View
215
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Educational inequality in England’s schools
Address to “Narrowing the Achievement Gap” National Conference, Jeffrey Hall, UCL-Institute of
Education, 18 June 2015
Professor Steve StrandUniversity of Oxford, Department of Education
steve.strand@education.ox.ac.uk01865 611071
2
Purpose of presentation
• To present a picture of inequalities in educational achievement in England and how they have changed over the last 25 years
• Considering the current gaps (particularly the socio-economic gap) what does the evidence suggest about policy for closing gaps further?
3
Trends over 25 years
• Gaps - Race, sex and class
• Focus on nationally representative data
• Age 16
• Two broad segments: – 1988-2006 (Youth Cohort Study - YCS)
• 13,000 sample age 16+, every two years (approx), self reported data, broad ethnic groups ...
– 2004-2014 (National Pupil Database - NPD)• Whole population, annually, complete background
4
Gender (YCS)
1988 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 20060
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2831
33
3740
4244
46
50
54
31
3840
4649
5154
5659
63
1.16 1.36 1.35 1.45 1.44 1.44 1.49 1.49 1.44 1.45
Boys Girls
% a
ch
iev
ing
5+
A*-
C G
CS
E g
rad
es
or
eq
uiv
ale
nt
Source: DCSF (2008). YCS & LSYPE: The activities and experiences of 16 year olds: England 2007
5
Ethnicity (YCS)
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 20060
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2.0 2.8 2.72.2 1.6 1.9 2.4
1.4
BlackIndianPakistaniBangladeshiOther Asian%
ac
hie
vin
g 5
+ A
*-C
GC
SE
gra
de
s o
r e
qu
iva
len
t
Source: DCSF (2008). YCS & LSYPE: The activities and experiences of 16 year olds: England 2007
6
Socio-economic (YCS)
1988 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 20060
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
52
5860
6668 69 69
71 71
77
14
1820
21
27 26
3033
37
44
6.7 6.5 6.2 7.3 5.9 6.3 5.1 5.0 4.1 4.3
Mangerial & ProfessionalSemi-skilled & Unskilled
% a
ch
iev
ing
5+
A*-
C G
CS
E g
rad
es
or
eq
uiv
ale
nt
Note: SEG then NS-SEC from 1999. England only from 1999. SEC Lower supervisory, semi-routine and routine. Source: DCSF (2008). YCS & LSYPE: The activities and experiences of 16 year olds: England 2007
7
Gender (NPD)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201410
20
30
40
50
60
70
37.138.4
39.741.4
43.8
47.1
51.1
54.6 54.255.6
51.6
44.846.7
48.049.6
51.9
54.4
58.6
61.963.7
65.7
61.7
BoysGirls
% 5
+ G
CS
E A
*-C
(in
cl E
ng
lish
& M
ath
s)
8
Ethnicity (NPD)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201410
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
41.642.9
44.346.1
48.450.9
55.0
58.2 58.960.5
56.4
23.2
27.129.5
33.2
36.4
39.4
43.5
48.649.8
53.3
47.0
White British White Other groups IndianPakistani Bangladeshi ChineseBlack Caribbean White and Black Caribbean Black African
% 5
+G
CS
E A
*-C
gra
de
s (
Inc
l En
glis
h &
Ma
ths
)
9
FSM (NPD)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201410
20
30
40
50
60
70
16.818.0
19.621.4
23.8
26.6
30.9
34.636.3
37.9
33.5
44.846.4
47.749.3
51.7
54.2
58.5
62 62.664.6
60.5
FSMNot FSM
% 5
+ G
CS
E A
*-C
(in
cl E
ng
lish
& M
ath
s)
10
Relative gaps over 25 years
19881990
19911993
19951997
19992001
20032004
20052006
20072008
20092010
20112012
20132014
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00 Gender
Ethnic
SES
Od
ds
Ra
tio
s
Source: Strand (2015)
1988-2003 = YCS (%5AC, Black-White, SEG/SEC, 13,000 sample) 2004-2014 = NPD (%5EM, WBRI-BCRB, FSM, full population)
11
Key messages• Things can change over 25 years
– Most BME achieving better than White British– Biggest ethnic gap now no larger than gender gap– Even the residual ethnic gaps explained by SES
12
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1 SD 0 +1SD
Mea
n to
tal p
oint
s sc
ore
(nor
mal
ised
)
Socio-economic Status (SES) normal score
White BritishMixed heritageIndianPakistaniBangladeshiBlack CaribbeanBlack African
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1 SD 0 +1SD
Mea
n to
tal p
oint
s sc
ore
(nor
mal
ised
)
Socio-economic Status (SES) normal score
White BritishMixed heritageIndianPakistaniBangladeshiBlack CaribbeanBlack African
Achievement age 16 by ethnicity, SES & genderBoys Girls
Note: SES is first factor from a PCA of household SEC, parent highest educational qualifications, home ownership, FSM and neighbourhood deprivation. Source: Strand (2014a).
13
FSM by ethnic 2004-2014
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90FSM - Boys
White British White Other groupsIndian PakistaniBangladeshi ChineseBlack Caribbean Mixed White & CaribbeanBlack African
% a
chie
vin
g 5
+G
CS
E A
*-C
(In
cl E
ng
lish
& M
ath
s)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90FSM - Girls
White British White Other groupsIndian PakistaniBangladeshi ChineseBlack Caribbean Mixed White & Caribbean
% a
chie
vin
g 5
+G
CS
E A
*-C
gra
des
(In
cl E
n &
Ma)
14
Key messages• Things can change over 25 years
– Most BME achieving better than White British– Biggest ethnic gap now no larger than gender gap– Even the residual ethnic gaps explained by SES– SES gap reduced 7:1 to 3:1 (but still large)
• Funding matters– EMAG (£200M pa) / Excellence in Cities / National
Strategies BCAP / MEAP / NAEP– PPG: £2.50 Billion
• Change is gradual– No evidence big changes associated with school
structures (GM schools, specialist schools, academies)
15Guardian, 3 June 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/03/education-bill-loopholes-academies-schools
3 June 2015
16
The wider context beyond school• Formulation as “failing schools” deeply problematic
– SES gaps are observed from age 3, long before children start school (EPPE, MCS, GUS)
– Only 10%-15% of variation between pupils in England is associated with schools (e.g. Strand et al, 2015)
– Within-school FSM gap is consistent regardless of school ‘quality’ (Strand, 2014d)
– Schools succeeding against the odds laudable but not replicable/scaleable (see Wrigley, 2012)
• Need to recognise context in evaluating performance & best practice (Burton, 2014)
• If school structures are the issue, why not the charitable status of private schools?
17
ReferencesStrand, S. (2010). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity,
gender, poverty and prior attainment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 289-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243451003732651
Strand, S. (2011). The limits of social class in explaining ethnic gaps in educational attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2),197-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920903540664
Strand, S. (2014a). Ethnicity, gender, social class and achievement gaps at age 16: Intersectionality and ‘Getting it’ for the white working class. Research Papers in Education, 29, (2), 131-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.767370
Strand, S. (2014b). School effects and ethnic, gender and socio-economic gaps in educational achievement at ag e 11. Oxford Review of Education, 40, (2), 223-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.891980
Strand, S. (2014d). Even at best schools, kids on free school meals are performing worse than their peers. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/even-at-best-schools-kids-on-free-school-meals-are-performing-worse-than-their-peers-32006
Strand, S., Malmberg, L. & Hall, J. (2015). English as an additional language and educational achievement in England: An analysis of the National Pupil Database. London: Educational Endowment Fund. http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/EAL_and_educational_achievement2.pdf
Strand, S. (2015). Ethnicity, deprivation and educational achievement at age 16 in England: Trends over time. London: DFE.
18
END OF PRESENTATION
19SMCPC (2014). Elitist Britain? London: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.
20SMCPC (2014). Elitist Britain? London: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.
21
FSM gap by OFSTED rating
Source: Ofsted (2013). Unseen Children: Access and achievement 20 years on (P53). Breakdown by school overall effectiveness judgement.
22
OFSTED grades strongly predicted by Intake
Note: KS2 points of the 2013 Y11 group & most recent OFSTED grade. KS2<26 (25% schools) = 9% outstanding; KS2>=29 (17% schools) 62% outstanding. Source: Trevor Burton (2014). https://jtbeducation.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/whats-the-easiest-way-to-a-secondary-ofsted-outstanding/
23
Foundation Stage (age 5): England 2013
White
other
groups-F
SM
Pakist
ani-F
SM
White
British
-FSM
Chinese-FS
M
Asian oth
er gro
ups-FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Caribbea
n-FSM
Bangla
deshi-F
SM
Mixed W
hite &
Africa
n-FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Asian-FS
M
Indian-FS
M
Mixed an
y oth
er bac
kgro
und-FSM
Pakist
ani-N
ot FSM
Black C
aribbea
n-FSM
Black o
ther
groups-F
SM
Black A
frica
n-FSM
Bangla
deshi-N
ot FSM
Asian oth
er gro
ups-Not F
SM
Mixed W
hite &
Caribbea
n-Not F
SM
Black A
frica
n-Not F
SM
Black o
ther
groups-N
ot FSM
Chinese-N
ot FSM
White
other
groups-N
ot FSM
Black C
aribbea
n-Not F
SM
Mixed W
hite &
Africa
n-Not F
SM
White
British
-Not F
SM
Mixed an
y oth
er bac
kgro
und-Not F
SM
Mixed W
hite &
Asian-N
ot FSM
Indian-N
ot FSM
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
% w
ith
a 'g
ood
leve
l of d
evel
opm
ent'
Source: DFE SFR 47/2013
24
Key Stage 2 (age 11): England 2013
White
Other-
FSM
White
British
-FSM
White
Irish
-FSM
Black C
aribbea
n-FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Caribbea
n-FSM
Black o
ther-
FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Asian-FS
M
Pakist
ani-F
SM
Any Oth
er gro
up-FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Africa
n-FSM
Asian oth
er-FS
M
Mixed Oth
er heri
tage-F
SM
Black A
frica
n-FSM
White
Other-
Non FSM
Indian-FS
M
Bangla
deshi-F
SM
Pakist
ani-N
on FSM
Any Oth
er gro
up-Non FS
M
Black C
aribbea
n-Non FS
M
Black o
ther-
Non FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Caribbea
n-Non FS
M
Mixed W
hite &
Africa
n-Non FS
M
Bangla
deshi-N
on FSM
Black A
frica
n-Non FS
M
White
British
-Non FS
M
Asian oth
er-Non FS
M
Mixed Oth
er heri
tage-N
on FSM
Mixed W
hite &
Asian-N
on FSM
Indian-N
on FSM
Chinese-N
on FSM
White
Irish
-Non FS
M
Chinese-FS
M
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
% L
evel
4+
in R
eadi
ng, W
riting
& M
aths
(RW
M)
Source: DFE SFR 51/2013
25
White British FSM lowest achieving
Whit
e Brit
ish-F
SM
Mixe
d W
hite
& Car
ibbea
n-FSM
Black
Caribb
ean-
FSM
Black
othe
r gro
ups-
FSM
Whit
e ot
her g
roup
s-FSM
Pakist
ani-F
SM
Mixe
d W
hite
& Asia
n-FSM
Mixe
d W
hite
& Afri
can-
FSM
Black
Africa
n-FSM
Any o
ther
Asia
n-FSM
Black
Caribb
ean-
NOT F
SM
Whit
e ot
her g
roup
s-NO
T FSM
Pakist
ani-N
OT F
SM
Ban
glade
shi-F
SM
Black
othe
r gro
ups-
NOT F
SM
Mixe
d W
hite
& Car
ibbea
n-NO
T FSM
India
n-FSM
Whit
e Brit
ish-N
OT F
SM
Black
Africa
n-NO
T FSM
Any o
ther
Asia
n-NO
T FSM
Ban
glade
shi-N
OT F
SM
Mixe
d W
hite
& Afri
can-
NOT F
SM
Mixe
d W
hite
& Asia
n-NO
T FSM
Chines
e-FSM
India
n-NO
T FSM
Chines
e-NO
T FSM
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
32%
38%
42% 43% 44%
47% 48% 49%
51%52%
57% 58%59% 59% 60%
61% 61%
65%66% 67% 67% 68%
74%
77% 77%78%
5+A*-C EM by ethnic group and entitlement to FSM: England 2013
% 5
+ A
*-C
gra
des
in
clu
din
g E
ng
& M
ath
s
Source: Strand (2015)
26
The mechanisma) Funding Pupil Premium Grant (PPG)
b) School’s decide on the intervention/s– http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/– OfSTED best practice WWC updated & PPG annual report
c) Accountable through performance tables / OfSTED / school website– Progress 8 to remove perverse incentives of 5EM– Publication of PPG gap, including 3-year rolling averages
27
School success against the odds• DfE Extra Mile Project – visited 45 primary & 50
secondary schools that had raised attainment in some of the most deprived wards in England.
• 12 key practices identified: High participatory/active learning in lessons Value local people & culture, high levels of engagement Broaden pupils horizons Offer a more relevant curriculum Build pupils’ language repertoire Track pupil progress and intervene Effective reward and sanctions schemes Develop SEAL, etc.
• See case studies:• http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/?y=0&where=text&x=0&query=extra+mile+case+studies&x=0&y=0
28
Regional trends GCSE 2002-2012
Source: Greaves et al. (2014). Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps. SMCPC, p12.
29
SES and progress age 11-16Bottom SES Quintile Top SES quintile
Source: LSYPE (Strand, 2014a)
• Low SES: White British decline, most BME improve particularly during KS4. High SES: gaps close but WBRI stay ahead.
30
Implications for policy/practice• FSM gap does not result from a small no. ‘failing schools’
– Floor targets, new academies/free schools overemphasised– ‘Success against the odds’ exceptions & not easily replicable
• Beyond the school gates– Home / parental factors, access to social & economic capital,
poor health, peer groups, crime or neighbourhood deprivation– Cumulative impact of early Home Learning Environment (HLE)
age 0-3 and ”Matthews’ effect”
• Pupil premium positive influence by focussing schools attention on the FSM gap within their schools – Evaluate setting allocation / flexibility (e.g. Oakes, 2005)– Distribution of teachers across classrooms within schools (e.g.
Clotfelter et al, 2005)– Working with parents (e.g. Parent Support Advisor pilot, 2009)– Early intervention (PPG weighting revised, new EYPP)
31
Overall conclusions• Focus on low attainment of White British Working Class (WC)
pupils is valid – but (i) also Black Caribbean WC, and (ii) Black Caribbean underachieve from middle/high SES homes.
• Key resilience factors are often individual/family but schools can and do make a difference (though there are limits to what schools alone can achieve).
• Pupil Premium Grant offers substantial redistributive funding, real chance to make a difference, need to focus on within-school resource deployment, parental involvement etc.
• If government seriously wants to ‘break the cycle’ of social reproduction of inequality will need more radical action (remove the charitable status of private schools, do they help the most needy and vulnerable in society? (SMCPC, 2014, Elitist Britain).
Recommended