Skip to content

Agenda item

Equalities in Educational Outcomes - Witness Evidence

a)    Data Update

b)    Evidence from Dr Antonina Tereshchenko, UCL Institute of Education

Minutes:

a)    Data Update

 

Harry Donnison, QPMU Service Manager, presented educational outcomes data to the Committee. The data used four years of results combined; this provided a larger sample size which could be evaluated with a higher degree of certainty.

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

 

·         Nationally, 28% of Black Caribbean early years pupils were eligible for free school meals. In Islington, this figure was 45%. Islington had an above average proportion of Black Caribbean pupils eligible for free school meals at every key stage.

·         Nationally, 15% of White UK early years pupils were eligible for free school meals. In Islington the figure was double the national average at around 30%. This gap widened at Key Stage 4, with around 35% of White UK pupils eligible for free school meals, slightly more than double the national average. 

·         The Committee queried the reasons why the number of pupils eligible for free school meals changed over time. Officers explained that the overall number of pupils eligible for free school meals decreased between early years and the end of Key Stage 2. It was advised that early years pupils were more likely to be eligible for free school meals as their parents or carers were less likely to be working; as the parents of primary age children returned to employment their household income increased and, as a result, some were no longer eligible for free school meals.

·         The Committee also noted that the number of pupils eligible for free school meals increased by approximately 5% between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4. Officers explained that the pupil cohort changed between primary and secondary education as some Islington pupils moved to schools outside of the borough and some pupils resident in neighbouring boroughs began attending schools in Islington. A member hypothesised that some middle class families sent their children to prestigious schools outside of the borough and this impacted on the demography of the pupil cohort. Officers commented that this could be a factor, however the reasons for demographic changes over time were complex.

·         Officers commented on the particular academic challenges faced by different demographic groups. The attainment of White UK pupils eligible for free school meals and Black Caribbean pupils was below the borough average. At Key Stage 1 White UK pupils eligible for free school meals were more likely to struggle with reading and writing, whereas Black Caribbean pupils were more likely to struggle with mathematics.

·         At Key Stage 4, both White UK pupils eligible for free school meals and Black Caribbean pupils tended to underperform across all subjects. However, for English and Maths the attainment gap between these groups and the borough average decreased between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4. It was thought that this was due to schools prioritising English and Maths GCSE.

·         There was a gap in attainment between boys and girls, with girls having a higher level of attainment than boys. This was the case for all pupils, however the gender attainment gap was even greater for White UK pupils eligible for free school meals and Black Caribbean pupils. At Key Stage 2 there was a 9.8% attainment gap between all girls and boys in Islington. For White UK pupils eligible for free school meals, this gap was 17.7%.

·         Although White UK pupils eligible for free school meals and Black Caribbean pupils had lower levels of attainment than the Islington average, it was noted that Islington had a higher rate of attainment than the national average and, compared to national averages, these groups were performing well.  

·         In response to a question, it was advised that it was not possible to compare Islington’s performance against the Inner London average as the Department for Education only published ethnicity data at a national level.

·         A member queried the reasons why Black Caribbean and White UK FSM pupils in Islington experienced such a large attainment gap. In response, officers commented that the reasons were complex, however the impact of poverty and deprivation was considerable.

 

b)    Evidence from Dr Antonina Tereshchenko, UCL Institute of Education

 

The Committee received apologies for absence from Dr Tereshchenko and noted that this evidence would be rescheduled for the next meeting.

 

The Committee noted the presentation sides. The Committee queried if the impact of setting pupils was as significant as parental influence and other social factors. It was advised that this could be explored at the next meeting.

 

A member of the public highlighted the best practice on attainment grouping referenced in the presentation slides, querying if these interventions were more or less effective in reducing the attainment gap than other interventions that impacted on social mobility. In response, officers advised that research on the effectiveness of interventions was not sufficiently nuanced to allow them to be ranked in this way.

 

 The Committee thanked officers for their attendance.

 

Supporting documents: