WWC009
 

Written evidence submitted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) is one of the largest social policy and development charities in the UK.  For over a century we have been engaged in searching out the causes of social problems, investigating solutions and seeking to influence those who can make changes. JRF’s purpose is to understand the root causes of social problems, to identify ways of overcoming them, and to show how social needs can be met in practice. The Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (JRHT) shares the aims of the Foundation and engages in practical housing and care work.

Executive Summary

• There is a large and persistent gap in attainment between white British pupils from more and less disadvantaged backgrounds.
• The gap is significant by the time children are aged 3 and continues to widen through much of primary school;
• By age 16, only 36% of children eligible for free school meals achieve 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths, compared to 63% of children not eligible for free school meals.

• White British pupils have lower achievement and make less good progress through their school years than many other ethnic groups.
• At age 16, only 36% of children eligible for free school meals achieve 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths, compared to 63% of children not eligible for free school meals.

• White British boys have particularly low achievement.

• The attainment gap is influenced by disadvantages arising from the family and home environments and from poorer quality early years education and teaching and learning in primary and secondary school.

• Children from poorer backgrounds also seem to be disadvantaged by less positive experiences of school, teachers and other adults and the impact this has on their attitudes.

• The evidence suggests low aspirations are not a key cause of lower attainment among white British children from low income backgrounds.

• Schools have a central role to play in closing the attainment gap, and some are extremely successful in doing so.

• There is a developing body of evidence about approaches to teaching and learning which are effective in raising the attainment of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• There is also good evidence that particular forms of parental involvement in education can have a significant positive impact on children’s outcomes.

• It is important that government (and other related agencies) play an active role in:

• Supporting the development of schools’ capacity to use the evidence that exists and develop effective approaches to tackling the attainment gap, raising the quality of early years childcare
• Improving White British children’s ability to make the right choices in education by  increasing the quality and quantity of careers advice and guidance.
• Enabling young people to translate skills into life chances by helping to improve the quality of jobs on offer in the labour market and the ability of workers in low paid, low skill jobs to progress.

1. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Research into Education and Ethnicity

1.1 Since 2007, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s education and poverty programme has investigated the attainment gap between children from richer and poorer backgrounds. In recent years we have funded research into the role of children and parents’ attitudes, aspirations and behaviour in shaping their educational outcomes.  In 2011 we also published a review of the evidence on the links between poverty, ethnicity and education[i].

2. Educational attainment among white working class pupils

2.1 19.2% of children in England are eligible for free school meals in primary schools, and 16.3% in secondary schools[ii]. (*See note below regarding the use of free school meals as a measure of socio-economic status/poverty).  In 2010/11, 82% of pupils eligible for free school meals were from white backgrounds[iii].  Overall statistics showing the gap between children eligible for free school meals and those not eligible are therefore primarily measures of the gap between children in the white population.

2.2There is a great deal of research showing that the ‘attainment gap’ begins to emerge early in children’s lives, even before entry into school. It continues throughout childhood and culminates in there being a considerable gap at age 16 and beyond[iv].

2.3 By age three, there is a significant gap in cognitive test scores between children in the poorest fifth of the population compared with those from more affluent backgrounds.

2.4 The attainment gap at age five grows during the primary school years, so that:

• The highest early achievers from low-income households are overtaken by lower-achieving children from more affluent backgrounds by age seven[v];
• By age eleven, only 66% of children eligible for free school meals reach the minimum threshold of level 4 in English and Maths, compared with 82% of children not eligible for free school meals[vi].

2.5 At GCSE level, the gap remains large, although it has closed a little over the last decade,. At age 16, only 36% of children eligible for free school meals achieve 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths, compared to 63% of children not eligible for free school meals[vii].

2.6 Poorer children are half as likely to go on to study at university as their more affluent peers[viii].

Ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status

2.7 Our review[ix] of the links between poverty, ethnicity and education examined not only levels of attainment at different ages, but also how children’s progress through school varied. In addition to ethnicity and free school meal status, the review examined the role played by gender. (**See note below regarding the way in which we approach the issues of ethnicity and ethnic categorisation).

2.8 Overall it showed around half of all low achievers at school are white British boys and that white British pupils from low socio-economic status backgrounds make the least progress during secondary school.  Eligibility for free school meals has a strong link with low achievement across all pupils, but this link appears to be stronger for White British pupils than for other ethnic groups. This means that the attainment of White British pupils seems to be more adversely affected by socio-economic disadvantage than is the case for other ethnic groups.

2.9 However, the group with the lowest achievement at secondary school are white Traveller children; 20% achieve no GCSE/GNVQ passes.

2.10 In terms of gender, boys outnumber girls as low achievers by a ratio of three to two. In particular, boys have weaker reading and writing skills at primary school, which makes them more likely to be low achievers at age 16.

2.11 During Key Stage 1, black pupils who had high attainment at age 4, and white pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds make less progress than other groups.  Pupils from several other ethnic minority groups (particularly those from Chinese backgrounds) make faster progress than White pupils. Indian, Bangladeshi and Chinese pupils all start primary school with lower attainment than White pupils, but have caught up by the end of Key Stage 1.

2.12 Looking at the progress students make between KS2 and KS4, it is striking that the White British group have the greatest risk of staying in the lowest 10% of achievement if they start there: 40% of those in the bottom 10% stay there, compared to, for instance, 34.7% of the Black Caribbean group and much smaller proportions of other ethnic groups. 

2.13 White British students are also less likely to remain as high achievers (i.e. to stay in the top 50% from KS2 to KS4) than students from Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani backgrounds. White British students are more likely, however, to remain as high achievers than students from African-Caribbean backgrounds. Of those who were in the top half of achievers at KS2, 76% of White British pupils are still in the top 50% at Key Stage 4. This compares to 59% of Black Caribbean boys, 76.4% of pupils from a Bangladeshi background, 78.9% of Pakistani, and 87.4% of Indian pupils. 

2.14 Turning to post-16 destinations, Department for Education statistics[x] show that for 2010/11:

-          89% of White pupils went on to education, employment or training after KS4. This compares to 92% of Asian pupils and pupils of ‘Other’ ethnic groups, 91% of Black pupils and 88% of pupils of Mixed ethnic groups.

-          35% of white pupils went to a School Sixth form; compared to 53% of ‘Other’ ethnic groups, 48% of Asian pupils, 40% of Black students and 39% of pupils of Mixed ethnic groups.

-          More White pupils than those of any other group went to a Further Education College (35%) rather than to School Sixth Form.

-          Pupils from the White and Mixed ethnic groups were most likely to be not in education, employment or training (NEET): 10% of these two groups, compared with 7% for Black pupils and 5% for Asian pupils.

2.15 Socio-economic background, as measured by free school meal status, is important in shaping post-16 destinations:

-          90% of pupils not claiming free school meals go on to education, employment or training; compared to 82% of free school meal pupils. 

-          Free school meal pupils are also more likely to go to a Further Education College (40% do so) whilst the most common destination for non-free school meal pupils was a School Sixth Form (39%). 

-          Free school meal pupils were twice as likely as non-free school meal pupils to be NEET: 16% compared to 8%.

2.16 See Appendix A for charts showing the different proportions of pupils with and without Free School Meal eligibility and for pupils from different ethnic groups.

2.17 These differences in destinations are very important. There is a great deal of evidence of the damage that becoming ‘NEET’ can do to an individual’s future prospects in the labour market and of the long term ‘scarring’ effect of early unemployment[xi].  

2.18 For those who continue in education, the type of institution they attend has an influence on their later higher education choices and outcomes. Fewer students from FE colleges are accepted by universities than from School Sixth Forms and there is some evidence that students from FE colleges tend to achieve lower classes of degree[xii].

3. Influences on attainment

3.1 The JRF programme included both qualitative research exploring children’s experiences and quantitative research examining the factors associated with outcomes for children from different backgrounds.

3.2 Both of these types of research suggest that the attainment gap arises from a combination of differences in experiences inside and outside school, with a strong role for the family and home environment.

Early Years

3.3 In relation to the early years, quantitative research using the Millennium Cohort Study[xiii] shows that a number of factors including the home learning environment, regular routines, family interaction, breast-feeding and post-natal depression have a significant impact on the cognitive gap at age three. Taken together, these differences explain about one quarter of the gap between the richest and poorest children, more than half of which (16 per cent) is accounted for by the home learning environment. When looking at the growth in the cognitive attainment gap between three and five, the home learning environment (i.e. parents doing broadly educational activities with children and providing educational resources such as books and toys) at age three continues to be important but other elements of the early caring environment do not.

3.4 The EPPE 3-11 longitudinal study[xiv], while also emphasising the critical importance of the home learning environment in the early years, identified the potential compensating role of access to high quality pre-school and primary education. The study found that attending a high-quality pre-school or a high-quality primary school had a significant effect on attainment at age 11, and that this effect was particularly strong for children from deprived backgrounds. The study also shows a cumulative effect: children who attended high-quality pre- and primary schools had significantly better outcomes at 11, with the size of the positive effect being comparable to the difference between having a mother with no qualifications, and having a mother with a degree.

Primary and secondary years

3.5 In the primary and secondary years, the quality of schools and of teaching and learning is important, alongside family and other factors. Various studies have found that around 14% of low achievement can be attributed to school quality[xv]. Schools that are particularly successful in this area have been able to eliminate the gap in attainment between those from different backgrounds.

3.6 In addition to school and teacher quality, JRF’s qualitative evidence about the experiences of primary and secondary aged children highlighted the development of differences in attitudes and relationships between children from different backgrounds.

3.7 One study showed boys as young as nine or ten becoming disenchanted and starting to disengage from school. Perceptions of teacher behaviour in particular, varied by student background, with children in disadvantaged schools complaining that they were shouted at by their teachers.  Children in more advantaged schools did not mention this and tended to discuss instead the role of teachers in helping them to learn.  Two studies found that children were very aware of their social position and its implications for their current lives and future opportunities. Children from more advantaged backgrounds described much richer experiences inside and outside school than those from poorer backgrounds. Children from poorer backgrounds were very aware that they would be less likely to receive a good education and get a good job in the future.

3.8 These qualitative studies reflected some differences in how children from different backgrounds interacted with the education system. A recurring theme was that children from less advantaged backgrounds felt less in control at school, because they were under pressure to perform tasks for which they lacked confidence. It seemed that school often did not give them the space to build co-operative relationships with teachers and other adults and they were more likely to see it as controlling and coercive.

3.9 Both quantitative and qualitative research studies uncovered a strong belief in the importance of education among students from all backgrounds. However, children from less advantaged backgrounds were much less likely to feel confident in their ability to succeed within it.

Aspirations

3.10 The JRF programme showed that aspirations are very high across all social groups.  When children are born 97% of mothers want them to go to university[xvi]. The big difference between parents and children from richer and poorer backgrounds is their belief that they will be able to achieve such goals. By the time young people are 14, only 53% of low income parents believe their children will go on to university, compared to 81% of higher income parents[xvii]. 

3.11 The research found the same evidence of high aspirations in relation to jobs. In a large study across three deprived areas[xviii], most young people aspired to professional or skilled work; far more than the current labour market could provide.  However, they had a striking lack of knowledge about what paths they needed to follow in order to fulfil those goals. Many were making choices about subjects and exams without realising that these would prevent them reaching their desired destinations.

4. What can schools do to close the attainment gap?

4.1 In relation to teaching and learning, the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF[xix]) is developing measures that are supported by robust evidence of impact on the attainment of pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium. This is a very valuable resource for schools and other agencies to use in informing their practice. 

4.2 Approaches to teaching and learning which the EEF’s toolkit suggests have a good evidence base include: 

• Feedback,
• Meta-cognition and self-regulation,
• Peer tutoring,
• Early years intervention,
• One-to-one tuition,
• Homework (at Secondary school),
• Collaborative learning,
• Mastery learning,
• Phonics,
• Behaviour interventions,
• Digital technology,
• Social and emotional learning,
• Parental involvement,

4.3 However, it is vital to use the evidence from this toolkit in an intelligent and considered way. The discussion of each of the recommended approaches shows that they are only effective if done in particular ways and that they do not work in every context or for every group of pupils. Likewise, some of the interventions which do not receive high overall ratings, such as teaching assistants, can be effective if targeted and used correctly. This evidence base is still developing; it provides information about options, not a recipe for success. In order to have a positive effect on children’s outcomes, schools need to use it in combination with detailed analysis of their own students, community, strengths and weaknesses. They also need to evaluate their own practices, ideally using the DIY evaluation toolkit provided on the Education Endowment Foundation’s website.

4.4 The evidence suggests that interventions outside the classroom can also have important benefits for the attainment of children from low income backgrounds. As part of the JRF programme, we have published two major international reviews[xx] examining the evidence for interventions raising attainment through addressing attitudes, aspirations and behaviour. These showed that many have very little evidence of impact on attainment, but a few are fairly well supported. The type of work with the best evidence is parental involvement; building parents’ ability to support their children’s education. 

4.5 The evidence suggests that impact comes not from changing parents’ attitudes or aspirations, but rather from giving parents better information and access to appropriate support and advice. This is important for the following reasons:

• Where parents are from poorer backgrounds themselves, or have not been successful in education, they may lack the practical knowledge that enables them to support their children, for example, with homework or making plans for their future.
• ‘Negative attitudes’ may reflect poorer children’s lack of confidence in their own ability to succeed in a system organised around a middle-class ethos that they (and their parents) do not relate to; this does not mean that they feel education does not matter (or their parents do not care).
• Poorer children and parents may not be aware of the full range of possibilities open to them or understand the routes that need to be taken to secure certain occupations or routes into post-compulsory education.

4.6 Other evidence supports the conclusions of these reviews. In particular, a 2011 review published by the Department for Education[xxi] looked at three types of interventions: school – home links, support and training for parents and family and community based interventions. It reiterated earlier review findings that “parental engagement has a large and positive impact on children’s learning:

Parental involvement in the form of ‘at-home good parenting’ has a significant positive effect on children’s achievement and adjustment even after all other factors shaping attainment have been taken out of the equation. In the primary age range the impact caused by different levels of parental involvement is much bigger than differences associated with variations in the quality of schools. The scale of the impact is evident across all social classes and all ethnic groups. (Desforges 2003).”

4.7 In examining the effects of the different programmes considered, the review found particularly impressive results from various family learning programmes, particularly those focusing on literacy.  It also highlighted examples of effective interventions to support home-school links and provide training to parents on how to support their children’s learning. The Manchester Transition Project, Supporting Parents on Kids Education programme (SPOKES), Families and Schools Together (FAST) and Strong African American Families Program (SAAF) programmes are four of many which achieved very positive outcomes.

4.8 The review showed that the effect sizes for these types of interventions can be impressive. For example, programmes in which parents read to their children produced an effect size of 0.18 (about an additional 2 months progress and similar to that for the National Literacy Strategy).  Programmes in which parents were trained to listen to their children read produced an effect size of 0.51 (about 4 months of progress.  Finally, programmes where parents taught specific reading skills to their children produced an effect size of 1.15 (over a year’s progress).

4.9 This review also provides a very useful description of the best ways to develop effective parental engagement in relation to school-home links, support and training for parents and family and community based interventions. 

5. What else can government do to close the attainment gap?

5.1 Our evidence suggests that there are at least five roles for government in addressing the attainment gap:

-          Funding education,

-          Setting goals and the accountability framework for education providers,

-          Knowledge mobilisation and capacity building within the education system,

-          Funding and shaping other services for families (outside schools and education providers),

-          Influencing the wider circumstances of families’ lives and the world children and young people go out into, including the labour market.

Influencing schools

5.2 The first three of these essentially relate to how government influences what schools do.  The key policy in relation to funding is, of course, the Pupil Premium. The independent evaluation[xxii] of the Pupil Premium was published in July 2013. By 2014 the policy will cost £2.5bn, £900 per eligible pupil, which is a significant commitment in current spending climate. The evaluation says that it cannot yet tell us what the actual impact of the Premium will be. The report focuses on how schools perceive the funding, how they are using it (in very general terms) and their views of what is effective.

5.3 The report highlights the importance of the broader financial context for schools. Over 60% of the schools in the survey said that their overall budgets had reduced between 2010/11 and 2011/12, and more said they expected lower budgets by 2012/13. Pupil premium is only between 1% and 3% of their budgets, but most schools said it helped them to protect support for disadvantaged pupils, and 70% said they’d increased spending on such support since its introduction.

