A key issue to address is the social divisions that mean that certain schools cater for richer or poorer pupils. Extra funding should also be focused on the children who need it most.<\/p>\n
Measuring the gap<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn official statistics, the attainment gap is measured as the difference between the attainment of the majority of pupils and those eligible for free school meals (a measure of poverty<\/a>). This is problematic because the gap changes as the\u00a0proportion of pupils eligible<\/a>\u00a0for free school meals changes over time.<\/p>\nIndividual students\u2019 circumstances might change as their family income changes. But, more importantly, different groups of students may have more or fewer pupils eligible for free school meals due to fluctuations in the economy or changes in government policy. This then affects the attainment gap, but is nothing to do with education or the work of schools.<\/p>\n
A more robust measure is to measure the difference in attainment between pupils always eligible for free school meals for their entire school lives, and the rest. These two groups are stable over time and less affected by economic and legal changes. And the attainment gap between them had been reducing historically in England until 2014.<\/p>\n
The gap increased in 2015 \u2013 perhaps due to changes to the curriculum \u2013 but since 2016 the gap has started decreasing again at key stage two (ages seven to 11). It is difficult to compare the attainment gap after 2019 with what came before, because of the exam disruption caused by COVID-19 lockdowns.<\/p>\n
The attainment gap at the end of year two over time<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/attainmentgapYr2.jpg\")
Change in effect size for the gap between long-term disadvantaged pupils and the rest, KS1 points, 2006-2019. Making Schools Better for Disadvantaged Students: The International Implications of Evidence on Effective School Funding, by Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See and Nadia Siddiqui, Routledge.<\/p><\/div>\n
Despite this progress, the gap between the permanently disadvantaged students and the rest is still substantial \u2013 note that the graph above does not start at zero.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the main driver of the change has been a slow reduction in social segregation \u2013 the extent to which poorer children are\u00a0clustered in schools<\/a>\u00a0with others like them.<\/p>\nDecline in social segregation of pupils in year one<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/DeclineinSocialsegmentation.jpg\")
Change in effect size for the gap between FSM-eligible pupils and the rest, FSM Segregation in Year 1, 2006-2019. Making Schools Better for Disadvantaged Students: The International Implications of Evidence on Effective School Funding, by Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See and Nadia Siddiqui, Routledge.<\/p><\/div>\n
In\u00a0my research<\/a>, I\u2019ve compared the attainment gap with the level of poverty segregation in schools in areas across England. I\u2019ve found that where segregation is lower, the attainment gap is too.<\/p>\nReinforcing the ongoing reduction in segregation, and in the attainment gap in turn, should be an educational priority.<\/p>\n
Scatterplot showing the relationship between segregation (y axis) and attainment gap (x axis) at key stage two<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/scatterplotofsegregation.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Types of school<\/strong><\/h3>\nOne way to reduce this social segregation \u2013 and so reduce the attainment gap \u2013 is to reduce the\u00a0variety of different types<\/a>\u00a0of schools.<\/p>\nThere is an unnecessarily wide variety of different types of school in England. Grammar schools select pupils by ability \u2013 which is linked to social background. Faith schools select by religion, which is linked to ethnicity. There are also special, free, foundation, specialist, and community schools, plus academies and university technical colleges. Each type can end up with somewhat different pupil intakes, so driving segregation.<\/p>\n
All these schools could be gradually phased into a national system of similar all-ability local schools. Pupils would still be able to receive additional help or tailored interventions within such schools, but the social mix of the schools would better represent their region than at present.<\/p>\n
School catchment areas are another factor increasing social segregation. Where schools are oversubscribed, contested places should not be allocated on the basis of travel or distance from home, or of feeder primary schools. These methods all duplicate and reinforce residential segregation by poverty.<\/p>\n
Alternative measures could include banding by poverty, where each school might be required to give a certain number of places to pupils eligible for free school meals, or lotteries, where oversubscribed places are allocated randomly. Pupils could be given free transport to schools outside their immediate neighbourhood.<\/p>\n
The idea would be to spread out the most disadvantaged students between schools, in order to make any issues with their attainment easier to address.<\/p>\n
