‘Closing the Achievement Gap’ in English Cities and Towns in the Twenty-First Century

Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

A key focus in English work on ‘narrowing the gap’ in recent years has been persistent ‘social class’ differences in educational achievement. The policy response to these issues has frequently been targeted at schools (or groups of schools) in urban areas, given the generally higher levels of disadvantage in these locations. It is important to address the academic attainment gap in schools in that student performance during the compulsory phase of education has significant implications for access to higher education and the labour market. In this chapter we explore a number of these policies, the particular challenges about urban education they sought to address, and their successes and failures. There is a particular focus on the much-lauded ‘London Challenge’, held up as a flagship policy for driving improvements in urban areas. While there is some evidence of change as a result of this multi-faceted approach to education reform, it seems that at least some of the improvements being driven by other changes going on in London at the time, such as significant demographic shifts. We conclude that while there have been some notable policy successes, a stubborn achievement gap remains, particularly at the higher end of the attainment distribution and question the extent to which schools alone, rather than society more broadly, can be expected to close these gaps.

Keywords

Achievement gap Social class Education reform Urban education 

References

  1. Adams, R. (2015). GCSE gap between rich and poor widens, Guardian, 29th Jan. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/29/gcse-gap-rich-poor-widens
  2. Allen, G. (2011). Early intervention: The next steps (An Independent Report to Her Majesty’s Government). London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, R. (2012). How can London schools be so good, given the high cost of living for teachers? (IoE Blog 22/05/2012). London: Institute of Education. Available from: http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/how-can-london-schools-be-so-good-given-the-high-cost-of-living-for-teachers/
  4. Anders, J. (2012). The link between household income, university applications and university attendance. Fiscal Studies, 33(2), 185–210. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2012.00158.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baars, S., Bernardes, E., Elwick, A., Malortie, A., McAleavy, T., McInerney, L., Menzies, L., & Riggall, A. (2014). Lessons from London schools: Investigating the success. London: CfBT.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Co.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, B. (1970). Education cannot compensate for society, New Society, 26 Feb 1970, 344–347.Google Scholar
  8. Blanden, J., Greaves, E., Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., & Sibieta, L. (2015). Understanding the improved performance of disadvantaged pupils in London (Social Policy in a Cold Climate Working Paper 21). London: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  9. Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the impact of teaching assistants: How research challenges practice and policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Boliver, V. (2011). Expansion, differentiation, and the persistence of social class inequalities in. British Higher Education Higher Education, 61(3), 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Brain, K., & Reid, I. (2003). Constructing parental involvement in an education action zone: Whose need is it meeting? Educational Studies, 29(2–3), 291–305. doi:10.1080/03055690303282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brighouse, T. (2007). The London challenge – A personal view. In T. Brighouse & L. Fullick (Eds.), Education in a global city: Essays from London. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  15. Burgess, S. (2014). Understanding the success of London’s schools (Working Paper No. 14/333). Bristol: Centre for Market and Public Organisation (CMPO).Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, C., & Whitty, G. (2007). Urban education in the United Kingdom: Section editors’ introduction. In G. W. Noblit & W. T. Pink (Eds.), International handbook of urban education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Claeys, A., Kempton, J., & Paterson, C. (2014). Regional challenges: A collaborative approach to improving education. London: Centre Forum.Google Scholar
  18. Clifton, J., & Cook, W. (2012). A long division: Closing the attainment gap in England’s secondary schools. London: IPPR.Google Scholar
  19. Cook, C. (2011). Poorer children close education gap, Financial Times. London: Financial Times. Available at: http://ww.ft.com/cms/s/0/d82fc3cc-eab3-11e0-aeca-00144feab49a.html
  20. Coyne, J., & Goodfellow, J. M. (2008). Report to the Secretary of State, DIUS, on universities’ links with schools in STEM subjects. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-education-debate
  21. Cummings, C., Dyson, A., Muijs, D., Papps, I., Pearson, D., Raffo, C., Tiplady, L., Todd, L., & Crowther, D. (2007). Evaluation of the full service extended schools initiative: Final report (DfES Research Report RR852). London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  22. Curtis, A. (2009). Academies and school diversity. Management in Education, 23(3), 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Curtis, A., Exley, S., Sasia, A., Tough, S., & Whitty, G. (2008). The Academies programme: Progress, problems and possibilities. London: Sutton Trust.Google Scholar
  24. DCSF [Department for Children, Schools and Families]. (2007). The children’s plan: Building brighter futures. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  25. de Waal, A. (2008). School improvement – Or the ‘Equivalent’. London: Civitas.Google Scholar
  26. de Waal, A. (2009). The secrets of academies’ success. London: Civitas.Google Scholar