Most schools use the funding for additional support inside and outside the classroom, and additional staff (considered to be the most effective use of the money). However, the impact of those staff entirely depends on what they do and how well they do it (as is demonstrated by the mixed results of research into the impact of teaching assistants)[xxiii]. Most schools report using external evidence such as academic research, and over one-third use the Education Endowment Foundation’s toolkit. However, it is not clear how far they are using this evidence in a reflective way that informs practice, rather than to check for what they think Ofsted may be looking for. 

5.4 Two of the other factors that emerge as being important to ensure that schools act effectively to close the attainment gap are:

-          In-school monitoring. The evaluation report showed that some schools have sophisticated monitoring systems to track both individual pupils and groups of pupils. However, all schools need to develop these and learn how to use the data regularly and intelligently to identify the issues facing their pupils and what works in their school. 

-          Knowledgeable support and capacity building to enable school leaders and other professionals to consider their own practice, identify well evidenced changes, try them out and evaluate the results.

5.5 The accountability system for schools has been developed very considerably to put closing the attainment gap high on schools’ agendas and motivate them to take action to achieve it.  However, there seems to have been less movement in relation to the support and capacity building which needs to accompany this. 

5.6 Some new announcements were made in relation to this in July, however, we have a number of concerns:

-          Support and peer learning needs to be available to all schools, not just those that Ofsted say require improvement.

-          The system appears to be continuing to rely on a patchwork of headteachers, consultants, charities and others, meaning that what schools actually access is likely to be variable and not necessarily targeted on what they really need.

-          Peer-to-peer learning is vital and often effective. But relying purely on successful schools to spread good practice is risky, as what appears to have worked in one school does not necessarily work in another; people who have been very successful at something are not always the best at identifying the causes of their success or how to pass it on.

-          Support needs to include effective engagement with external evidence; not all successful headteachers are necessarily brilliant at this.

5.7 We would suggest that a more systematic, strategic and broader-based system of support and development (drawing on the experience of initiatives like the London Challenge) is needed to ensure that the pupil premium investment brings the required returns.

Other services

5.8 In addition to schools, there are of course many other services which affect children’s outcomes.  We will not attempt to discuss all of these here. One that we would highlight is childcare, and particularly the quality of early years education. Making childcare more affordable is a crucial aspect of addressing in work poverty and helping parents to work[xxiv]. As is discussed above, the quality of childcare is vital in young children’s development. The EPPE study has shown both the positive impact of high quality childcare, and the absence of benefits to children of attending poor quality or mediocre childcare. The lack of high quality childcare in many parts of the UK should therefore be of grave concern to any government interested in closing the attainment gap.

5.9 An additional service area which the evidence suggests that the government needs to play a stronger role in is careers advice for young people, and their parents.  As is noted above, one of the studies in the JRF programme[xxv] highlighted a serious lack of understanding among both pupils and their parents about the pathways and choices they needed to make in order to reach their aspirations. This relates in part to the provision of careers advice. It suggests a need for earlier and clearer guidance to enable pupils to navigate increasingly complex pathways through education and work.  The recent select committee report[xxvi] on careers advice pointed to a worrying trend in diminishing quantity and quality of careers advice in schools. The evidence suggests that this needs to be reversed if young people from all backgrounds are to achieve well academically and successfully move into work.  

5.10 A recent study from the ESRC[xxvii] examined what happened to financial rewards from higher education between 1993 and 2008. The research found that it is still the case for most young people that a degree will bring higher pay, but that this has become a lot more variable and dependent on which areas of work they do. There is a much bigger range of wages being earned by graduates in recent years, with a bigger overlap with non-graduates. This reinforces the importance of high quality careers advice to help young people make the right choices for them.  

Wider circumstances and the labour market

5.11 Finally, the government needs to consider the wider circumstances of children and families’ lives. The JRF’s Future Labour Market’s programme has demonstrated that there are serious underlying problems in the nature of the jobs currently on offer in the labour market. 

5.12 The UK has a long tail of low-wage low-skilled work compared to other developed countries.  This is because a relatively large number of employers seek to compete by having the lowest costs rather than the best quality. This leads them down a road of offering poor pay and not requiring a skilled workforce. In 2011 there were 4.4m jobs paying less than £7 per hour. The young are particularly at risk of low pay. Certain sectors – hotels and catering, retail, care, wholesale and transport the public sector are particularly associated with low pay. Many of these are growing sectors in the UK economy[xxviii].

5.13 Those working in low paying, low skilled jobs are too often hampered from moving into better work by a lack of clear progression routes, and a lack of training provided by employers. Where training is provided, it is much more likely to be offered to higher paid staff that already have qualifications. In addition, those working full time or those working in the public sector are slightly more likely to receive training than those working part time or in the private sector.

5.14 Increasing the educational attainment of white working class children needs to be accompanied by changes in the labour market to improve the jobs available and opportunities to progress in work.

5.15 Research[xxix] modelling the impact on poverty of raising the supply of skills in the population as a whole demonstrates such a blanket approach will only have a small impact on absolute poverty, and could even increase relative poverty. A more targeted approach is required, one which finds those households living in poverty or at risk of poverty, identifies the employment and skills status of the individuals in the household, and develops a package of support to boost income.

5.16 Take for example a couple household (with children) that are reliant on a single breadwinner and living in poverty. If the breadwinner has low qualification supporting training to enable a move into a better paid job might be one option for boosting household income. Another option might be to support the second earner into work, requiring barriers like access to childcare to be addressed.

5.17 The government’s Universal Credit (UC) system, which will operate at the household level, will enable this sort of analysis to be carried out. The Government is currently consulting on how to increase in-work conditionality within UC, to encourage people to increase their earnings. If done in a supportive way, this has potential to help people improve their circumstances

5.18 However, relying solely on supply-side solutions cannot solve this problem.  Employers also have a key part to play. Greater employer aspiration and demand for skilled workers is required, so fewer people are trapped in low-paid low-skilled work

5.19 Research[xxx] shows no difference in business performance for employers using permanent contract arrangements compared to those using temporary ones. This suggests employer ethos, or a belief that better conditions will result in a more committed workforce, drives decisions about what sort of business models to use.  Similarly, a key enabler of low pay employers offering progression opportunities is the ethos and commitment of managers. This suggests the development of human resources practice and managerial development has a key role to play in improving conditions for low paid workers[xxxi].

5.20 However the business model of low-pay low-skill employers also needs to be challenged in order to boost overall demand for a higher skilled workforce, which should in theory result in higher productivity. Evidence suggests[xxxii] one effective way to do this is through employer-to-employer networking and influence, with leadership, role models and peer pressure acting to encourage employers to improve their practice. Local Enterprise Partnerships are in a good position to facilitate this interaction.

Notes

*Free School Meals eligibility is widely used in educational research as a measure of poverty, class or socio-economic status. It is limited since it typically applies to children in workless families, excluding children in low-income working families. We have used it here as a proxy for class or poverty where the evidence we draw on has done so. Some of the quantitative studies quoted here use other measures including parents’ employment, income and education. Many qualitative studies also use broader and more nuanced definitions of poverty or disadvantage.

**The Joseph Rowntree Foundation believes it is important to consider ethnicity in relation to poverty and other outcomes because there is good evidence that levels and experiences of poverty (and other social and economic outcomes) are affected by people’s ethnic identities. Ethnic identity from the individual’s perspective is important because it can affect self-perception and views of opportunities, risks, aspirations and priorities. Ethnic identity as ascribed by others is significant because it relates to racism, discrimination and the availability of opportunities and support. However, ethnic identities are fluid and dynamic; their meanings change over time and between contexts.

Our goal is to develop as nuanced and in depth an understanding as possible. Therefore our interest is in all ethnicities. This includes white ethnicity, both the majority and white minority ethnic groups. We consider not only ‘visible’ groups but also those identifying themselves through culture, language or religion. This enables us to take account of the fact that a range of dimensions of history, culture, belief and group membership can be significant. It also helps to ensure that we include the growing numbers of people of ‘mixed’ ethnicity.

When discussing research findings we are limited to some extent by the categories used in major surveys and by past researchers. However, we recognise that there is great variation within all of the ethnic categories referred to in this submission and that differences in outcomes between ethnic groups should not necessarily be ascribed to ‘essential’ or internal characteristics but to a range of experiences and circumstances which are related not only to ethnicity but to many other aspects of identity. 

September 2013

Appendix A: Destinations for KS4 and KS5 pupils with different characteristics

Chart 1

Chart 2

Chart 3

Chart 4

Chart 5

Chart 6

Chart 7

Chart 8

Chart 9

Chart 10

Chart 11

Chart 12