qualitative studies of compositional and

neighbourhood effects on school processes:neighbourhood effects on school processes:– tend to focus on poor areas and not to be comparative.tend to focus on poor areas and not to be comparative.– focus mainly on secondary schools. focus mainly on secondary schools. – do not identify effects on outcomes.do not identify effects on outcomes.

Quantitative school compositional effects literature:Quantitative school compositional effects literature:– Tests whether similar pupils have different outcomes in Tests whether similar pupils have different outcomes in

schools of different composition. schools of different composition. – Some methodological problems:Some methodological problems:

Limited measures of composition (mean FSM). Differential Limited measures of composition (mean FSM). Differential effects in mixed schools may cancel each other out.effects in mixed schools may cancel each other out.

Lack sensitivity to local factors e.g. ethnic composition.Lack sensitivity to local factors e.g. ethnic composition.

DFES pupil attainment and progress dataDFES pupil attainment and progress data

Neighbourhood Effects Neighbourhood Effects on Schools: What do we on Schools: What do we know?know? Strong qualitative evidence that composition affects school Strong qualitative evidence that composition affects school

processes (Gewirtz 1998,Thrupp 1999) and quality (Lupton processes (Gewirtz 1998,Thrupp 1999) and quality (Lupton 2005). Also demonstrated quantitatively (Opdenakker and 2005). Also demonstrated quantitatively (Opdenakker and Van Damme 2001 – Belgian data).Van Damme 2001 – Belgian data).

But as regards outcomes…But as regards outcomes…– ““for every analysis that finds a compositional effect there is for every analysis that finds a compositional effect there is

another that does not” (Nash 2003)another that does not” (Nash 2003)– ““inconclusive” but ”suggests the presence of school inconclusive” but ”suggests the presence of school

compositional effects” (Thrupp et al 2002)compositional effects” (Thrupp et al 2002)– All students do better in higher-SES schools (Zimmer and Toma All students do better in higher-SES schools (Zimmer and Toma

2000 – 5 countries)2000 – 5 countries)– FSM students in low FSM schools make better progress (up to FSM students in low FSM schools make better progress (up to

KS3) than non-FSM pupils in high FSM schools (DFES data).KS3) than non-FSM pupils in high FSM schools (DFES data).– Within each social class group, those with high ability are most Within each social class group, those with high ability are most

affected by school composition (Opdenakker and Van Damme affected by school composition (Opdenakker and Van Damme 2001)2001)

– High ability students do slightly better in streams. Lower ability High ability students do slightly better in streams. Lower ability students do better in mixed schools and mixed ability groups students do better in mixed schools and mixed ability groups (Robertson and Symons 1996)(Robertson and Symons 1996)

% pupils progressing from % pupils progressing from expected level at KS2 in 1999 to expected level at KS2 in 1999 to expected level at KS3 in 2002 expected level at KS3 in 2002 (Mathematics)(Mathematics)

School FSM School FSM bandband

Non FSMNon FSM FSMFSM

<5%<5% 9090 8383

5-9%5-9% 8888 7979

9-13%9-13% 8585 7777

13-21%13-21% 8282 7474

21-35%21-35% 8080 7070

>35%>35% 7474 6767All pupils: 83%

Summary and Summary and Implications for PolicyImplications for Policy Schools affect educational outcomes, Schools affect educational outcomes,

although relatively little compared with although relatively little compared with individual, home and family factorsindividual, home and family factors

Raising quality of schooling and equalising it across Raising quality of schooling and equalising it across neighbourhoods can be expected to yield benefits, neighbourhoods can be expected to yield benefits, although wider inequalities will still be more although wider inequalities will still be more important.important.

Outcomes for low income children are probably Outcomes for low income children are probably negatively affected by being in schools (and negatively affected by being in schools (and classes) with many other low-income childrenclasses) with many other low-income children. .

If we want to raise the attainment of the lowest If we want to raise the attainment of the lowest attaining, we might look at:attaining, we might look at:– Avoiding unbalanced school intakes where possible Avoiding unbalanced school intakes where possible

(banding, incentives for taking more disadvantaged (banding, incentives for taking more disadvantaged children, reducing competitive pressures on schools, children, reducing competitive pressures on schools, reducing differentiation)reducing differentiation)

– Mixed ability teaching groupsMixed ability teaching groups– May be consequences for higher income childrenMay be consequences for higher income children

Compositional effects might be offset by Compositional effects might be offset by different organisational models and more different organisational models and more resources for schools in poor neighbourhoods.resources for schools in poor neighbourhoods.

Summary and Summary and Implications for PolicyImplications for Policy

(non-school) neighbourhood factors probably (non-school) neighbourhood factors probably make a difference:make a difference:– Equalising neighbourhood conditions through Equalising neighbourhood conditions through

neighbourhood renewal strategies could be expected to neighbourhood renewal strategies could be expected to yield educational benefits.yield educational benefits.

– Neighbourhood safety, play facilities, and opportunities for Neighbourhood safety, play facilities, and opportunities for interaction between parents may yield benefits. Design for interaction between parents may yield benefits. Design for child-friendly neighbourhoods. Investment in early years, child-friendly neighbourhoods. Investment in early years, play and youth provision.play and youth provision.

– Mixed communities Mixed communities maymay help, but only if mix help, but only if mixinging takes place takes place in and out of school. Hard to achieve in absence of more in and out of school. Hard to achieve in absence of more general trends towards economic and social cohesion? general trends towards economic and social cohesion?

NB: Evidence of area effects strengthens case for NB: Evidence of area effects strengthens case for targeted interventions, but lack of evidence does not targeted interventions, but lack of evidence does not necessarily mean targeted interventions should be necessarily mean targeted interventions should be withdrawn.withdrawn.

Summary and Summary and Implications for PolicyImplications for Policy

Useful reviews of Useful reviews of evidenceevidence McCulloch, A. and Joshi, H. (2000) McCulloch, A. and Joshi, H. (2000)

“Neighbourhood and Family Influences “Neighbourhood and Family Influences on the Cognitive Ability of Children in on the Cognitive Ability of Children in the British National Child Development the British National Child Development Study”. ISER working paper 2000-24 Study”. ISER working paper 2000-24

Sammons, P. (1999) School Sammons, P. (1999) School Effectiveness Coming of Age in the 21Effectiveness Coming of Age in the 21stst CenturyCentury

Thrupp,M., Lauder, H., and Robinson, T. Thrupp,M., Lauder, H., and Robinson, T. (2002) “School Composition and Peer (2002) “School Composition and Peer Effects” International Journal of Effects” International Journal of Educational Research 37 (5)Educational Research 37 (5)