Managing funding<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe\u00a0biggest decline<\/a>\u00a0in poverty segregation has\u00a0taken place since 2011<\/a>, when\u00a0pupil premium funding<\/a>\u00a0was introduced. Pupil premium allocates extra funding to schools in proportion to the number of disadvantaged pupils that they take. This reduces the disincentive for schools to take poorer children.<\/p>\n
Individual students\u2019 circumstances might change as their family income changes. But, more importantly, different groups of students may have more or fewer pupils eligible for free school meals due to fluctuations in the economy or changes in government policy. This then affects the attainment gap, but is nothing to do with education or the work of schools.<\/p>\n
A more robust measure is to measure the difference in attainment between pupils always eligible for free school meals for their entire school lives, and the rest. These two groups are stable over time and less affected by economic and legal changes. And the attainment gap between them had been reducing historically in England until 2014.<\/p>\n
The gap increased in 2015 \u2013 perhaps due to changes to the curriculum \u2013 but since 2016 the gap has started decreasing again at key stage two (ages seven to 11). It is difficult to compare the attainment gap after 2019 with what came before, because of the exam disruption caused by COVID-19 lockdowns.<\/p>\n
The attainment gap at the end of year two over time<\/strong><\/p>\n Change in effect size for the gap between long-term disadvantaged pupils and the rest, KS1 points, 2006-2019. Making Schools Better for Disadvantaged Students: The International Implications of Evidence on Effective School Funding, by Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See and Nadia Siddiqui, Routledge.<\/p><\/div>\n Despite this progress, the gap between the permanently disadvantaged students and the rest is still substantial \u2013 note that the graph above does not start at zero.<\/p>\n Perhaps the main driver of the change has been a slow reduction in social segregation \u2013 the extent to which poorer children are\u00a0clustered in schools<\/a>\u00a0with others like them.<\/p>\n Decline in social segregation of pupils in year one<\/strong><\/p>\n Change in effect size for the gap between FSM-eligible pupils and the rest, FSM Segregation in Year 1, 2006-2019. Making Schools Better for Disadvantaged Students: The International Implications of Evidence on Effective School Funding, by Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See and Nadia Siddiqui, Routledge.<\/p><\/div>\n In\u00a0my research<\/a>, I\u2019ve compared the attainment gap with the level of poverty segregation in schools in areas across England. I\u2019ve found that where segregation is lower, the attainment gap is too.<\/p>\n Reinforcing the ongoing reduction in segregation, and in the attainment gap in turn, should be an educational priority.<\/p>\n Scatterplot showing the relationship between segregation (y axis) and attainment gap (x axis) at key stage two<\/strong><\/p>\n One way to reduce this social segregation \u2013 and so reduce the attainment gap \u2013 is to reduce the\u00a0variety of different types<\/a>\u00a0of schools.<\/p>\n There is an unnecessarily wide variety of different types of school in England. Grammar schools select pupils by ability \u2013 which is linked to social background. Faith schools select by religion, which is linked to ethnicity. There are also special, free, foundation, specialist, and community schools, plus academies and university technical colleges. Each type can end up with somewhat different pupil intakes, so driving segregation.<\/p>\n All these schools could be gradually phased into a national system of similar all-ability local schools. Pupils would still be able to receive additional help or tailored interventions within such schools, but the social mix of the schools would better represent their region than at present.<\/p>\n School catchment areas are another factor increasing social segregation. Where schools are oversubscribed, contested places should not be allocated on the basis of travel or distance from home, or of feeder primary schools. These methods all duplicate and reinforce residential segregation by poverty.<\/p>\n Alternative measures could include banding by poverty, where each school might be required to give a certain number of places to pupils eligible for free school meals, or lotteries, where oversubscribed places are allocated randomly. Pupils could be given free transport to schools outside their immediate neighbourhood.<\/p>\n The idea would be to spread out the most disadvantaged students between schools, in order to make any issues with their attainment easier to address.<\/p>\n The\u00a0biggest decline<\/a>\u00a0in poverty segregation has\u00a0taken place since 2011<\/a>, when\u00a0pupil premium funding<\/a>\u00a0was introduced. Pupil premium allocates extra funding to schools in proportion to the number of disadvantaged pupils that they take. This reduces the disincentive for schools to take poorer children.<\/p>\n<\/p>\nTypes of school<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Managing funding<\/strong><\/h3>\n