  27. DfE [Department for Education]. (2011). The National Strategies 1997–2011. A brief summary of the impact and effectiveness of the National Strategies (DfE Reference: 00032-2011). London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  28. DfE [Department for Education]. (2014). Statistical first release: GCSE and equivalent attainment by pupil characteristics in England, 2012/13. London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  29. DfES [Department for Education and Skills]. (2005). London schools: Rising to the challenge. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  30. DfES [Department for Education and Skills]. (2006). Social mobility: Narrowing social class educational attainment gaps (Supporting Materials to a speech by the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the Institute for Public Policy Research). London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  31. DfES [Department for Education and Skills] (2007a). Secretary of State announces extension of the London Challenge Programme. Archived press release available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070603200104/http://dfes.gov.uk/londonchallenge/
  32. DfES [Department for Education and Skills]. (2007a). City challenge for world class education. London: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Earl, L., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2001). OISE/UT evaluation of the implementation of the national literacy and numeracy strategies. Second annual report. Watching & learning 2 (DfES Report DfES-0617/2001). London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  34. Earley, P., & Weindling, D. (2006). Consultant leadership—a new role for head teachers? School Leadership & Management, 26(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. EEF [Education Endowment Foundation] (2012). Teaching and learning toolkit. Available at: www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
  36. Exley, S., & Ball, S. J. (2011). Something old, something new… understanding conservative education policy. In H. Bochel (Ed.), The conservative party and social policy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  37. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults (The report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances). London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  38. Gillborn, D., & Mirza, H. (2000). Educational inequality: Mapping race, class and gender. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  39. Goldstein. (2002). The national literacy and numeracy strategy (NLNS) evaluation: Part 2. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol. Available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/team/hg/oisereport2.html
  40. Goodman, A., Sibieta, L., & Washbrook, E. (2009). Inequalities in educational outcomes among children aged 3 to 16 (Final report for the National Equality Panel). London: National Equality Panel.Google Scholar
  41. Gove, M. (2012). Michael gove at the National College annual conference. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-at-the-nationalcollege-annual-conference. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  42. Greaves, E., Macmillan, L., & Sibieta, L. (2014). Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps and social mobility. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).Google Scholar
  43. Green, F. (2015). Do free schools raise the performance of nearby schools, as Policy Exchange have claimed, or is this a statistical mirage? LLAKES Blog Post. Available at: http://www.llakes.ac.uk/blog/do-free-schools-raise-performance-nearby-schools-policy-exchange-have-claimed-or-statistical
  44. Harris, M. (2010). What more can be done to widen access to highly selective universities? A report from Sir Martin Harris, Director of Fair Access. Bristol: OFFA.Google Scholar
  45. Harrison, N., James, D., & Last, K. (2015). Don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone? Skills-led qualifications, secondary school attainment and policy choices. Research Papers in Education, 30(5), 585–608. doi:10.1080/02671522.2014.1002526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. HM Government. (2010a). The coalition: Our programme for government. London: Cabinet Office. Available at: http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/
  47. HM Government. (2010b). Opening doors, breaking barriers: A strategy for social mobility. London: Cabinet Office. Available at: http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files_dpm/resources/opening-doors-breaking-barriers.pdf
  48. House of Commons. (2015). Academies and free schools. Fourth report of the Education Committee for the Session 2014–15. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  49. Hutchings, M., Greenwood, C., Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Rose, A., Minty, S., & Glass, K. (2012). Evaluation of the city challenge programme (DfE Research Report DFE-RR215). London: Institute for Policy Studies in Education, London Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  50. Hutchings, M., Francis, B., & de Vries, R. (2014). Chain effects: The impact of academy chains on low income students. London: Sutton Trust.Google Scholar
  51. Jerrim, J. (2012). The socio-economic gradient in teenagers’ reading skills: How does England compare with other countries? Fiscal Studies, 53(2), 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kelly, K., & Cook, S. (2007). Full-time young participation by socio-economic class: A new widening participation measure in higher education. DfES Research Report RR806. Available at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR806.pdf
  53. Kerr, K., & West, M. (Eds.). (2010). Social inequality: Can schools narrow the gap? (Insight 2). Chester: British Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  54. Lupton, R., & Obolenskaya, P. (2013). Labour’s record on education: Policy, spending and outcomes 1997–2010 (Social Policy in a Cold Climate Working Papers). London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  55. Machin, S., & McNally, S. (2004). The literacy hour (CEE Discussion Paper 43). London: Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.Google Scholar
  56. Machin, S., & Silva, O. (2013). School structure, school autonomy and the tail (Special Paper 29). London: Centre for Economic Performance, LSE. Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp29.pdf
  57. Machin, S., & Vernoit, J. (2011). Changing school autonomy: Academy schools and their introduction to England’s education (CEE Discussion Paper 123). London: Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE. Available at: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp123.pdf
