WWC0028

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Education

Introduction

1. Many recent statistical studies[1] have highlighted that social class is the strongest predictor of educational attainment in Britain - in that the higher classes tend to outperform lower class pupils.
2. However, it is the underachievement of the white working-class in particular that is becoming a rising cause for concern.[2] This paper considers the reasons why white working class pupils underachieve. There is often co-occurring reasons (Feinstein and Sabates, 2006) why children from lower socio-economic backgrounds do not succeed. Although the majority of the research does not specifically examine the factors as to why white working class pupils underachieve, it is possible to draw some conclusions from the research on underachievement in pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds more generally.

3. Through this paper we examine the evidence on interventions which aim to improve educational outcomes and attainment of low socio economic groups. The evidence[3] is not specific to white working class pupils per se but draws on intervention that applies to closing the gap for pupils from all disadvantaged background.

Definitions

Working class

4. ‘Working class’ for the purpose of this evidence paper refers to pupils from low socio-economic families; those classed as deprived and/or those families who are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM).

5. A pupil’s eligibility for FSM is often used as a proxy measurement for family socio-economic status (particularly when looking at statistics), although it must be noted that it is not a perfect indicator, as it does not pick up all pupils who experience deprivation (for example, those from low income working families, and those entitled to FSM who do not claim them).

6. There are significant overlaps between having a low income, being a member of a lower socio economic status group and being working class but income is a key determinant (DCSF, 2009).

Educational underachievement

7.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ‘Educational underachievement’ for the purposes of this paper is defined as low attainment – which is attainment that is below age-related expectations in a particular curriculum subject or skill. This includes basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, and higher order or conceptual skills.

Educational Attainment

8. The relationship between socio-economic status and attainment is a strong one. Socio-economic status remains a significant predictor of attainment even after controlling for parental education. This social class attainment gap tends to open up at an early age and widens throughout school life.

9. Prior attainment has a very strong impact on future attainment so pupils from lower social classes are more likely to fall into the cycle of low attainment. Feinstein (2003) showed that pupils whose parents are in the higher social classes (classes I or II) can be up to 14 percentage points ahead compared to pupils whose parents are in lower social classes (classes IV or V). This was supported by Sylva et al. (2004), who highlighted that on entry to school (reception), pupils with fathers from professional occupations scored more highly in literacy, number skills and non-verbal skills than pupils with fathers from non-professional occupations.

10. Researchers have noted that eligibility for free school meals is associated particularly strongly with low levels of attainment for white British pupils, more so than for other ethnic groups.

Key findings

Educational attainment

• White FSM pupils perform less well than all other pupils at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4, with lower proportions of pupils within the group achieving the expected level at each Key Stage. However, the gaps in the percentages achieving the expected level have reduced over time, particularly at Key Stage 2. In 2012, 63.3% of white FSM pupils achieved the expected level at Key Stage 2 compared to 81.7% of all other pupils. At Key Stage 4, 30.9% of white FSM pupils achieved the expected level, compared to 61.2% of all other pupils.

• Within the FSM group, white FSM pupils have lower proportions achieving the expected levels at Key Stage 2 and 4 compared to all other FSM pupils. At Key Stage 2 this gap has reduced between 2010 and 2012, while at Key Stage 4 it has increased slightly.

• White FSM boys do less well than white FSM girls at Key Stages 2 and 4, and the gap has increased between the groups between 2010 and 2012, to 6.7 percentage points in pupils achieving the expected level at Key Stage 2 and 8.3 percentage points at Key Stage 4.

• Wolf reforms to Key Stage 4 are expected to have a greater impact on white FSM pupils, and in particular white FSM boys. White FSM pupils currently rely more on vocational qualifications at Key Stage 4.

• Attainment gaps between white FSM pupils and all other pupils vary across the country – 9 local authorities (LAs) record an attainment gap of over 40 percentage points; the LAs recording the smallest attainment gap are all London based.

• Both income deprivation and white ethnicity are independently associated with lower attainment; larger FSM gaps among White British pupils are largely explained by greater differences within this ethnic group in characteristics which have separate negative impacts on progress and attainment.

Factors that influence underachievement

• Family background in early childhood has been shown to affect cognitive ability throughout schooling, with pupils from more deprived families performing less well than their more affluent peers.
• Parental engagement can be a key lever for increasing children’s educational attainment; however evidence shows that parents with lower socio- economic status tend to have less involvement in their child’s education.
• Aspirations are related to outcomes for pupils, with pupils (and parents) with high aspirations generally having better educational outcomes than those with low aspirations. However, pupils from deprived backgrounds are less likely to hold high aspirations for their futures[4] .
• Home factors in deprived families such as material deprivation; parental well-being; different cultural and social factors, and more exposure to risks have been found to reduce the underachievement of deprived pupils (DCFS, 2009).
• Evidence[5] shows that pupils from deprived backgrounds are less likely to attend good quality schools and that deprived pupils are likely to be over-represented in low ability teaching groups where the quality of teaching and learning is often poor.

The latest statistics are examined below:

White working class pupils compared with all other pupils

Key Stage 2

11. In 2012, at Key Stage 2, 12.7% of pupils are classed as white pupils eligible for FSM. Chart 1 illustrates the percentage of pupils achieving the expected level at Key Stage 2, i.e. Level 4 or above in both English and mathematics. [Note that in 2012, English was calculated from reading test results and writing teacher assessment rather than from reading and writing tests as in previous years. English (and therefore English and maths combined) in 2012 is, therefore, not comparable to previous years.]

Chart 1: Attainment gap at KS2, 2010-2012

12. In 2012, 63.3% of white FSM pupils achieved the expected level at Key Stage 2 compared to 81.7% of all other pupils – a gap of 18.4 percentage points (ppts).

13. Since 2010 the gap has decreased from 22.0 to 18.4ppts in 2012, due to a 9.1ppt increase in the attainment of FSM-eligible pupils compared to a 5.6ppt increase in the attainment of other pupils. The greatest reduction in the gap came between 2011 and 2012, which saw a decrease of three percentage points. However, we estimate that approximately half of this decrease can be attributed to the change in assessment method (from a test to teacher assessment in writing).

14. The odds ratio for achieving the expected level has fallen slightly from 2.7 in 2010 to 2.6 in 2012. This means that the odds of a pupil from outside the group reaching the expected level are 2.6 times as high as a white FSM pupil.

Key Stage 4

15. At Key Stage 4, 9.7% of pupils are classed as white pupils eligible for FSM. This is a smaller percentage of pupils than at primary school, where 12.7% of pupils are both white and eligible for FSM, and the contrast with all other pupils is more marked. Chart 2 shows Key Stage 4 attainment, for 5+ A*-C grades including English and maths GCSEs.

Chart 2: Attainment gap at KS4, 2010-2012

16. In 2012, 31.0% of white FSM pupils achieved the expected level at Key Stage 4 (including equivalents) compared to 61.2% of all other pupils – a gap of 30.3 ppts. When only including the reduced list of equivalents, 26.1% of white FSM achieved the expected level compared to 57.9% of all other pupils – a gap of 31.8 ppts. This shows that the gap is slightly wider when equivalents are removed.

17. While Key Stage 4 attainment has increased for both white FSM and all other pupils, the gap has remained roughly the same, falling by one percentage point over the past three years when including equivalents, and by 0.5 percentage points when only including the approved equivalents.

Geographical differences

18. Across all local authorities, white FSM pupils perform less well than their peers, the difference in some authorities is only small (Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster both have attainment gaps of less than 3 percentage points between white FSM pupils and their peers), however, in 9 authorities, an attainment gap of over 40 percentage points is recorded (with Slough and Kingston upon Thames having the largest gaps). As shown on Chart 3, there is a large variation in the performance of white FSM pupils by LA, but the size of the attainment gap is driven largely by performance of the comparison group. Annex 1 contains a breakdown of all LA attainment gaps.

Chart 3: Difference in attainment of white FSM pupils compared to all other pupils within each Local Authority, 2012

Absence and exclusions

19. Both deprivation and white ethnicity are associated with higher rates of absence from school. In 2012 white FSM pupils were more likely to be absent from school than other FSM pupils (8.2% of sessions missed vs 5.7%) and much more likely to be absent than non-FSM pupils (8.2% vs 4.6%); in the non-FSM group white pupils absence rates are only slightly higher than the rest of the group (4.7% vs 4.3%). Boys and girls have very similar absence rates when compared across groups:

Table 1: Absence rates, 2011-2012

20. Both deprivation and white ethnicity are associated with higher rates of fixed period exclusions from school. White FSM boys are much more likely to receive a fixed period exclusion than all other groups; they are 3.5 times as likely to receive a fixed period exclusion than a non-FSM white male pupil. In 2011/2012, over 1 in 6 white FSM boys received a fixed period exclusion, this compares to a national average of less than 1 in 20 for all pupils and 1 in 10 for non-white FSM boys .

Table 2: Rates of fixed period exclusions, 2011-2012

21. For permanent exclusions from school, deprivation shows a stronger association with rates of exclusion than white ethnicity. White FSM boys are much more likely to receive a permanent exclusion than all other groups shown including non-white pupils eligible for FSM. Around 1 in 300 white FSM boys were permanently excluded from schools in England in 2011/2012 compared to an overall average of 1 in 1,250 and 1 in 400 non-white FSM boys.
22. White FSM pupils (regardless of gender) had higher rates of fixed and permanent exclusions than the rest of the FSM group.

Table 3: Rates of permanent exclusions, 2011-2012

White working class pupils compared with non-white working class pupils

23. The difference between white British pupils from low income backgrounds compared to their more advantaged white peers is larger than for any of the other main ethnics groups (Ofsted, 2013).
24. Chart 4 below shows the attainment of white FSM pupils compared to other FSM pupils (and for comparison purposes, non-FSM pupils) for Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 expected levels in 2012. At KS2, deprivation has a stronger association with attainment; whereas at KS4 white ethnicity plays a greater role for FSM pupils.

Chart 4: Attainment gaps by FSM status and for white pupils compared to all other pupils, 2012

25. The chart above shows that within the FSM group, white FSM pupils have lower proportions achieving the expected levels at Key Stage 2 and 4 compared to all other FSM pupils. At Key Stage 2 the gap is 7.7 percentage points; while at Key Stage 4 it rises to 16.9 percentage points.

26. Interestingly, the situation is reversed for non-FSM pupils, with white non-FSM pupils more likely to achieve the expected level at KS2 and KS4 than all other non-FSM pupils.

27. Charts 5 and 6 on the following page show the change in the attainment gap between white FSM pupils and all other FSM pupils between 2010 and 2012. At Key Stage 2 the attainment gap has fallen from 10.1 percentage points in 2010, but at Key Stage 4 it rose from 16.1 ppts for the measure including equivalent qualifications and from 15.3 to 17.4 ppts for when equivalents are removed.

Chart 5: Attainment gap between white FSM and all other FSM pupils at KS2, 2010-12

Chart 6: Attainment gap between white FSM and all other FSM pupils at KS4, 2010-12

28. Ofsted’s report (2013) showed that white British pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are consistently the lowest performing of all the main ethnic groups, and gaps in attainment compared to other groups have widened over time. Since 2007 the attainment of white British FSM pupils has improved by only 13 percentage points compared to 22 percentage points for low income Bangladeshi pupils.

Geographical differences

29. White FSM pupils perform less well than all other FSM pupils in most local authorities (LAs), although there ten LAs where the general trend is reversed. Three LAs (North Lincolnshire, Kingston upon Thames and North East Lincolnshire) have an attainment gap of greater than 30 percentage points; however when comparing attainment gaps it should be noted that some regions have very small numbers of non-white FSM eligible pupils. Annex 2 contains a breakdown of all LA attainment gaps for white FSM and all other FSM pupils.

Chart 7: Difference in attainment of white FSM pupils compared to other FSM pupils within each Local Authority, 2012

White working class boys compared with white working class girls

30. Overall, white FSM boys do less well than white FSM girls at Key Stages 2 and 4, and the gap has increased between the groups between 2010 and 2012. However, the gender effect is not larger than among other ethnic groups or among non-FSM pupils; gender is an additional factor affecting attainment, but not disproportionately so for these groups of pupils in particular. Chart 8 shows the percentages of white FSM pupils achieving the expected levels at Key Stage 2 and 4, split by gender.

Chart 8: Attainment gaps split by gender, 2012

31. In 2012, 60% of white FSM boys achieved the expected level at Key Stage 2 compared to 66.7% of white FSM girls – a gap of 6.7 percentage points. Since 2010 the gap has increased slightly from 6.4 to 6.7ppts in 2012, due to a 9.3ppt increase in the attainment of girls compared to a 9.0ppt increase in the attainment of boys. The odds ratio for achieving the expected level has remained at 1.3 between 2010 and 2012. This means that the odds of a white FSM girl reaching the expected level are 1.3 times as high as a white FSM boy.

32. In 2012, 26.8% of white FSM boys achieved the expected level at Key Stage 4 compared to 35.1% of white FSM girls – a gap of 8.3 ppts. Since 2010 the gap has increased by over 3 percentage points, with the majority of the increase taking place between 2011 and 2012. The odds ratio for achieving the expected level has increased to 1.5 between 2010 and 2012. This means that the odds of a white FSM girl reaching the expected level are 1.5 times as high as a white FSM boy.

33. Whilst girls outperform boys across all the ethnic groups, the gap between FSM white girls and FSM white boys is not significantly different to the gender gap between boys and girls of other FSM ethnic groups. The attainment gap between FSM boys and girls in Black and Chinese ethnic groups (16 ppts and 12 ppts respectively) is much wider than the white FSM gender gap (8 ppts) (Ofsted, 2013).
34. The gender gap between white FSM boys and girls is slightly lower than the gender gap in white non-FSM eligible pupils (8.3 percentage points compared to 9.7 percentage points in pupils achieving the expected level at Key Stage 4), although both gaps increased since 2011, when they were 5.7 and 7.1ppts respectively.

Composition of the FSM GAP

35. A detailed decomposition of the FSM gap based on 2006 KS4 attainment and additional background data from the Longitudinal Survey of Young People in England (LSYPE) shed light on the relative importance of deprivation and ethnicity to the gaps. The analysis found that FSM pupils are more likely than non-FSM pupils to have characteristics that have separate, negative impacts on progress during secondary schooling, and on overall attainment at KS4.

36. The FSM gap was smaller for pupils from underperforming ethnic minority groups. This was largely because there is less difference between the characteristics of FSM and non-FSM pupils in these groups than amongst White British pupils.

37. Among White British pupils, pupils eligible for FSM were substantially more likely to live with a single parent, have parents with no qualifications, have low aspirations, attend schools with low prior attainment, and be from families with at least three children. For this group, income and material deprivation accounted for about three GCSE grades within the gap (second only to prior attainment which accounted for six grades); family composition accounted for about 1 grade, and low aspirations accounted for about half a grade. [6]

Factors that influence underachievement

Early childhood influences

38. Data from UK longitudinal studies found that the impact of deprivation on cognitive and educational measures is apparent from an early age (DCSF, 2009), and that this influence of family background in early childhood has been shown to effect attainment throughout schooling.

39. Feinstein (2003) using data from the 1970 British Cohort Study, found significant gaps in children’s ability to perform developmental tasks such as cube stacking, language use, and drawing at 22 months of age. Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds scored lower on these tasks than children from higher socio-economic backgrounds. Furthermore, children from deprived backgrounds who scored well initially were on average overtaken by others from higher socio-economic groups by the time they started primary school. However, more recent research (IOE, 2011) has challenged the findings that highly able children from disadvantaged homes are overtaken by their rich (but less able) peers before the age of 10 in terms of their cognitive skill. In the IOE analysis they suggest that these findings are due to a spurious statistical artefact known as regression to the mean (RTM) and that, after applying some simple adjustments for RTM, this is not necessarily the case.

40. Similarly, findings from the Millennium Cohort Study which looked at over 15,000 children born in 2000, found that children aged three from lower income households have lower vocabulary scores and score lower on the Bracken School Readiness test (looks at colours, letters, numbers/counting, sizes, shapes) compared to children from higher income houses (George et al., 2007). In addition, Jones and Schoon (2008) found that children aged five from lower income households had lower standardised scores on cognitive ability tests and on measures examining vocabulary, picture similarities and pattern construction. This early low attainment tended to effect attainment throughout schooling.

Lack of parental engagement and education

41. Parental engagement can be a key lever for increasing children’s educational attainment:
1. there is evidence for example that between the age of 7 and 16, parental involvement was a more powerful force than other family background indicators such as social class, family size and level of parental education and contributes no less than 10% variation in achievement,
2. very high parental interest is associated with better exam results, than more children whose parents show no interest (Feinstein and Symons, 1999),
3. parental involvement in early interventions was found to be associated with positive outcomes for children in terms of their cognitive development, literacy and numeracy (Sammons et al, 2002), and when children have received support at home from their parents with reading, this has been found to improve reading attainment.

4. Evidence shows that pupils from deprived backgrounds are more likely to have parents and carers who had bad experiences of school themselves (Harris and Goodall, 2007); have less familiarity and confidence in dealing with the educational system; and may want to help but do not know how best to support their children. Hence, parents in deprived families are less likely to be involved in their children's education.

5. Statistics show a link between parents level of education and pupils attainment, in that the higher the parental level of education, the higher the attainment of the child (DCSF, 2009).

Low pupil and parental aspirations

42. Aspirations are related to outcomes for pupils; those with high aspirations generally have better educational outcomes than those with low aspirations. However, the likelihood of having high aspirations varies with the characteristics of the individual (DCSF, 2009).

43. In particular, aspirations and expectations vary according to pupils’ socio economic backgrounds, with pupils from deprived backgrounds being less likely to hold high aspirations for their futures (Schoon and Parsons, 2002). Although children from deprived and non-deprived backgrounds are equally likely to believe in the importance of education, those from deprived backgrounds are more likely to feel that they lack the “ability to thrive within the system” (Hirsch, 2007).

44. Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE) (Strand, 2007) suggested that both parents’ and pupils’ aspirations (expectations of staying on in full-time education after 16) explain part of the variation observed in Key Stage 3 results. High aspirations on the part of both parent and child lead to a 1.2 Key Stage point boost once other pupil characteristics including prior attainment are controlled for. Additional analysis of Key Stage 4 attainment (Strand, 2008) found that parental and pupil aspirations continued to have an influence, and that the size of the effect varied across ethnic groups. Strand concluded that a large part of the low attainment of White British pupils from low socioeconomic status families could be explained through the low educational aspirations of these pupils and parents.

45. Cabinet Office (2008a) reported evidence from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) cohort study, stating that the strongest factors predicting children’s aspirations included family socio economic status.

46. Community level factors (e.g. area deprivation, social capital, school characteristics, influence of peers) did not have a significant influence on children’s aspirations, once parent and child level factors had been accounted for. However, these community level factors could have an indirect effect via their association with a child’s pre-school environment, the parents’ and child’s values and beliefs, and the characteristics of the child’s school.

Home environment

47. DCSF (2009) found evidence that the following factors had an impact on the underachievement of deprived pupils:

1. material deprivation - this can influence educational outcomes in a number of ways, including by reducing the number of educational resources that families can provide for their children, and by adversely affecting the home environment,
2. parental well-being – evidence shows that having a low income can have an adverse effect on parents’ well-being, which in turn affects the quality of their parenting. This "family stress" can lead to problems with pupils’ educational and emotional development.
3. cultural and social factors - these are implicated in the association between deprivation and poor educational outcomes. For example, pupils from lower socioeconomic groups may have different background knowledge, skills and interests which are not reflected in the school curriculum; and are less likely to have the kinds of social connections which offer inspiration and opportunities; and
4. exposure to multiple risk factors - evidence suggests that these are more prevalent amongst deprived pupils. Living in a low income household or a deprived area is associated with a higher chance of experiencing one or more risk factors such as depression, domestic violence, worklessness and overcrowding which can have a negative impact on educational outcomes.

Physical factors

48. Evidence suggests that pupils from deprived families are at greater risk of low birth weight, which influences their cognitive and physical development, and are more likely to suffer from ill health (DSCF, 2009).

School factors

49. Evidence shows that the following factors may contribute to the underachievement of the lower classes:

1. Pupils from deprived backgrounds are less likely to experience good quality schools. Sammons et al. (2006) found that the quality of teaching tended to be poorer in schools with higher levels of pupils eligible for FSM.
2. Research shows that working class white pupils, and deprived pupils are likely to be over-represented in low ability teaching groups (Gillborn and Mirza, 2000; DfES, 2005(b); Dunne et al., 2007)[7], and that the quality of teaching and learning in the bottom groups is often poor (Ireson and Hallam, 2001; Boaler, 1997).

Intervention to improve white working class pupils’ attainment – the Government’s approach.

50. Our overarching aim is to ensure that a child’s background does not limit their chances of success in later life. We know that education is crucial to a child’s future success. And we know that children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, particularly those from white working class backgrounds, currently do disproportionately worse than their peers in our education system, more so than in other countries. Gaps in attainment between disadvantaged pupils and their peers persist through all stages of education, including entry into higher education. And a gap at one stage affects a pupil’s chances of achieving at the next.

51. So our aim in the Department for Education – and our contribution to improving social mobility – is to ensure that a child’s socio-economic disadvantage does not limit their educational outcomes by age 19, compared to their peers. We aim to ensure that all children, whatever their background, have the chance of acquiring the core knowledge and qualifications that are the foundation for further and higher education and ultimately, successful careers.
52. Our strategy to achieve this is to:

1. raise the attainment of all pupils and particularly of the most disadvantaged, at every stage of the education system;
2. ensure more disadvantaged pupils reach the thresholds that are crucial for future success and make more progress;
3. and at the same time, narrow attainment gaps nationally between them and their peers.

53. We will set high expectations throughout the education system for all pupils; so that more children, no matter what their background, have improved chances of succeeding in later life.
54. Our education reform programme is focused on raising attainment across the board and narrowing gaps between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. We are:

Impact of the Wolf Review

55. Following the Wolf review of vocational education, only high quality vocational qualifications identified as meeting stringent quality criteria will form part of the accountability measures for schools from 2014 onwards; with a maximum of two vocational qualifications counting towards each pupils achievement in the 5A*-C threshold measure. The following table illustrates the expected impact that this will have on the number and percentage of pupils achieving the ‘expected’ Key Stage 4 level:

Table 4: Modelled impact of Wolf recommendations on Key Stage 4 outcomes, 2012

Currently, 58.3 per cent of pupils achieve the expected level at Key Stage 4 – this falls to 54.8 per cent when Wolf reforms are applied to the data.

56. The reforms have a larger impact on white FSM pupils – with a drop of 4.8 ppts in achievement when Wolf reforms are applied, compared to the ‘all other pupils’ group fall of 3.3 ppts, and all other FSM pupils’ fall of 4.3 ppts. This means that almost 5 per cent of white FSM pupils rely on non-Wolf qualifications to achieve the expected level, whereas 3 per cent of all other pupils and just over 4 per cent of all other FSM eligible pupils are reliant on them to achieve the threshold.

57. The reforms also impact more on white FSM boys than white FSM girls – with girls outperforming boys by 8.5 percentage points in 2012 under reforms, compared to the 8.3 percentage point gap currently seen at Key Stage 4. Just 21.9% of white FSM boys achieved the expected level at KS4 in 2012 when the reduced equivalent list is used. This compares to 31.6% of FSM pupils, and the England average of 54.8%

58. Currently, white FSM pupils enter an average of 10.5 qualifications made up of 5.6 GCSEs and 4.9 equivalents[8]. When Wolf reforms are applied (limiting qualifications to 1 GCSE in size, only counting vocational/equivalent qualifications from the approved list) this drops to 6.3 entries, made up of 5.4 GCSEs and 0.9 approved equivalents[9].

59. The following chart shows that entry patterns for all other pupils are much higher overall for GCSEs, but white FSM pupils on average enter more vocational qualifications – although the gap closes when Wolf reforms are applied. White FSM pupils have 3.2 qualifications that would not be counted under Wolf reforms, compared to 2.7 qualifications for all other pupils.[10]

Chart 9: Number of qualifications entered pre and post Wolf recommendations, split by type of qualification, 2012

Fifty-six per cent of white FSM pupils entered 1 or more Wolf approved equivalent qualifications, compared to 47 per cent of all other pupils. Six per cent of white FSM pupils entered 3 or more Wolf approved equivalent qualifications in 2012 – these pupils would only see 2 of these qualifications counted in the 5A*-C threshold measure. Entry patterns for non-white FSM pupils are the same as for white FSM pupils, with 56 per cent entering 1 or more Wolf approved equivalents and 6 per cent entering 3 or more.

Table 5: Number of Wolf approved equivalent qualifications

Overall, 96.7% of the approved equivalents entered by white FSM pupils achieved a pass grade (C or above); this compares to 97.9% for all other pupils.

School Accountability

Performance tables

60. The performance tables provide a wide range of public information on the attainment and progress of all pupils. The tables also present performance against the main attainment measures and expected progress measures for the following groups - boys/girls; those with English as an Additional Language; and non-mobile pupils (i.e. pupils who have been in a school throughout both Year 10 and Year 11)

61. In addition to this, the tables provide value added measures for disadvantaged pupils (i.e. those on free school meals and children looked after) and also for each of the low, middle and high prior attainment groups.

School inspections

62. Ofsted inspectors must consider the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school and the extent to which the education provided by the school meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school, and in particular the needs of pupils who have a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and pupils who have special educational needs.
63. Attainment data will inform, but not determine, the outcome of an inspection. When judging achievement, inspectors must have regard for pupils’ starting points in terms of their prior attainment and age. This includes the progress that the lowest attaining pupils are making and its effect on raising their attainment, and the progress that most are able to make towards attaining the highest levels and grades.
64. When judging the leadership in, and management of a school, inspectors will look at the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation and the extent to which it is shared with governors – this includes monitoring and evaluation of the quality of teaching and the achievement and progress of all groups of pupils, including those for those for whom the pupil premium provides support, relative to other schools nationally.
65. Inspectors also look at how well leaders and managers ensure that the curriculum focuses on the necessary priorities for ensuring that all pupils make excellent progress in reading, writing and mathematics and that it is broad and balanced (in the context of the school) and meets the needs, aptitudes and interest of all pupils.

Pupil premium

66. The pupil premium is specifically designed to boost the attainment of pupils from low income families. By targeting funding towards disadvantaged pupils and encouraging improvements in practice, it is intended that these gaps will be narrowed in schools.

67. Pupils who are registered for free school meals (FSM) now or at any point in the last six years (Ever 6 FSM[11]), or who have been looked after continuously by the local authority for more than six months, are eligible for the Pupil Premium – there is no adjustment for ethnicity.

68. The pupil premium budget for 2011-12 was £625million (£488 per pupil); £1.25billion in 2012-13 (£623 per pupil and £1.875bn in 2013-14 (£900 per pupil). For 2014-15 the budget has been increased to £2.5billion (£1300 per primary pupil, the secondary per pupil amount is expected to confirmed in the autumn).

69. A total of 1.83 million pupils of all ages in England in 2012-2013 are eligible for Pupil Premium; we estimate that in the 2012 KS2 cohort, 70.4% of pupil premium eligible pupils are white (compared to 69.4% of FSM eligible pupils). For the KS4 cohort, 70.8% of pupil premium eligible pupils are white (compared to 68.3% of FSM eligible pupils).

70. Schools are free to decide how best to use the premium to support their disadvantaged pupils and close the attainment gap between them and their peers. The Department does expect schools to use the pupil premium appropriately and has recently sharpened the way in which schools are held to account for the progress made by and the attainment of their disadvantaged pupils, and the in-school gap between these pupils and their non-disadvantaged peers. These measures will be published in performance tables, and there will also be a strong focus by Ofsted on the progress and attainment of pupils who attract the pupil premium. Any school judged by Ofsted as “requiring improvement” in the categories of overall effectiveness and leadership and management, and that also raises concerns about the attainment of its disadvantaged pupils, will be expected to commission a pupil premium review in association with a system leader with a track record in closing gaps and accelerating progress for disadvantaged pupils. It is also unlikely that schools will be judged outstanding if disadvantaged pupils are not making at least good progress.

Impact of pupil premium

71. The summer 2012 tests were the first to include disadvantaged pupils benefitting from a full year of premium funding.
     
72. The 2012 results at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 showed a larger than expected narrowing of the gap at a national level. The Key Stage 2 gap was projected to fall to approximately 19.5 percentage points (ppts), from 20ppts, but was actually 16.8 ppts(although approximately half of this decrease was due to the change in assessment in English from tests to teacher assessments in writing). At Key Stage 4 the gap was projected to remain at 27.4ppts but in reality fell to 26.3ppts.

73. Outcomes for FSM pupils are improving particularly well in sponsored Academies (35.8% in 2012 +2.9ppts in 2011), compared to FSM pupils in all state-funded schools (36.3%, +1.7 ppts). Results for FSM pupils in sponsored Academies open for five or more years are higher than FSM pupils nationally (43% achieving 5+ A*-C including English and maths in 2012).
     

How schools use the pupil premium

74. An independent evaluation of the pupil premium was carried out for the Department by TNS-BMRB and the universities of Manchester and Newcastle. The report was published in July 2013.

75. In a survey of 1,240 schools, the researchers found that:

1. 80% of secondary schools and 67% of primary schools have introduced new support and/or enhanced their existing support for disadvantaged pupils as a direct result of the Pupil Premium;
2. 75% of schools thought using additional staff to support disadvantaged pupils was very effective;
3. Two thirds of schools thought they would not be able to do as much for their disadvantaged pupils without the Pupil Premium;
4. 70% of schools already use evidence from other schools and 45% use academic research to help them make decisions on how to spend their Pupil Premium funding.
    

76. However, the research shows that some schools are prioritising interventions that evidence suggests is not always either effective or good value, such as the recruitment of additional staff. They are not always using or aware of robust evidence of what works.

77. The findings chime with a recent National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) survey from the Sutton Trust which showed that only 2% of schools are diverting the funding to things like improving classrooms, an issue flagged by Ofsted last year; and only 3% of senior leaders said they were using Pupil Premium funding to offset budget cuts elsewhere compared with 11% in 2012.

78. In its report “The pupil premium – How schools are spending the funding successfully to maximise achievement” (published in February 2013) Ofsted noted that where schools spent the pupil premium funding successfully to improve achievement, they shared a number of common characteristics. One of these is the use of research evidence (such as the Sutton Trust toolkit) and evidence from their own and others’ experience in allocating funding to activities that were most likely to have an impact on improving achievements. The 2013 NFER Teacher Voice Omnibus Survey suggests that 42% of schools consider research evidence on the impact of different approaches and programmes when deciding which approaches and programmes to adopt to improve learning.

References

Archer, L. and B. Francis (2007) Understanding Minority Ethnic Achievement, London: Routledge.

Boaler, J. (1997). Setting, Social Class and Survival of the Quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 575-595.

Borman, G., Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N.A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3) 701-703

Cabinet Office (2008a). Aspiration and attainment amongst young people in deprived communities: Analysis and discussion paper. Social Exclusion Task Force.

Cabinet Office (2008b). Getting on, getting ahead. A discussion paper: analysing the trends and drivers of social mobility.

Cassen, R. and G. Kingdon (2007) Tackling low educational achievement, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Slavin, R.E., Smith, D. and Laurenzano, M. (2010) Effective early childhood education programs: a systematic review, Baltimore, MD: Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University, (available at www.bestevidence.org/word/early_child_ed_Sep_22_2010.pdf, accessed 14 October 2010).

Charles, M., Marsh, A., Milne, A., Morris, C., Scott, E. and Shamsan, Y. (2007). Secondary School Curriculum and Staffing Survey 2007. DCSF RR026.

DCSF (2009) Deprivation and Education: The evidence on pupils in England, Foundation Stage to Key Stage 4; http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/research

DCSF (2010) Identifying Components of Attainment Gaps; http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/research

Demie. F. and K. Lewis (2010) Raising the Achievement of White Working Class Pupils: Barriers and School Strategies, London: Lambeth Council.

DfE (2013) GCSE and equivalent attainment by pupil characteristics in England: 2011 to 2012 (SFR04/2013)

DfE (2012) National curriculum assessments at key stage 2 in England: academic year 2011 to 2012 (SFR33/2012)

DfES (2005a). Ensuring the attainment of white working class boys in writing. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. London: DfES.

Desforges, C. and Abouchaar, A. (2003). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review. London: DfES RR443.

Dyson, A., S. Goldrick, L. Jones, and K. Kerr (2010) Equity in Education: Creating a fairer education system, Manchester: Centre for Equity in Education, University of Manchester.

Education Endowment Foundation Toolkit (accessed August, 2013) http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/index.php/toolkit/

Feinstein, L. & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic

Papers, 51, 300-321.

Feinstein, L. (2003). Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort, Economica, 70, pp 73-97.

Feinstein, L. and Sabates, R. (2006). The prevalence of multiple deprivation for children in the UK: analysis of the Millennium Cohort and Longitudinal Survey of Young People in England. Report for HMT. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning.

Feinstein, L., Duckworth, K. and Sabates, R. (2004). A Model of the Intergenerational Transmission of Educational Success. Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report 10. London: Institute of Education.

Future Leaders (2011) Future leaders – demonstrating impact competes

George, A., Hansen, K. and Schoon, I. (2007). Child Development. In K. Hansen and H. Joshi (Eds.), Millennium Cohort Study. Second Survey. A User’s Guide to Initial Findings. London: Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies.

Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J. and Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, Choice and Equity in Education. Open University, Buckingham.

Gillborn, D. and Mirza, H. S. (2000). Educational inequality: mapping race, class and gender. London: Ofsted.

Harris, A. and Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter? DCSF RR RW004.

Hirsch, D. (2007). Experiences of poverty and educational disadvantage. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Hobbs (2003). Understanding socioeconomic group differences in educational achievement: a literature review. Background paper for DfES/HM Treasury seminar on child poverty and education outcomes, 24 November 2003.

Hobcraft, J. (1998). Intergenerational and Life-Course Transmission of Social Exclusion: Influences of Child Poverty, Family Disruption, and Contact with the Police. CASE Paper 15, London School of Economics: ESRC Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Hobcraft, J. (2000). The Roles of Schooling and Educational Qualifications in the Emergence of Adult Social Exclusion. CASE Paper 43, London School of Economics: ESRC Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Jerrin, J., and Vignoles, A (2011). The use (and misuse) of statistics in understanding social mobility: regression to the mean and the cognitive development of high ability children from disadvantaged homes . Institute of Education, University of London.

Jones, E. and Schoon, I, (2008). Child behaviour and cognitive development. In K. Hansen and H. Joshi (Eds.), Millennium Cohort Study. Second Survey. A User’s Guide to Initial Findings. London: Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies.

Kerr, K. and M. West (2010) (eds) BERA: Insight: Schools and Social Inequality, London: BERA.

Macbeath, J. (1993) Learning for yourself: Supported study in Strathclyde schools. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Mongon, D. (2013) Research paper for Ofsteds ‘Access and achievement in education 2013 review’ London: Ofsted

National Equality Panel (2010) An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK, London: Government Equalities Office.

Nechyba, T., Mcewan, P. J. and Older-Aguilar, D. (1999). The impact of family and community resources on student outcomes: An assessment of the international literature with implications for New Zealand.

O’Donnell, L., Morris, M. and Wilson, R. (2006). Education Outside the Classroom: An Assessment of Activity and Practice in Schools and Local Authorities. DfES RR803.

Ofsted (2004) The Key Stage 3 Strategy: Evaluation of the third year. London: Ofsted

Ofsted (2008b) White boys from low income backgrounds: good practice in schools. London: Ofsted

Ofsted (2013) Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on - Evidence report. London: Ofsted

Perry, E., and Francis, B. (2010) The social class gap for educational achievement: a review of the literature. RSA Projects

Peters, M., Carpenter, H., Edwards, G and Coleman, N. (2009). Cost of Schooling 2007. DCSF RR060.

Platt, K. (2005). Migration and Social Mobility. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Power, S., Warren, S., Gillborn, D., Clark, A., Thomas S. and Coate K. (2002). Education in deprived areas: outcomes, inputs and processes. London: Institute of Education Publications.

Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Barreau, S. and Manni, L. (2006). EPPE: Summary report: variations in Teacher and Pupil Behaviours in Year 5 Classes. DfES RR817.

Schoon, I., and Parsons, S. (2002). Teenage aspirations for future careers and occupational outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, pp262-288.

Slavin, R.E., Wordsworth, J. and Jones-Hill, M. (2005) Success for All in England: implementation and outcomes of a comprehensive literacy reform for primary schools, Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation

Smithers, A. and Robinson, P. (2004). Teacher Turnover, Wastage and Destinations. DfES RR553.

Sodha, S. and J. Margo (2010) “A generation of disengaged children is waiting in the wings…”, London: DEMOS.

Strand, S. (2007). Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE). DCSF RR002.

Strand, S. (2008). Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England: Extension Report on Performance in Public Examinations at Age 16. DCSF RR029.

Stevens, R.J. and Slavin, R.E. (1995a) ‘The cooperative elementary school: effects on students’ achievement, attitudes and social relations’, American educational research journal, vol 32, no 2, pp 321–351.

Stockard, J. (2008). Improving First Grade Reading Achievement in a Large Urban District: The Effects of NIFDI-Supported Implementation of Direct Instruction in the Baltimore City Public School System, Eugene, Oregon: National Institute for Direct Instruction.

ANNEX 1: Geographical differences - attainment and attainment gap by Local Authority area (white FSM v. all other pupils)

ANNEX 2: Geographical differences - attainment and attainment gap by Local Authority area (white FSM v. all other FSM pupils)

Percentages based on fewer than 10 pupils and associated attainment gaps have been suppressed.

September 2013

Page 1 of 36