Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap?

Transcription

1 Insight 2 Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap? Edited by Kirstin Kerr and Mel West bera! British Educational Research Association

2

3 Insight 2 Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap? Mel Ainscow, Chris Chapman, Alan Dyson, Helen Gunter, Dave Hall, Kirstin Kerr, Olwen McNamara, Daniel Muijs, Carlo Raffo and Mel West bera! British Educational Research Association

4 Published 2010 by the British Educational Research Association, Chester House, 68 Chestergate, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 6DY. Insight series editor Stephanie Northen Cover picture Gandee Vasan, gettyimages Inside pictures Janine Wiedel (Travellers, page 15) istockphoto Bibliography This Insight is the product of an extensive and critical review of literature in the field. It is available as a free download from Research references have been removed for ease of reading, but the bibliography can also be found on the BERA and Manchester University websites. More information about the authors is at ac.uk/stafflist.aspx?ou= BERA. All rights reserved. ISBN

5 PREFACE Governments of whatever political persuasion see schools as important in tackling social inequality. They are universal almost everybody goes to school and they are where students study for the qualifications that determine entry to further or higher education and the labour market. As this Insight makes clear, however: Children enter the school system from different backgrounds, have different experiences of education, and leave with very different results. Children from the poorest and most disadvantaged homes are most likely to attend the lowest performing schools and to achieve the poorest academic outcomes. Whether and how schools can help overcome social disadvantage is far from clear. Can schools alone promote better outcomes for their students? How can parents and local communities help? Is more fundamental reform required? These and other questions are pursued in this Insight. It is difficult to get a reliable view on these questions and that is why BERA is promoting publications that are authoritative on a topic but untrammelled by the usual elaborations of academic writing. This Insight offers an in-depth but very accessible overview of schools and social inequality. We hope a wide range of audiences will find it helpful and informative and if you have any comments on it, we very much want to hear them at bera@bera.ac.uk.. Pamela Munn, President (2007-9), British Educational Research Asssociation INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 5

6 CONTENTS 7 Introduction 8 Key messages 10 Schooling and social inequality 14 What do we want to achieve? 17 How have policies tried to reduce social inequality? 28 The impacts of policy 38 Assumptions underpinning policy 46 Implications for policy and practice 6 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

7 INTRODUCTION Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap? Children enter the school system from different backgrounds, have different experiences of education, and leave with very different results. Children from the poorest and most disadvantaged homes are most likely to attend the lowest performing schools and to achieve the poorest academic outcomes. Finding ways of breaking this chain of disadvantage, educational failure and restricted life chances remains a fundamental challenge. Despite extensive efforts by UK policymakers and practitioners, the weight of evidence still suggests that their strategies have not achieved the desired impact. Better understanding the relationship between schooling and social inequality has long been a concern of educational researchers. Focusing on the UK, this Insight asks what they have discovered about this relationship, and examines the outcomes of strategies developed to break the links between education and disadvantage. It then considers what we can learn from these experiences that might help to move policy and practice forward. The review was carried out by a team from the School of Education, University of Manchester, whose membership embraces a range of backgrounds and perspectives. Together, they have attempted to produce a snapshot of a busy and politically sensitive policy area that imposes some order on the efforts made and the outcomes achieved. They have sought to report their conclusions in a style which is accessible and may be useful to a wide range of interested readers. Kirstin Kerr and Mel West School of Education, University of Manchester INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 7

8 SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS: KEY MESSAGES Regardless of other factors, children and young people from the most disadvantaged homes consistently make the least progress at school. Many policies acknowledge this problem. These have included: general, or universal, interventions targeting all schools; interventions targeting schools in deprived areas; interventions targeting underachieving pupil groups; structural interventions, targeting how school systems are organised; beyond school interventions, targeting community and family factors. Evidence shows that schooling can lessen the impact of deprivation on children s progress. However, its influence is limited by factors beyond the control of the school system. The impacts of schooling are most likely to be in the form of modest improvements for disadvantaged children, rather than fundamental transformations of their lives. Even so, there is reason to be optimistic about what schools can achieve: the positive impacts they can make are still worth having. Further, perhaps we can learn from successful interventions about how schools might make greater impacts in future. Research findings suggest that: carefully designed school improvement interventions, which pay attention to research about what works, 8 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

9 can help schools to narrow the gap in attainment between more and less advantaged pupils; collaboration between schools is potentially a powerful strategy for tackling inequalities across neighbourhoods. Interventions that lead some schools to do better at the expense of others in their neighbourhoods are not the answer; school improvement efforts should be linked to wider efforts to tackle inequalities in their communities. There is a growing awareness of the roles that schools might play in tackling issues which lie beyond the school gates. Early years initiatives as well as extended and community schools are starting to point to ways in which they can work effectively with other agencies. To support these developments, policy-makers should: be realistic about what schools can achieve; step back from the micro-management of policy implementation, and allow schools to manage interventions that allow them to meet the needs of students, families and communities; equip school staff with the authority, resources and training necessary to do this; develop robust measures of the impacts of interventions which go beyond a preoccupation with examination results and can capture wider outcomes for example, around well-being, self-esteem, and other hard-to-measure aspects of inequality; stop overloading schools with multiple interventions. Rather, they must ensure that their policies are coherent and can join up in practice to achieve greater impact on inequality. INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 9

10 SCHOOLING AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY Exploring social inequality is about trying to understand differences in family (or individual or group) circumstances, and how these shape lives. Such differences can relate to a range of factors ethnicity, religion, income, health, access to services and facilities, to name but a few and these factors can interact in complex ways, benefiting some groups and disadvantaging others. In particular, those who experience the complex array of circumstances associated with having very limited incomes are often referred to as being socially disadvantaged. In education, the relationship between schools and social inequality is often explored by looking at the test and examination scores achieved by different groups of children and young people, and other monitoring data. This can reveal long-standing patterns of unequal outcomes. For example, as a group, children from poorer backgrounds are less successful than their more advantaged peers in tests across a range of subjects. This is a widespread international phenomenon, with social disadvantage having a negative impact on attainment in all 30 developed countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Data also show more specific patterns of inequality. For example, if we look at attainment in England, we see that: on average, white British students both boys and girls are more likely than other ethnic groups to demonstrate sustained underachievement; of the minority ethnic groups, Chinese and Indian pupils are generally the most successful and African-Caribbean pupils the least; poverty as indicated by eligibility for free school meals is strongly associated with low attainment, more so for white British students than for other ethnic groups; 10 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

11 After age 16, educational inequalities are at their starkest in relation to young people not in education, employment or training. children from homes with single and/or unemployed parents, and parents who have few educational qualifications themselves often do less well at school. These patterns are echoed in studies that have examined the performance of schools and their students at various stages of education across the UK. Summing this up, a 2007 Rowntree Foundation report says: Children from poor homes are nearly a year behind when they start school and two years behind by age 14, and these children tend to have a far less positive view of learning, of school and of themselves. When looking at what happens after age 16, we see that educational inequalities are at their starkest in relation to those young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Young people who become NEET are most often those with: a history of persistent truancy, drugs and alcohol use, disability, mental health issues, criminal and anti-social behaviours, and poor educational attainment. Teenagers from certain backgrounds are also at greater risk of becoming NEET. So, for example, of all 16-year-olds nationally, 7 per cent are NEET. Yet this rises to 11 per cent of those from the poorest socio-economic INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 11

12 groups, 13 per cent of those with a disability, 22 per cent of those excluded from school, 32 per cent of those who are persistent truants and 74 per cent of teenage mothers. Those most likely to truant or be excluded from school include young people of Caribbean heritage, looked-after children and those with special educational needs. Although such statistics identify broad patterns, different factors often interact to compound the links between social disadvantage and education. For example, children with low attainment tend to come from poorer families. These families tend to live in areas of urban deprivation, where high levels of ill-health, poor housing and overcrowding, unemployment, and a host of other factors associated with poor educational outcomes are widespread. We also know that it is not just the levels of poverty in these areas which impact on schooling, but also the neighbourhood dynamics. For example, in areas of inner-city social housing and in neighbourhoods with many Asian owner-occupiers, GCSE results are consistently better than would be anticipated based on the prevailing indices of poverty. By contrast, some of the areas with the poorest GCSE performance are those where predominantly white students live in large, city-overspill housing estates. Such neighbourhoods, although struggling academically, are often not identified as being acutely poor or disadvantaged. A number of studies also suggest that underachievement cannot simply be explained by reference to children and young people s backgrounds. Rather, they suggest that the type of school they attend, the mix of students, where the school is located, and the quality of teaching and learning in the school are also important. In England, for example, Ofsted s Annual Reports have consistently signalled that schools in deprived areas are more likely to be judged inadequate than those in more affluent areas. This suggests that school and non-school factors may well combine to lower the attainment of children and young people 12 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

13 who are already disadvantaged by their backgrounds. This brief summary indicates how using attainment data as a lens can help us to identify the links between educational outcomes and deprivation. Poverty and low incomes are clearly significant factors associated with low attainment. But as we have seen, they are not the only factors. Clearly, policy needs to respond to the patterns of inequality we have identified. But how it can do this, and what it should be seeking to achieve, are open to debate. To sum up... The link between social disadvantage and low attainment is found in many countries, but is particularly marked in the UK. Children from poor homes are nearly a year behind before they start school and two years behind by age14. (Rowntree Foundation, 2007) School and non-school factors often combine in ways that further limit the academic progress of those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 13

14 WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE? We have a lot of information regarding how different groups of children boys and girls, wealthy and poor, black and white are doing in terms of exam results, school attendance, and progression into post-compulsory education or training. This allows us to identify consistent differences or inequalities between groups. Government policies have then often attempted to narrow the gap, that is to achieve better results for the lowest performing while not restricting those at the top. However, little consideration has been given to whether this is actually an appropriate aim it seems an obvious solution, but the link between schooling and inequality is more complex. There are two important issues to consider. First, when policy-makers talk about narrowing the gap, they usually mean creating a more equal system in terms of results and access to the resources and opportunities needed to get good results. A question that needs to be asked is whether this would create a fairer or more equitable school system for all children and young people. Will narrowing the attainment gap, as currently measured, reflect the values and aspirations of all groups? To take an example, children from Traveller communities a consistently low-attaining group may have lifestyles and values very different from the mainstream. In this situation, will narrowing the gap for Travellers help them to achieve anything they value or enhance their life chances? Instances like this raise key questions about whether policy should be aiming for the same for everyone or fairness for everyone. Should policy-makers be trying to secure more equal outcomes across a narrow set of measures, or do we need a broader set of measures to reflect different ambitions and notions of success? 14 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

15 Will narrowing the gap for Travellers help them to achieve anything they value or enhance their life chances? The second issue to consider is that while outcome data point to inequalities, they do not alone explain why some groups of children and young people do less well than others, and what might be done to change this. For example, there is little in the attainment data that reveals what it is about the lives and educational experiences of particular groups of children and young people that leads them to underachieve at school. Nor does it indicate what can be done to shape the underlying dynamics in ways which might help them. We know that a whole host of factors matter some to do with children s cultural backgrounds, families, and the neighbourhoods they live in; some to do with schools and how they operate, and the teaching and learning experiences they offer. However, we know much less about exactly how and why they matter, and how they combine to shape individual children s experiences of school. If governments want to tackle social inequality through schools, they need to be clear about what they want to achieve whether more equal (ie similar) outcomes or greater diversity and what would need to be done to make this happen. As we will now go on to explore, policy-makers across the UK INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 15

16 have responded to these issues in a wide variety of ways. We recognise that there have been many important developments around disability rights, multiculturalism, and student voice, for example, which look at how children and young people are treated and valued within schools. However, here we will focus principally on attainment. This is both because so much of policy effort in the UK has been concentrated on raising attainment and because despite the dangers of narrowing our view of what education is about attainment undeniably has important consequences for life chances. To sum up... Narrowing the attainment gap will not in itself meet the particular needs and aspirations of disadvantaged communities. Strategies that secure more equal outcomes for children may sometimes do so at the expense of diversity. Nevertheless, closing the attainment gap remains a necessary, if insufficient, pre-requisite for improving children s life choices. 16 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

17 HOW HAVE POLICIES TRIED TO REDUCE SOCIAL INEQUALITY? Despite the uncertainties facing policy-makers both about what policies should try to achieve and how we have noted that policies to reduce the impact of social disadvantage on educational attainment have been a priority across the UK in recent years. This was highlighted as a key area for action in the 2006 OECD study, Social Disadvantage and Educational Experiences. It reported that the impact of socio-economic circumstances on young people s attainment was more marked in the UK than in any of the other 52 countries surveyed. Significantly, the OECD also argued that educational policies can be designed to offset key aspects of social disadvantage that hold children back. These can take a variety of approaches, and engage with different aspects of the link between schooling and social inequality. Some, for example, may relate to the regulation of school admissions or sorting systems, some target particular families with additional resources. Others may involve developing the cognitive and non-cognitive skills of children from disadvantaged homes through specifically designed schooling experiences. Importantly, according to the OECD, such policies need not be to the detriment of advantaged pupils. It is, therefore, not surprising that the past 20 years have seen successive governments across the UK embarking on significant policy developments for example, in Scotland, Getting it Right for Every Child; in England, making sure that Every Child Matters; in Northern Ireland, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All, and Entitled to Succeed; and in Wales, Extending Entitlement of all learners. However, it has not always been clear what this commitment signifies and each nation has implemented a range of strategies, with England having most initiatives. Many of these have tried to improve the quality and performance of INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 17

18 individual schools particularly those serving disadvantaged neighbourhoods and to raise the attainment of underachieving groups. In what follows, we explore the range of strategies pursued. To make sense of the different ways they have tried to tackle social inequality, we have broadly classified them as: general or universal interventions targeting all schools; interventions which target schools in disadvantaged areas; interventions which target underachieving groups; structural interventions, which target how school systems are organised; beyond school interventions, which target neighbourhood and family background factors. We recognise that these categories are not comprehensive, and that some interventions bring together approaches from different categories. However, our aim in presenting this simple framework is to provide a guide for navigating a complex policy context. The impact of socio-economic circumstances on young people s attainment was more marked in the UK than in any of the other 52 countries surveyed. 18 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

19 Different policy approaches General or universal interventions These aim to improve the overall quality and effectiveness of schooling, particularly targeting leadership and teaching. The underlying assumption is that at least part of the reason why some groups of children achieve less than others lies in the limited effectiveness of some schools. Improving schools in general can therefore be seen as a way of helping all students and disadvantaged students in particular to achieve better results and thus improve their life chances. This type of intervention, particularly popular in England during the early period of New Labour government, is exemplified by the national literacy, numeracy, and key stage 3 strategies, which were subsequently incorporated into the more comprehensive National Strategies. These prescriptive strategies set out centrally-determined templates for high quality teaching and learning, which teachers were required to follow. The implementation of these National Strategies was rather unusual. A set of highly prescriptive improvement approaches were developed many through commissioned consultancies and implementation was supported by teams of consultants who were employed nationally, regionally and within each local authority to ensure conformity. Similar strategies for literacy and numeracy were introduced in Northern Ireland in In the same year, the Welsh Assembly advised that implementing England s National Strategies would be a matter for local discretion, although its own Framework for Action set out what was effectively a literacy strategy for all primary schools minus England s targets and testing. In Scotland, the 1997 Raising the Standard programme encouraged a similar, systematic approach to the teaching of literacy in primary schools. INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 19

20 More recently, as improvements in test and examination scores have tailed off, the efficacy of these one-size-fits-all approaches has been questioned. The decision to phase out the National Strategies in England, announced in 2009, is an indication that UK governments may be re-thinking this type of general intervention. Targeting schools in disadvantaged areas These interventions are aimed at specific schools in deprived areas. Once again, an underlying premise is that ineffective schools contribute to low attainment. Children attending these schools, this analysis implies, are doubly penalised; socioeconomic disadvantage being compounded by poor quality schooling. This type of intervention involves identifying areas where schools face challenging circumstances, and then targeting additional programmes and resources on schools in these areas. Several such initiatives have been introduced in England over the past dozen years Education Action Zones (EAZ), the Excellence in Cities (EiC) programme, and the Leadership Incentive Grant initiatives that also required schools in the target areas to support each other s improvement efforts. EAZs had a five-year lifespan. They were designed to enable schools and local education authorities in targeted areas to work with a range of community members, and public and private sector organisations, to tackle educational attainment levels. Typically, they sought to improve the quality of teaching and learning, provide students with additional learning support, address non-attendance and poor behaviour, increase parents involvement in their children s education, and develop links with local businesses. EiC followed EAZs, and was more tightly focused on practices within schools. In an effort to raise standards, it employed a series of centrally-determined activities around leadership, behaviour and teaching and learning. These included providing learning 20 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

21 mentors, establishing learning support units in secondary schools, and programmes for gifted and talented students. Arguably the most significant example of this approach is the London Challenge which, over the past seven years or so, has focused on raising attainment among disadvantaged students, while also improving the overall performance of all London schools. The perceived success of this initiative led to the extension of the City Challenge approach to the Black Country and to Greater Manchester. City Challenge programmes are about directing additional resources at urban areas to support school improvement. These include: additional advice for schools, targeted interventions, strategies for teacher recruitment, retention and training, and school support networks. Again, although these interventions have been concentrated in England, similar examples can be found across the UK the Raising Attainment and Individual Standards in Education (Raise) programme in Wales, for example, and the Improving School Effectiveness Project (ISEP) in Scotland. There is a similar rationale behind all these programmes, rooted in the belief that ineffective schools are more likely to be located in areas of social and economic deprivation and that additional resources within the school can somehow offset disadvantage outside. Targeting underachieving groups While the first two types of intervention focus on whole-school improvement, a third type is aimed at helping groups of underattaining children within schools. These approaches are based on the premise that schools are less successful with some groups of students than others. Usually the talk is of closing the gap between high and low performing students. So, for example, some interventions have focused on boys underachievement, particularly boys from white working-class backgrounds. Others have targeted students from particular ethnic backgrounds, INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 21

22 Some interventions have focused on boys underachievement, particularly boys from white, working-class backgrounds. bilingual students, looked-after children, Travellers, gifted and talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special educational needs. In early years settings and in schools, such programmes often seek to eliminate deficits in basic literacy, numeracy and social skills. However, targeted programmes are also being introduced which are designed to offer curriculum content and learning experiences more likely to engage disaffected and disadvantaged pupils than the standard curriculum. This approach seems to be to some extent at least a response to a curriculum that becomes increasingly irrelevant to the interests and needs of many pupils as they progress through the system. Both approaches are found across the UK. For instance, in England, strategies targeting underachieving groups include the recent Extra Mile project which focused on breaking down cultural suspicions about education and attainment. In Wales the Narrowing the Gap programme has developed in-school strategies to raise boys attainment levels. In Northern Ireland, greater emphasis has been placed on early years learning, 22 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

23 through, for example, the Early Years Inclusive Practice initiative. Such targeted initiatives are less common in Scotland but its Early Intervention Literacy programme focuses on at risk students. In addition, there are also targeted programmes to encourage children from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university most notably the UK-wide Aim Higher programme. This involves local authorities and universities working closely with schools to improve access to further and higher education. Structural interventions These interventions are underpinned by the belief that restructuring schools and reorganising school systems can help to tackle inequality. They propose more and less radical ways to boost the performance of underperforming schools and groups of pupils, particularly in deprived areas. In Northern Ireland, for example, the 11-plus exam has recently been abolished in an attempt to equalise young people s access to educational opportunities in the secondary sector, though this has generated considerable opposition and remains problematic. However, compared to other parts of the UK, structural solutions have been a particularly strong feature of English policy in recent years and are evolving rapidly. In England, schools identified as underperforming against national averages the great majority of which are in the most deprived areas have been subjected to a range of structural changes. For example, some schools have been closed and re-established as academies; others granted trust status and liberated from the local authority, while others have been federated with another, more successful school. Taking these in turn: Academies, prior to the election of the Coalition government, typically replaced the very lowest performing schools in the most disadvantaged areas. They are centrally-funded schools, freed from local authority control and managed by INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 23

24 sponsoring bodies often businesses, charitable organisations, or faith groups (and now local authorities can even become cosponsors). They also have some freedom over the curriculum; originally they had complete freedom, but newly created academies have to follow the national curriculum for maths, English, science and ICT. The idea is that they are able to use their autonomy, and draw on their sponsor s expertise and financial contributions, to develop innovative responses to historic underperformance. The pre-coalition academies are still inspected by central government and held accountable for their exam performance, and they have to follow the same admissions code as other state schools. Trust schools are schools with foundation status ie they act as their own admissions authority and own their own assets which then establish a charitable foundation, or trust, to support their improvement. The important differences between trust schools and academies are that: trust schools remain part of the local authority though not governed by it; trustees do not have to put up any money; and the government does not always provide additional funding. Federations of schools have taken various forms, and are adapted to suit local needs. For example, hard federations involve two or more schools sharing a single governing body, while soft federations have collaborative governance structures, involving joint committees. The idea is that schools will be able improve their performance and the performance of all their students by sharing resources, staff, expertise and facilities, and that this will also reduce schooling inequalities within neighbourhoods. Other structural solutions which have been promoted in an English context include chains of schools groups of schools that share practices, resources and a brand identity and, since 24 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

25 Children s academic performance cannot be divorced from... what happens to them outside school in their families, communities and neighbourhoods. the election, free schools, which will allow parents to establish independent, centrally-funded schools, have been mooted. The Coalition government wants to encourage high-performing schools, both primary and secondary, to opt for academy status which will mean radical re-structuring of local authorities as well as school funding and governance arrangements. Beyond school interventions As outlined above, policy-makers have emphasised improving the organisation, leadership and working practices of schools. Significantly, however, there have also been serious policy efforts to address factors which lie beyond schools. These recognise that children s academic performance cannot be divorced from other aspects of their development and what happens to them in their families and communities. This means that any policy which tries to tackle social disadvantage can be seen as a means of weakening the link between deprivation and educational outcome. For example, the Child Poverty and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies although they are not education initiatives have significant implications for efforts to narrow the gap in attainment. INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 25

26 There has also been a group of initiatives which have clearly sought to improve and equalise educational outcomes, by aligning the school s core business of teaching and learning with interventions targeting other aspects of children s lives. Such initiatives have been located in a series of overarching frameworks and plans. Each UK administration has developed its own, setting out the services which children and their families should be able to access; the support they can expect to receive; and how services should be organised to provide this. In England, for instance, the Children s Plan set out a framework for organising child and family services in a way which could support the vision set out in Every Child Matters namely that all children should: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. Within these frameworks, a range of interventions have been developed to integrate different services and align them with the work of schools, and to help schools to reach into their communities. These have included: Early intervention programmes. These try to tackle some of the factors that are likely to disadvantage children in school, before they reach schooling age. The Sure Start programme, operating across the UK, is an important example of this. Sure Start activities are managed locally through partnerships between health and education professionals and others, and aim to develop integrated programmes of support for children and parents, addressing wider health and well-being as well as educational issues. Extended, community, or full-service schools. These are schools which provide a wide range of services for children, their families, and the wider community. As this brief overview has shown, policies have sought to 26 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

27 intervene in the relationship between schools and social inequality in a variety of ways targeting both in-school and beyond school factors, and trying to change the relationships between schools. However, as we explore in the next section, there is considerable debate about whether these policies have made any real difference. To sum up... General interventions, which target all or most schools, have tended to focus on the quality of teaching and school leadership. Targeted interventions have been focused on schools in areas of socio-economic disadvantage, and usually bring with them additional resources. Sometimes specific groups of low attaining pupils, rather than schools themselves, have been targeted. Some more radical interventions have targeted structures and systems, aiming to change the relationship between schools and the system on the one hand, and schools and their communities on the other. There have also been a number of policies aimed at improving educational outcomes by targeting children s services and activities outside the school. INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 27

28 THE IMPACTS OF POLICY In this section we explore evidence relating to the impact of policy approaches we have outlined. We consider what is known about collective or overall impact, as well as looking at the particular impacts of different approaches. Before doing so, however, there are two points to make about the available evidence base. First, many of the evaluations carried out to date are based on attainment data which have been generated over a relatively short time perhaps too short for key effects to show. While policy-makers prefer interventions to have immediate impact, most school improvement research suggests that at least three to five years are needed for an intervention to lead to measurable changes in attainment. There are also problems with longerterm evaluations. For example, school populations can change dramatically over a period of time, making it hard to separate out the intervention s impact from the differences in students. Second, the methods used to evaluate interventions are not always able to detect precisely what actually made a difference and to what extent. Methods may be better able to identify impact on some outcomes than on others, again making it hard to judge effects. For example, measuring impact on attainment may be relatively straightforward, impact on cognitive development more difficult. Attributing impact on outcomes such as attitudes to school which are heavily influenced by non-school factors to specific policy initiatives, needs to be viewed with some caution. Overall impacts Predictably, government headlines point most often to improvements in test and exam scores to argue that the impact of the various interventions has been significant. Within the research community, however, there are a variety of views about attainment data. Many argue that in recent years there has 28 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

29 Even if some small improvements have been achieved, they have not necessarily resulted in more disadvantaged young people going on to further and higher education. been little real impact, particularly on the most disadvantaged students, and that even the apparent improvements in test and examination scores are not always supported by a detailed analysis of national data. Others worry that if test and examination scores have improved this has much to do with dubious tactics orchestrated changes in school populations, the exclusion of some (often highly vulnerable and disadvantaged) children, careful selection of which courses students follow, and inflating the value given to non-traditional qualifications. Some critics say that even if small improvements have been achieved, they have not necessarily resulted in more disadvantaged young people going on to further and higher education (and particularly to elite universities) or into higher status jobs, since the attainment currency is only a proxy for improved life chances. Such views cast doubt on both the authenticity and the sustainability of any progress claimed in reducing social inequality through schooling. At best, the evidence of impact is mixed, not least because of the limited extent to which reliable evidence has been systematically collected and analysed. On the one hand, where larger-scale INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 29

30 evaluations have been rigorous, they generally reveal that any impact has been limited to only some schools and those gains for children and young people particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds have been small. On the other hand, there are a growing number of qualitative case studies of both individual schools, and groups of schools working together in disadvantaged areas, that indicate that progress is being made in improving student performance. The impacts of different approaches General interventions Assessments about the impact of general interventions are often contradictory. A good illustration of this is provided by the early evaluations of the literacy and numeracy strategies in England. Some studies show positive results, indicating improvements in teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Others are sharply critical, seeing the strategies as encouraging impoverished teaching, being based on poor and limited evidence of what constitutes effective classroom practice, and widening the gap between low and high attaining pupils. For example, the 2009 Cambridge Primary Review argued that: improvements were negligible in primary literacy, and relatively modest in numeracy; gains in reading skills were at the expense of children s enjoyment of reading; the emphasis on testing was distorting children s experiences of schooling; and that a much bigger gap persisted in England between high and low attaining children in reading, maths and science, than in many other countries. Not only is the evidence contradictory, but the variations in national interventions across the UK makes it difficult for researchers to identify what lies behind any improvement. For example, consider the proportions of pupils meeting national curriculum targets in England and Wales. While the rates of improvement are broadly comparable, the interventions despite similar aims have been quite distinct. There is similar difficulty 30 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

31 interpreting GCSE results from Northern Ireland. These are significantly ahead of England and Wales, but whether this can be attributed to selective education, better teacher supply or more appropriate curriculum patterns, is hard to ascertain. Targeting schools in disadvantaged areas At this stage, the evidence on the impact of interventions which have targeted schools in disadvantaged areas is also quite mixed. Although interventions have produced some positive outcomes, their effects have tended to be small-scale and patchy both across schools and areas. Crucially, there is limited evidence that such approaches have narrowed the gap between targeted areas and other more advantaged areas. For example, the Excellence in Cities initiative has been subject to a number of evaluations: A substantial government-commissioned study, conducted by an independent organisation, reached some positive conclusions. The evaluators suggested that the programme generated some educational benefits for a comparatively modest outlay, and described it as a cost-effective improvement strategy. However, the hard evidence suggests that the initiative has probably done little to sustain a narrowing of the gap between more and less advantaged students in participating schools. Smaller scale qualitative studies of Excellence in Cities projects have suggested that whatever gains were made, the initiative also exacerbated inequalities in local school systems, as only some schools received additional funding. Available evidence about the impact of the London Challenge appears more clear-cut. It suggests that the Challenge has raised the average performance of schools in the city, accelerated their improvement, and narrowed the gaps between more and less advantaged students. On the face of it, this seems to promise INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 31

32 some equalising of outcomes between London and other areas. However, an independent analysis of outcomes has not yet been undertaken, and the evaluation carried out some time ago by Ofsted suggests that while London schools may be improving more rapidly than schools elsewhere and often from a lower base many children are still achieving poor results. Wider research offers many explanations about why programmes which target disadvantaged areas have failed to have more significant and sustainable impacts. These include the short lifespan of initiatives, the problems of persuading different partners to work together, and the proliferation of initiatives with different structures and objectives. Some researchers have also raised fundamental questions about the extent to which programmes like Excellence in Cities and the London Challenge are meaningful attempts to tackle the links between schooling and social inequality in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. While area-focused, they are largely restricted to improving school performance and offering extra support to students. Typically, their attempts to intervene in the underlying causes of educational failure poverty, social class, cultural background, poor housing, and the full range of environmental factors are extremely limited. Moreover, it is striking how poorly resourced area-focused interventions have been, given the range of issues they are expected to address. Structural interventions We are in the early stages of the various structural reforms being introduced in England. Not surprisingly, independent research into their impact is scarce, but what there is appears mixed. With regard to federations, for example, an analysis of national pupil and school level data-sets found little difference between federated and non-federated schools in terms of performance. However, case studies provide some evidence of the positive impact of collaboration. For example, some schools report 32 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

33 improved GCSE grades associated with collaboration, and federations which have been designed to turn around a poorly performing school have typically shown marked increases in exam results. More generally, there are some good examples of collaborative practices developing to solve local problems; for example, supporting small schools in rural areas, and pooling staff and other resources where these are scarce. The evidence on the impact of academies in England is also varied. New Labour maintained that they are more successful than other state schools in raising attainment in disadvantaged communities, and promoted their spread. Early indications are that the Coalition government sees academies as an improvement strategy for advantaged and disadvantaged areas alike. However, this confidence is not always supported by the evidence. Some studies have found that academies do not perform any better than local authority schools. One study showed that, in 2006, 40 per cent of academy pupils attained key stage 4, level 2 almost identical to the 41 per cent achieved by comparator schools. And any improvements that have occurred may also be attributed to other factors. For example, academies can select up to 10 per cent of pupils (though not formally on ability). To what extent are programmes like Excellence in Cities meaningful attempts to tackle the links between schooling and social inequality in disadvantaged neighbourhoods...? INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 33

34 The nature of academies student profiles may also change as they become more successful and gain parents confidence. Such factors make it hard to judge the true impact of academies. For example, it has been suggested that improved outcomes may be attributed as much to a fall in the proportion of students eligible for free school meals as to improved teaching and learning. The total number of pupils in academies also typically increases over time, so the number eligible for free school meals also increases, but not necessarily in proportion. For instance, one of the first academies opened with 51 per cent of students eligible for free school meals this has now fallen to 12 per cent. In contrast, a later academy opened with 9 per cent of students eligible for free school meals and this has now risen to 41 per cent. As this shows, the social mix may change both rapidly and dramatically. In addition, some research suggests that any gains in attainment made by academies may be the result of the substantial extra resources they receive, rather than because of any fundamental changes in practice. So, for example, had the schools that were replaced by academies enjoyed the same facilities and resources, perhaps they would have achieved as much, if not more. As the programme unfolds, it is also becoming clearer that at least some academies prosper by reducing their intake of disadvantaged students, and by excluding those whose behaviour is troublesome. Interventions which target underachieving groups Evidence regarding the impacts of targeted programmes which aim to develop basic skills is reasonably strong, and especially so in primary schools. Interventions which succeed in increasing literacy levels and social skills in particular, also appear to increase children s self-esteem, and often improve both attendance and attainment levels. However, the evidence around targeted interventions which specifically aim to reduce disaffection and disengagement from school is more difficult to judge. While they reportedly lead to increases in attainment for some children, the 34 INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS

35 gains seem relatively small, the costs substantial, and from the ways in which gains in attainment are measured, it is not always clear that real changes are taking place. A further issue is that the children targeted by these interventions are also the ones most likely to suffer setbacks during school holidays. Studies from several countries have established that children s learning regresses during periods without formal schooling. This is more pronounced for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, particularly with regard to literacy, and the lost ground is harder for them to regain. Beyond school interventions Some researchers argue that initiatives that focus only on within-school factors are unlikely to make a significant difference to disadvantaged children. They suggest that this can only be achieved by addressing beyond school factors. They point to a need for holistic reforms that connect schools, communities, and external political and economic institutions, and form part of a larger plan for transforming local areas. There have been thorough evaluations of many beyond school interventions. These have produced good evidence that this approach can have important impacts on disadvantaged children and families helping them to respond constructively to the challenges they face, and in turn, increasing attainment levels in school. However, there is little evidence that such interventions are truly able to overcome the impacts of social disadvantage on children s lives whether in relation to their schooling, or other issues. Importantly, while the research demonstrates that services can be better designed to respond to the needs of children and their families, it also shows that changing support structures does not, in itself, lead to better outcomes. This suggests that beyond school interventions can create the conditions to make better outcomes possible, but will not deliver them on their own. There is a lot of evidence which indicates that community schools and extended schools can have positive impacts, and particularly for INSIGHT SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND SCHOOLS 35