1

The Education Select Committee Inquiry into the educational

achievement of white working class children: a summary

National Conference on the educational achievement of White Working Class children, London Institute of Education

27 June 2014

Professor Steve StrandUniversity of Oxford, Department of Education

steve.strand@education.ox.ac.uk01865 611071

2

Summary of presentation

• Overview of the Select Committee Inquiry into the educational achievement of white working class (WWC) children

1. Clarifying terms and measures

2. The extent of the WWC gap

3. Drivers of the WWC gap

4. Addressing the issue: Schools and the Pupil Premium

• Coda - The limits of school effectiveness?

3

Select Committee report• Instigated following OfSTED ‘Unseen Children:

Access & achievement 20 years on’ (June 2013)

• 40+ written submissions, seven evidence panels with 28 witnesses incl. schools minister David Laws, visit to Peterborough LA & schools

• All written evidence and transcripts / videos of sessions plus final report available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/142/142.pdf

4

The core issue: FSM gap age 16

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: NPD 2013 (own analysis)

5

1. Is WWC the correct term?• ‘White British’ is the focus group

– Roma / Irish Traveller groups extremely low achievement, but also very small numbers (0.1%) and complex needs

– White Other-FSM overall higher achieving than White British-FSM but extremely varied, reflecting recency of arrival in UK & language fluency (Strand, in preparation)

• Debate around “working class” term– Phenomena robust across other indices as such as NS-

SEC, parental education qualifications, IDACI etc.

– FSM employed for pragmatic reasons (available to schools & verifiable) so focus is more on poverty, but Ever 6 widens coverage (15% -> 25%).

6

SES and attainment age 16

-1 SD 0 +1SD-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

White BritishMixed heritageIndianPakistaniBangladeshiBlack Caribbean

Socio-economic Status (SES) normal score

Me

an

to

tal p

oin

ts s

core

(n

orm

alis

ed

)

Note: SES from Principal Components Analysis of: Household Social class (NS-SEC), parents educational qualifications, home ownership, FSM and neighbourhood deprivation (IDACI).

Source: LSYPE (Strand, 2014)

7

2/3. Drivers of the WWC Gap• Committee recognised wide range of factors

important at individual, home/family, school and neighbourhood levels

• LSYPE indicates the wide range of such factors, but WWC gap at age 16 could largely be accounted for by four variables collected at age 14:• Students’ academic self concept (ASC);• Frequency of completing homework;• Students’ educational aspirations;• Parents’ educational aspirations for the young person.

= Indicators of Engagement/Disengagement

8

SES and progress age 11-16Low SES (Bottom 20%) High SES (Top 20%)

Source: LSYPE (Strand, 2014)

• Low SES: White British decline, most BME improve particularly during KS4. High SES: gaps narrow but WBRI stay high.

9

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

10

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

11

4. Addressing the problem• Report focus on transformational capacity of schools

– OfSTED (2013): Only 66% of schools in bottom IDACI quintile rated good/outstanding compared to 86% in top quintile – room for improvement in school quality

– London Effect:• Big improvement relative to other regions 2007-12• Students on FSM much more successful than elsewhere

(5AC-EM 52% vs. 37%)• Biggest gaps now more frequently in towns & coastal

areas (OfSTED 2013, p59)– EEF evidence: “In 2012, there were 428 secondary schools,

nearly 1:7, where pupils eligible for FSM performed above the national average for all pupils in terms of Best 8 points scores” (Written evidence 0034).

12

FSM by school OFSTED rating

Source: Ofsted (2013). Unseen Children: Access and achievement 20 years on (P53). Breakdown by school overall effectiveness judgement.

13

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 5+ A*-C EM– Publication of PPG gap, including 3-year averages

14

The limits of School Effectiveness?• Risk that FSM gap is equated with ‘failing’ schools,

or simply a ‘technical’ issue for schools to solve – London Effect: if restrict analysis to White British only

much smaller FSM differential (5AC-EM 40% v. 34%)– EEF evidence: 1:7 is only 15% of schools, includes 164

grammar schools, two-thirds very low concentration FSM (<10%) (see Wrigley, 2012)

– Within-school gaps: FSM gap does not appear to vary significantly between outstanding and inadequate secondary schools (Ofsted, 2013) or by school CVA scores (e.g. Strand, 2010, 2014)

15

FSM by school OFSTED rating

Source: Ofsted (2013). Unseen Children: Access and achievement 20 years on (P53). Breakdown by school overall effectiveness judgement.

16

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,

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)

17

Overall conclusions• Focus on low attainment of White British WC pupils is valid

– but (i) also Black Caribbean WC, and (ii) Black Caribbean underachieve from middle/high SES homes.

• Key resilience factors are sometimes individual/family, but schools can and do make a difference (though there are limits to what schools alone can achieve).

• Pupil Premium offers substantial redistributive funding, real chance to make a difference, need to focus on within-school resource deployment, parental involvement etc.

• Further research needed to focus on root causes of social class gap in early years (age 0-5), family & neighbourhood factors, role of curriculum and school composition.

18

ReferencesEvans, G. (2006). Educational failure and white working class children in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, M.A,, Band, S., Cullen, S., Davis, L., Hasluck, C., Evans, R. & Stewart-Brown, S. (2009). Parent Support Adviser Pilot Evaluation: Final Report. London: DCSF. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR151.pdf .

Strand, 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. (2012). The White British-Black Caribbean achievement gap: Tests, tiers and teacher expectations. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1),75-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.526702

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 age 11. Oxford Review of Education, 40, (2), 223-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.891980

Strand, S. & Winston, J. (2008). Educational aspirations in inner city schools. Educational Studies, 34(4), 249-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690802034021