  58. Machin, S., McNally, S., & Meghir, C. (2004). Improving pupil performance in English secondary schools: Excellence in cities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 396–405. doi:10.1162/154247604323068087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Machin, S., McNally, S., & Meghir, C. (2007). Resources and standards in urban schools. London: Centre for the Economics of Education.Google Scholar
  60. Maden, M. (Ed.). (2002). Success against the odds five years on. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. McAleavy, T., & Elwick, A. (2015). School improvement in London: A global perspective. London: CfBT.Google Scholar
  62. McNally, S. (2015). Schools: The evidence on academies, resources and pupil performance. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  63. Milburn, A. (2009) Unleashing aspiration: The final report of the panel on fair access to the professions. HMSO. Available at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/accessprofessions.aspx
  64. Mortimore, P., & Whitty, G. (1997). Can school improvement overcome the effects of disadvantage? London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  65. Muijs, D., Chapman, C., & Armstrong, P. (2010). Maximum impact evaluation: The impact of teach first teachers in schools (Final Report). Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  66. NAO [National Audit Office]. (2007). The academies programme (Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 254 session 2005–2007). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  67. NatCen [National Centre for Social Research]. (2011). Evaluation of every child a reader (DfE Research Report DFE-RR114). London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  68. NESS [National Evaluation of Sure Start Team]. (2010). The impact of sure start local programmes on five year olds and their families (DfE Research Report DFE-RR067). London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  69. Ofsted. (2010a). London challenge (Report number 100192). London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  70. Ofsted. (2010b). The national strategies: A review of impact (Report number 080272). London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  71. Ofsted. (2012). The pupil premium: How schools are using the Pupil Premium funding to raise achievement for disadvantaged pupils. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  72. Ofsted. (2013). Unseen children: Access and achievement 20 years on. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  73. Ofsted. (2014a). The pupil premium: An update. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  74. Ofsted. (2014b). Ofsted annual report 2013/14. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  75. ONS [Office for National Statistics]. (2006). Statistics of education: Trends in attainment gaps: 2005. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  76. Ovenden-Hope, T., & Passy, R. (2013). Coastal academies: Meeting the challenge of school improvement. Plymouth: Plymouth University.Google Scholar
  77. Porter, N., & Simons, J. (2015). A rising tide: The competitive benefits of free schools. London: Policy Exchange.Google Scholar
  78. Power, S., Whitty, G., Gewirtz, S., Halpin, D., & Dickson, M. (2004). Paving a “Third way”? A policy trajectory analysis of education action zones. Research Papers in Education, 19(4), 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. PWC [PricewaterhouseCoopers]. (2008). Academies evaluation: Fifth annual report. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  80. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  81. Ringrose, J. (2013). Postfeminist education? Girls and the sexual politics of schooling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Schuller, T., Preston, J., Hammond, C., Brassett-Grundy, A., & Bynner, J. (2004). The benefits of learning: The impact of education on health, family life and social capital. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Starks, L. (2011). The national strategies – Evaluation of the support and resources for narrowing the gap. Leeds: York Consulting LLP.Google Scholar
  84. Sutton Trust. (2012). The use of the pupil premium, NFER teacher voice omnibus 2012 survey. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  85. Tymms, P. (2004). Are standards rising in English primary schools? British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2007). Standards and quality in English primary schools over time: The national evidence (Primary Review Interim Report Research Survey 4/1). Cambridge: The Primary Review.Google Scholar
  87. Tymms, P., Coe, R., & Merrell, C. (2005). Standards in English schools: Changes since 1997 and the impact of government policies and initiatives (A report for the Sunday Times). Durham: CEM Centre, University of Durham.Google Scholar
  88. Vignoles, A., & Crawford, C. (2010). Access, participation and diversity questions in relation to different forms of post-compulsory further and higher education (FHEs). In M. David (Ed.), Improving learning by widening participation in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Whitty, G. (1989). The new right and the national curriculum: State control or market forces? Journal of Education Policy, 4(4), 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Whitty, G. (2001). Education, social class and social exclusion. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Whitty, G. (2008). Twenty years of progress? English education policy 1988 to the present. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Whitty, G. (2010). Revisiting school knowledge: Some sociological perspectives on new school curricula. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Whitty, G. (2012). Policy tourism and policy borrowing in education: A trans-Atlantic case study. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. Whitty, G., Hayton, A., & Tang, S. (2015). Who you know, what you know and knowing the ropes: A review of evidence about access to higher education institutions in England. Review of Education, 3(1), 27–67. doi:10.1002/rev3.3038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wyness, G. (2011). London schooling: Lessons from the capital. London: CentreForum.Google Scholar
  96. Wyse, D., & Parker, C. (2012). The early literacy handbook. London: MA Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  97. Young, M. F. D. (2010). Alternative educational futures for a knowledge society. European Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bath Spa UniversityBathUK
  2. 2.UCL Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations