Memorandum submitted by Child Poverty
Action Group (CPAG)
SUMMARY
1. CPAG welcomes the opportunity to comment
on the Education White Paper. We endorse the Government's determination
to reduce educational inequalities which we believe is central
to the long-term strategy on the eradication of child poverty.
2. Educational experiences and outcomes
for children living in the UK are heavily dictated by the socio-economic
status of their parents. Action is urgently needed to break the
direct link between poverty and educational disadvantage which
results in high levels of social exclusion amongst the UK's most
disadvantaged families. We are pleased that the Education White
Paper considers their needs.
3. Children who are at greatest risk of
being poor are also at greatest risk of achieving poorly in the
education system. Severely disadvantaged children have benefited
least from Government initiatives to reduce child povertyincluding
improvements within the education system.
4. CPAG believes that significantly more
funding is needed to pre-empt or redress educational disadvantage
before a child reaches secondary school. Funding priorities must
reflect the need for to ensure that the most disadvantaged children
receive the support they need during the early years. Investing
in training, reducing class size and implementing programmes such
as the Reading Recovery scheme will help raise standards.
5. Parental choice is at the heart of the
Government's proposals on educational reform. We are concerned
that the Education White Paper will end up giving more power to
some already powerful parents. The provision of good schools in
all areas is more important than the extension of "choice"
which tacitly accepts that that some schoolsthe majority
of which are in disadvantaged areaswill inevitably continue
to be bad.
6. We are concerned that an increase in
"parent power" will do little for children who do not
have powerful parents to support them. How can parents who are
struggling to make ends meet and may be experiencing additional
problems associated with poverty such as poor housing, ill health,
stigma and social exclusion be expected to drive the success of
schools?
7. Unequal access to educational advantages
blights the British educational system. Although UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child argues for "equal opportunities
and access to quality education that is free and compulsory"[62]
disadvantaged children in the UK are excluded from many educational
activities because their parents are unable to finance them. We
are concerned that the Education White Paper does not directly
engage with the issue of educational costs, which may increase
as a result of some of the policies.
8. CPAG does not think that the Government
can address educational underachievement without considering wider
socio-economic issues such as benefit adequacy, low paid work,
and of worklessness. The role that income adequacy plays in enabling
parents to support their child's education has been largely neglected
in the Government's discourse on educational inequalities.
INTRODUCTION
9. CPAG welcomes the opportunity to comment
on the Education White Paper. We endorse the Government's determination
to reduce educational inequalities which we believe is central
to the long-term strategy on the eradication of child poverty
10. Educational experiences and outcomes
for children living in the UK are heavily influenced by the socio-economic
status of their parents. Action is urgently needed to break the
link between poverty and educational disadvantage which results
in high levels of social exclusion amongst the UK's most disadvantaged
families. We are pleased that the Education White Paper considers
the needs of such families.
11. We welcome the Government's commitment
to increase spending on education, and the stipulation that "we
will target it particularly towards local authorities with the
largest number of underachieving and deprived children . . ."
(para 4.13) Children who are disproportionately likely to be poor
should benefit disproportionately from investment in education.
12. Resolving entrenched social and educational
problems is more difficult and costly than pre-empting them. CPAG
believes that significantly more funding is needed to avoid educational
disadvantage setting in before a child reaches secondary school.
Funding priorities must ensure that the most disadvantaged children
receive additional support during the early years. Children should
have access to high quality teaching in smaller classes, Reading
Recovery schemes, and to services and extra curricula activities
provided as an integral part of the extended school agenda, irrespective
of their parent's income or work status.
13. The provision of childcare, improvements
to the education system and attempts to provide more integrated
services and reduce health inequalities are an integral part of
the Government's strategy to reduce child poverty. However, the
link between socio-economic status and educational disadvantage
and poverty is compounded and reinforced by income adequacy. Any
discussion about educational inequality must address issues such
as benefit adequacy and accessibility, worklessness, and low paid
employment.
14. The Education White Paper emphasises
the important role that parents play in their children's education.
Disadvantaged parents need financial, emotional and social support
to help them fulfil the responsibilities required of them by the
Government. Children from "hard to reach" families go
to school; schools therefore provide an excellent environment
in which to ensure that families know about and can access their
full benefit and tax credit entitlement as well as health and
educational provision.
15. Parental choice is at the heart of the
Government's proposals on educational reform. The most vulnerable
families who may have little in the way of power, resources, aspirations
or confidence, are not in a position to effectively exercise choice.
The problem is not so much that poor families are denied choicewhich
they certainly arebut that they are denied high quality
education for their children. We are concerned that the Education
White Paper will end up giving more power to already powerful
parents.
16. Educational reform is being implemented
as part of a wider economic programme to ensure that children
attain the qualifications and skills they need to access paid
work as adults. CPAG strongly supports any initiative that increases
skills and academic attainment levels for disadvantaged children.
However, we believe that all children should be entitled to a
rewarding and fulfilling education, irrespective of their long
term prospects of employment, or their parent's work status or
income. Nor should the education system be viewed as providing
a childcare environment for working parents: children's needs
must come first.
17. CPAG has recently published At Greatest
Risk: the children most likely to be poor. [63]
The book considers the needs of various groups of children who
face a particularly high risk of povertyincluding children
from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, disabled children,
children with disabled parents, asylum seeker children, children
in larger families, children with a parent in prison and young
people leaving care. [64]
At Greatest Risk reveals that for some children systems
that have been put in place to address inequalities, for example
within the education system, have generated unequal gains. Not
only are failing schools disproportionately located in disadvantaged
areasThe Education White Paper reports that " . .
. there are some communitiesoften in our most disadvantaged
areaswhere school standards are poor." (para 2.50)but
poor children in better schools do less well than their more affluent
peer group. [65]
18. However, At Greatest Risk highlights
the way in which lack of detailed statistical information about
the groups of children, and the different ways in which these
groups overlap with each other and experience multiple disadvantages,
particularly in the educational arena, seriously impede the success
of initiatives aimed at reducing child poverty and improving educational
attainment levels.
19. Although there are a number of helpful
initiatives outlined in the Education White Paper (such as personalised
learning, improving training and recruiting more teachers and
educational leaders from BME communities) it remains to be seen
whether aspirational rhetoric is transformed into effective action.
20. This submission focuses on those aspects
of the Education White Paper which we believe are of most relevance
to poorer children. The first part outlines the child poverty
policy context, and the second part addresses the proposals outlined
in the Education White Paper.
SECTION ONE
The policy context
Child Poverty
21. On 18 March 1999 the Prime Minister,
Tony Blair MP, delivered his pledge that the Labour Government
would "eradicate" child poverty by 2020. The Government
promised to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004-05, by a
half by 2010, and to eradicate it by 2020.
22. Although the causes and consequences
of child poverty are wide ranging, the Government's definition
of poverty tacitly accepts that first and foremost it is about
inadequate income: the "poverty line" is defined in
terms of 60% of the median household income adjusted for household
composition. However, while the Education White Paper refers to
"disadvantaged families" and to children who are entitled
to free school meals, income poverty and its impact on educational
underachievement, is not directly addressed.
23. CPAG does not think that the Government
can address educational underachievement without considering wider
socio-economic issues such as benefit adequacy, low paid work,
and of worklessness. Despite the direct correlation between poverty
and low educational achievement, the role that income adequacy
plays in enabling parents to support their child's education has
been largely neglected in the Government's discourse on educational
inequalities. Educational reform must be placed firmly within
the wider child poverty agenda.
Poverty and inequality
"The social class a child is born into and
their parents level of education and health are still major determinants
of their life chances, and mean that social exclusion and disadvantage
can pass from generation to generation." [66]
24. The Government accepts that poverty
is associated with high levels social exclusion, and that its
consequences are complex and wide ranging. Living in poverty has
a direct impact upon access to services, educational achievement
levels, health, skills and employment. Family income, social class
and ethnicity remain major determinants of a child's health at
birthand indeed throughout his or her life. They also affect
a child's educational attainment levels and the sort of job he
or she is likely to get. Adults with low basic skills are five
times as likely to be unemployed as those with average skills.
[67]
25. Increased Government funding is clearly
bringing about some positive results. The Department for Work
and Pension's (DWP) annual report Opportunity for all indicates
that the percentage of 16 year olds with at least five GCSEs at
grades A*-C (England) has increased from 45.1% in 1997 to 53.7%
in 2004. [68]
However progress has been patchy, with the most disadvantaged
children benefiting least. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)
conclude that the "current educational system continues to
fail to meet the needs of people from low income households and
disadvantaged groups." [69]
Poverty and educational disadvantage
26. The Government is concerned about educational
inequalities, as the following statements reveal:
"We continue to have one of the greatest
class divides in education in the industrialised world. A socio-economic
attainment gap is evidence as early as 22 months and widens as
a child gets older. In English schools with under 8% of pupils
eligible for free school meals see nearly 61% of their pupils
achieve the expected level at key stage 3. The equivalent figure
for schools with over 50% of disadvantaged pupils is 39%."[70]
"The class gap is profound . . Poor children
are still one third as likely to get five good GCSEs as their
wealthier classmates, young people from unskilled backgrounds
are over five times less likely to enter higher education than
those from professional backgrounds professional backgrounds"[71]
27. Opportunity for all reveals "evidence
that poorer children fared worse at school than their more affluent
counterpartsand that children who received free school
meals were much less likely to gain five or more GCSEs than children
who did not", that "Class difference affects children's
progress long before they start school and have a growing influence
as they get older" and that "There are some groups which
are much more likely to be excluded than others, for example black
Caribbean boys, traveller children and pupils with special educational
needs." [72]
28. Research from the Sutton Trust and the
London School of Economics reveals that social mobility in Britain
is lower than other advanced countries. The researchers conclude
that "the strength of the relationship between educational
attainment and family income, especially for access to higher
education, is at the heart of Britain's low mobility culture and
is what sets us apart from other European and North American countries"[73]
29. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates
that "Progress in increasing the number of children and young
adults with an adequate minimum level of educational qualifications
has now stalled, with no further advance since 2000 compared with
significant progress during the second half of the 1990s. Around
a quarter of young people at each of the ages 11, 16, and 19 are
still failing to reach a basic level of attainment." [74]
30. Unequal access to educational advantages
blights the British educational system. Although UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child states that "Education is a human
right and a key factor in reducing poverty." (Article 38)
and that all children should enjoy "equal opportunities and
access to quality education that is free and compulsory"[75]
disadvantaged children in the UK are excluded from many educational
activities because their parents are unable to finance them.
31. Educational costs exclude the poorest
children from experiences that would benefit them most. A coalition
of organisations led by Citizens Advice and including Child Poverty
Action Group is investigating the negative impact that educational
costs[76]such
as charging for uniforms, school trips, andincreasinglyextra
curricula activities that may be provided as an integral part
of the extended school agendahas on children's lives. Parents
are asked to contribute towards classroom materials, music lessons
and charity events, and to make donations to school funds. Research
commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills[77]
suggests that parents of secondary school pupils spend an average
of £948.11 per year on their child's "free" education
while the average cost of sending a pupil to a state primary school
is £563.15.
32. Children report that living without
the essentials required for school can seriously jeopardise their
well-being:
"Children's accounts of their school lives
indicated that they were experiencing considerable disadvantage
within their schools, with many reporting feeling bullied, isolated
and left out at critical stages of their academic careers. The
costs of maintaining an adequate school profile and acquiring
appropriate materials for examinations and school activities were
described by many children as prohibitive." [78]
33. We are concerned that the Education
White Paper does not directly engage with the issue of educational
costs. Indeed CPAG fears that giving parents the right to dictate
policy around the curriculum and uniforms may result in an increase
in costs.
34. The Government is concerned about the
impact that educational inequalities has on children's life chances.
In a speech entitled Equity and Excellence: Education and Social
Mobility[79]Ruth
Kelly MP emphasised the important role education has to play in
reducing inequalities and increasing social mobility. However,
although she expressed concerns that children from disadvantaged
backgrounds are failing to get into better schools, and that "local
schools are not good enough" when asked whether poor educational
achievement is more a question of poverty than education, and
whether it was possible to tackle educational inequalities without
tackling benefits which are set below poverty levels, school costs,
low birth weight, and health inequalities, the Minister stated
that it was "not a question of poverty whether a parent can
read, or takes their child to the library" and that it was
"more important to raise parental aspirations than incomes."
This is an extraordinary statement by a Government that is intent
on eradicating child poverty. The Government should be aware that
aspiration and a sense of self-worth are directly linked to income.
35. For the moment, however, not enough
is known about the causes of low achievement in the British education
system. Robert Cassen, from the London School of Economics, reports
that current research "yield no clear account of the mechanisms
resulting in low achievement. And no statistical profile exists
of low achievers telling us who and where they are and what are
their circumstances." [80]
At Greatest Risk: the children most likely to be
poor
36. At Greatest Risk confirms that
children who are at greatest risk of being poor are also at greatest
risk of achieving poorly in the education system. Each of the
chapters reveal that severely disadvantaged children have benefited
least from Government initiatives to reduce child povertyincluding
improvements within the education system.
37. We summarise the main findings from
At Greatest Risk below.
(a) Children who are homeless and living
in temporary accommodation or who are living in overcrowded conditions:
Regan and Neuberger discuss the impact that living in temporary
and overcrowded housing has on families' and children's health
and education. They highlight problems that impede the children's
access to education, including living in damp, cold, inadequate
accommodationwhich has a negative impact on children's
health and undermines their ability to attend school or studyand
the lack of space to study or do homework. They conclude that
"Frequent moving and disruption makes it difficult for children
to keep school places, maintain attendance and do well at school."
They refer to a Shelter research project in which children "described
problems moving homes and schools, making new friends and being
bullied." [81]
(b) Young people leaving care: Stein confirms
that Cared for Children are "one of the most disadvantaged
groups of young people in society" He reveals that "young
people leaving care have lower levels of educational attainment
at 16 and 18 and lower post-16 participation rates than young
people in the general population. Although there has been "a
slow but steady improvement . . . just 8% of young people in Year
11 in England who had spent at least one year in care gained five
or more GCSEs, compared with half of all young people. In the
same year almost half had no qualifications at GCSE level. Of
Year 11 pupils who had been in care for one year or more, 42%
did not sit GCSEs or GNVQs, compared to just 4% of all children."
[82]
Stein emphasises that "care leavers are less likely to be
engaged in post-16 education, employment and training than other
young people aged 16-19 in the population, having between 2 and
2.5 the unemployment rate for young people in the same age group."
[83]
(c) Children from Traveller and Gypsy: Cemlyn
and Clark confirm that these children are "most at risk in
the education system . . . at least half of all Gypsy and Traveller
children in England and Wales drop out of school between Key Stages
1 and 4 . . . Contributory factors include racist harassment or
bullying and a failure of schools to address it effectively; excessive
exclusions from school, sometimes arising out of Travellers' responses
to racist incidents; and self-exclusions that may be a response
to hostility or other problems." Despite some improvements
the authors conclude that "there is a continuing failure
to provide an inclusive environment and an appropriate curriculum
in which Gypsy and Traveller children's experience, culture and
family based education is validated and built on." [84]
(d) Black and minority ethnic children:
Craig points out that "for most minorities, disadvantage
and discrimination are still built into the system from a very
early age. Despite the fact that each of the main minority ethnic
groups has achieved higher standards than ever before | a report
commissioned by Ofsted found that BME pupils are disadvantaged
systematically by the education system." Craig reports that
"it is not simply the result of educational disadvantage
associated with poverty, but of the "impact of policies,
practice and procedures within schools and the wider educational
system". He attributes the fundamental lack of understanding
about cumulative disadvantage "in part to the failure to
engage in effective ethnic monitoring." He emphasises that
"minority ethnic pupils, and particularly those at schools
where they are in a significant minority, suffer the effects of
continuing racism from other pupils, and that teachers in the
latter schools had had little or no training for dealing with
issues raised by multicultural school populations . . . there
is nothing culturally or educationally specific to any one group
which dooms them always to fail in educational terms."
(e) Disabled children and children with
special educational needs: Northway reports that disabled children
"are more likely than their non-disabled peers to live in
poverty . . . Those who live in lone-parent families and those
from black and minority ethnic families are at particular risk.
Families of disabled children may thus also experience other factors
which increase vulnerability to poverty." She emphasises
that "Poverty can also be seen as a cause of poverty."
The particular problems these children face within the educational
system are reflected in the high level of unemployment amongst
disabled adults, many of who have few or no qualifications.
(f) Children with disabled parents: Stickland
and Olsen express astonishment that "given the strength of
the association between disability, worklessness and child poverty,
that the place of disabled parents in debates about child poverty,
and in strategies and policies designed to challenge it, has been
so weak . . . With 17% of children having at least one disabled
parent, it is impossible to ignore the sheer scale of this group.
(g) Asylum seeker families: Fitzpatrick
outlines the many disadvantages asylum seeker families face which
have resulted from an increasingly punitive attitude which have
reduced their rights in employment, health services, income and
housing. Access to education is clearly of paramount importance
for children who have experienced severe disruption and distress.
There is nothing in the Education White Paper which considers
the needs of a group of children whoif they remain in the
UKneed to benefit from our education system.
38. We believe that policy aimed at reducing
child poverty should be driven by the needs of the poorest children.
At Greatest Risk exposes universal conclusions which are
directly applicable to the educational arena.
Overlapping disadvantage. Particular
groups in the population are demonstrably more disadvantaged than
others, but within such groups there is a significant proportion
for whom one characteristic associated with disadvantage is compounded
by others.
Inadequate data to track disadvantage.
The data to track progress of policy for some of the poorest children
is inadequate. New material deprivation data being collected by
the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) offers significant
opportunities to improve knowledge of policy impact.
Unequal gain from anti-poverty policies.
Policiesthough reducing poverty overallhave improved
the position of those who are easiest to help: there has been
unequal gain. Policy solutions need to address the needs of all
children.
An adequate safety net. Parents who
are not in paid work, and who are therefore most at risk of poverty,
need an adequate disposable incomemade up of Income Support,
Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. And yet Income Support has
long been overlooked by policy makers. Eradicating child poverty
requires a financial safety net of at least the value of the poverty
line.
SECTION TWO
Higher Standards, Better Schools for all: more
choice for parents and pupils?
The following two quotes appear in the foreword
to the Education White Paper.
"We must put parents in the driving seat
for change in all-ability schools that retain the comprehensive
principle of non-selection, but operate very differently from
the traditional comprehensive" (Tony Blair MP, The Prime
Minister)
"There is too little choice and standards
are not yet high enough . . . we must deliver for all children,
but particularly for those whose family background is most challenging"
(Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Education)
In the following section CPAG responds to those
aspects of the Education White Paper which are relevant to the
child poverty agenda. Although we believe the needs of children
should come first, in the Education White Paper the needs of parents
is placed at the forefront of the strategy, and the structural
changes emanate from this focus. The first part of this section
will discuss the proposed increase in parental choice. The second
part addresses the proposed structural changes. The third part
considers those aspects of the White Paper that have particular
relevance for disadvantaged children. We outlined our main concerns
at the end of each section.
Parentsincreasing choice?
"Our vision is to create a schools system
shaped by parents which delivers excellence and equity . . . one
that will empower parents and give schools the freedom and incentives
to focus on the individual needs of every child. To respond to
parental demand, we need to expand choice, create real diversity
in provision, and to ensure that the benefits of choice are available
to all . . ." (para 1.29)
39. The Government want to create an educational
system that is "driven by the success, needs and aspirations
of parents and pupils." (para 1.16) The White Paper is peppered
with hopeful statements like "parents | have high aspirations
for their children . . . The most powerful influence on a child's
learning and progress is the support and commitment they receive
from their parents." (para 5.1); "This will be a system
driven by parents doing their best for their children" (para
1.35); and "fully engaged with their child's learning"
40. The Education White Paper also considers
the particular needs of disadvantaged families, stating, for example,
that "we must raise standards for allespecially amongst
the least advantaged." (para 1.8) and "do much better
for those from less well-off families, who do not have such confidence,
resources or options" (para 1.22)
41. There are a number of positive proposals
in the Education White Paper. However many could be implemented
within the system as it stands:
the provision of "Better information
for parents" provided on the internet (including a national
website on schools) and the directive that local authorities "improve
the independent information" to parents who do not have a
computer;
the provision of "materials
for parents to use at home to support their child's learning and
study skills, with specific activities designed to support . .
. catch-up activities . . ." (para 5.12);
the establishment of Parent Councils
to provide "a forum for parents to express their views and
influence the running of their schools";
the appointment of a school Commissioner
who will "work with both national organisations and local
community and parental organisations, particularly those in disadvantaged
areas" (para 2.22) and will "challenge local authorities
to work together to maximise choice, diversity and fair access"
(para 2.24)
the establishment "a network
of choice adviserspeople based within the community who
can offer independent, unbiased advice and raise the interest,
expectations and aspirations of those who may not previously have
felt they have any real choice." (para 3.12)
the appointment, when a school is
failing, of a "suitably experienced person to act as a `Parents'
championto help parents understand the nature of the problems
at their school and the options available to address themand
then to represent their interests and help them contribute to
planning the future of their children's education."
However, CPAG does have a number of reservations
about the underlying ethos of parental choice, which we outline
below:
We are concerned that an increase
in "parent power" will do little for children who do
not have powerful parents to support them.
The Government accepts that "The
greatest denial of parental choice is when the schools that are
on offer are simply not good enough. We want every school to be
a good school: parents should expect no less" (para 2.49).
Most parents want their children to be educated in a good local
school. They may not want greater choice.
Parents are by no means a homogenous
group, and may well disagree about what would best suit their
children. Problems with "parent power" were illustrated
in Kent where a parental campaign to abolish grammar schools (Stop
the Eleven Plusor STEP) clashed with the pressure group
Parents Alliance for Choice in EducationPACE which was
determined to retain them. On the one hand STEP argued that grammar
schools created secondary modern schools which "have been
classified as being in need of much improvement and it is to these
weak schools that we send the majority of our most disadvantaged
childrena recipe for despair." On the other, PACE,
claimed that "| it's been proven over the years that selection
is what parents want."
More affluent parents are already
"in the driving seat". We are concerned that when parents
do not agree about what is needed, the more powerful parents will
win the argumentas they did in Kent.
Equality and diversity: Although
the White Paper stipulates that "Secondary schools will also
be required to make arrangements for `hard to place' pupils, ensuring
that no school takes an unreasonable share of children with challenging
behaviour, including pupils who have been excluded from other
schools." (para 7.20) we are concerned that giving parents
more power and schools greater autonomy may increase the number
of exclusions and "parental orders." Parents want to
do the best for their children, first and foremost, and not all
children, this has ramifications for other people's children.
We are concerned that the commitment
to "consult parents on specific issues . . . such as uniform,
school meals or changes to the curriculum." (para 5.20) may
enable parents who espouse a more selective attitude to education
to impose an agenda that has a negative impact on poorer children.
On 7 November The Independent reported that Schools "use
expensive uniforms to deter poor", and argued that "The
pressure to succeed in league tables has pushed primary schools
to adopt the tactics used by some secondary schools to try and
boost their intake of bright children from wealthier backgrounds
and limit the number of pupils who seem likely to struggle."
[85]
The Education White Paper may exacerbate such tendencies.
Better-off children report high levels
of stress when trooping around prospective schools, and disappointment
when they fail to fulfil their parents" or their own expectations
and get into the "right" school. Problems with choice
might be magnified for disadvantaged children whose lives may
be fragmented and precarious: they need the reassurance of knowing
which school they will be going to. Disadvantaged parents who
may already be struggling to cope may not be able to engage in
what is a demanding and rigorous process.
The Government accepts that disadvantaged
parents and children may not experience much in the way of success
and may have limited or low aspirations. How can parents who are
struggling to make ends meet and may be experiencing additional
problems associated with poverty such as poor housing, ill health,
stigma and social exclusion be expected to drive the success of
schools?
The Education White Paper emphasises
"We will expect parents to take responsibility for excluded
pupils in the first five days of an exclusion . . . and will introduce
a new offence, with fines for parents if excluded pupils are found
in a public place during school hours" (para 7.13) And "Parents
will be more strongly discouraged from condoning truancy, through
greater use of fines . . ." (para 7.33) We are concerned
that children with "good" parents with fewer problems
will be rewarded with opportunities to influence their child's
education while supposedly "bad" parents with complex
needs will end up being penalisedor possibly even finedthereby
sapping already inadequate incomes. This is divisive and unjust
and will do little for their child's education, and nothing to
reduce inequality.
Although the Government accepts that
many families, particularly in the least well-off communities,
have no internet access at home and rely on written word and word
of mouth information (para 3.10) inequalities will inevitably
be exacerbated in a system in which parents with access to the
internet are "armed with information" and others are
not.
The Commissioner could and should
play a role in the existing educational system, and ensure that
the voice and needs of families in disadvantaged areas, or disadvantaged
children in more affluent areas, are strongly represented within
the current education system.
It is imperative that choice advisers
provide a high quality holistic service to families who up to
now have found it difficult to access information and support.
Choice advisers should link in with other sources of advice and
supportfor example about housing, health services and benefits.
The provision of a network of choice advisers provides an excellent
opportunity to identify the barriers families face to a number
of services, including educational provision. Advice and support
must be monitored to ensure that the families who are most in
need of advice receive it.
We are concerned that parents from
disadvantaged backgrounds are unlikely to be recruited to Parents'
Councils, or may not have the skills or confidence to represent
their children's interests. This could result in discrimination
against parents from more diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds.
We are concerned that the right to
demand a new school is unlikely to be utilised by the most disadvantaged
parents.
Although the Education White Paper
emphasises the important role that parents play in supporting
their children's education, research indicates that there are
limits on the extent to which parental involvement in their child's
education can offset economic disadvantage. Better-off children
generally do better than poor children, irrespective of their
cognitive developmental levels or parental involvement. [86]
Structural changes
A diversity of school providers?
42. The Government is keen to give schools
"the freedom to tailor the way they manage themselves, and
the teaching and support they offer, to the needs and talents
of individual pupils and their parents." (para 1.19) and
is seeking to establish "a diversity of school providers
. . . educational charities, faith groups, parents and community
groups and other not-for-profit providers to run schools"
(para 1.30).
43. The evidence that the changes outlined
in the Education White Paper will significantly improve outcome
for the most disadvantaged children is limited. CPAG's has serious
reservations about the proposed structural changes which we suspect
may be of least benefit to disadvantaged children who are most
at risk of being poor and experiencing educational failure. We
summarise our concerns below:
44. Academies: Recent reports that academies
are "turning their back on poor pupils and `cherry picking'
more able children from middle-class families"[87]
and "expelling significantly higher numbers of pupils than
other schools"[88]
are very worrying. A recent evaluation of the Government's £386
million Excellence in Cities scheme reports that attainment
at GCSE had not improved because youngsters were not entering
secondary school "with the appropriate skills and attitudes".[89]
The impact of Academies on improving educational outcomes for
disadvantaged children from different and sometimes overlapping
groups must be closely monitored. Improvements to early years
education is an essential prerequisite for improving outcomes
for disadvantaged children at secondary school.
45. The Sutton Trust recently published
research which indicates that the overall rate of free school
meal (FSM) eligibility at the top schools is 3.0% compared with
a national secondary school average of 14.3%. The findings also
indicate that the top schools do not reflect the social make up
of their immediate areas; even when disadvantaged children live
near a good school, they are not necessarily getting a place.
The researchers conclude that "the admissions system is not
operating equitably and is in need of review, and that more needs
to be done to raise standards earlier down the educational change.
The unevenness of the state school system serves to exacerbate
existing inequalities, and we see its consequences in the under-representation
of those from lower social classes and poorer areas in higher
education, particularly the leading universities." [90]
46. The Education White Paper reports that
some schools already use a system of banding whereby "schools
offer places based either on the range of abilities of applicants,
or on the local or national ability range, to achieve an all-ability
intake." (para 3.23) We welcome the idea of banding which
should ensure that schools cater for children with differing abilities
from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds.
47. Trust schools: Given that poorer schools
tend to be in poorer areas, they are unlikely to have the sort
of dynamic leadership and parent power that will lead to creation
of a Trust School. This may exacerbate inequalities within the
educational system. Considerable anxiety has been expressed about
whether the new system willas promisedbe "underpinned
by fair admissions." (para 3.19) David Chaytor MP has warned
that moves to create self governing trusts "would easily
lead down a road which would take Britain into having the most
stratified and segregated system of secondary education in Europe."
[91]
48. New schools: Parents in disadvantaged
areas that may well be calling out for better local provision
are the least likely to be in a position to organise the establishment
of a new school. CPAG believes that the need for a new school
or additional provision should be identified by the local authority.
Although this process could be carried out in consultation with
children, parents and schools, the choice should not be made by
groups of parents who may well have differing priorities and perspectives.
49. Local authorities: will become "strategic
leaders . . . (who) act as the commissioners of services and the
champions of users" (para 9.1). 9.3 "We will support
local authorities in playing a new commissioning role in relation
to a new school system, at the heart of their local communities,
and responsive to the needs of parents and pupils. They will support
new schools and new provision where there is a real demand or
where existing provision is poor. This is a very different role
from acting as a direct provider of school places." (para
9.3) We believe that it should be the responsibility of central
and local government, and not of parents, to oversee educational
provision and ensure that it meets the needs of all children.
50. Extended schools: We welcome the statement
in the Education White Paper that "local authorities, schools,
parents and the private and voluntary sectors will need to work
together to plan and develop services in each community, which
seek to take account of the problems children and young people
from workless and low income families may have in taking part
in activities that are charged for." (para 6.12) Howeveras
discussed in our response to the Ten Year Childcare Strategy (which
can be downloaded from www.cpag.org.uk)the Government should
clarify which services will provided free of charge to all children,
and which ones will expect some financial contribution from parents.
The provision of additional activities must be monitored to ensure
that disadvantaged children can access them freely and without
stigma.
51. Free transport: Although we welcome
the provision of free transport to enable children to access additional
activities, we have concerns about children being "bussed"
to better schools outside their local community. There is the
potential stigma of arriving in a school bus when other children
are being dropped off by parents in their car. We are concerned
that families who are reluctant to identify their child as poor
may incur additional costs as a consequence of the need for transport.
Smart cards could reduce the possibility of stigma and should
be used to this effect.
52. The White Paper raises issues around
"Transfer and transition" reporting that transition
from one phase to another, and from one school to another can
be particularly challenging. This is most pronounced when pupils
transfer from primary to secondary school and can be particularly
difficult for children who join a school outside the normal entryfor
example because they have moved house, they are from a Gypsy or
Traveller background, or they are Service children. (4.47) We
are concerned that bussing children to different schools might
render such transitions more stressful and difficult.
Improving standards for all children?
"Breaking cycles of underachievement, low
aspiration and educational underperformance is vital for our economic
future. We must ensure that all children have the same chance
in lifewith success based on hard work and merit, not wealth
or family background." (para 1.28)
53. A number of new and existing initiatives
are outlined in the drive to improve standards for the most disadvantaged
children. Many of these proposals (for example personalised learning
and catch up classes for children who are falling behind) are
already in existence. They do not necessitate major changes to
the structure of the educational system, but do require additional
resources and improvements in training.
54. We are pleased that the Education White
Paper does consider the needs of some of the children who are
at greatest risk of poverty.
BME communities: the Education White
Paper highlights concerns that "Young Afro-Caribbean people
and those from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds are amongst
the lowest achieving pupils in our schools" (para 4.28) and
"the over representation of black pupils in exclusion figures."
(7.18)
It acknowledges that "Looked
After Children" . . . remain one of the most disadvantaged
groups in our society . . ." (para 6.24)
It recognises "the severe underperformance
in Gypsy and Traveller communities, and will introduce a targeted
programme to address this issue." (para 4.30).
It highlights the needs of Pupils
with Behavioural, Emotional and Social Disorders and reports that
"a disproportionate number of special schools catering for
children with behavioural, emotional and social disorders"
are failing (2.56).
55. The Education White Paper contains some
welcome recommendationsfor example the commitment to "ensure
that every school receives advice and support to meet the aspirations
of BME parents and pupils . . . expand . . . programmes to target
underachievement of young black people; and focus on driving up
the attainment of Muslim pupils." (para 4.30) and to "work
with our partners on how we can support more minority ethnic teachers
to become school leaders and ensure mainstream leadership programmes
address issues for black and minority ethnic pupils more centrally"
(para 8.29).
56. Opportunity for all reports that "Disabled
children are more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled
children" (p. 23) and confirms that "Children with special
educational needs are more likely to live in poor circumstances
and there is also evidence that children with special educational
needs from poorer homes do less well in school than those from
wealthier homes." The Education White Paper reports that
"65% of pupils aged 11 who do not attain the expected level
in English, and 55% of those not attaining the expected level
in maths, are identified as having SEN." (para 4.17) Pupils
with special needs and disabilities make up two-thirds of those
expelled from school. [92]
Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of disability, ill health
and special needs, and this need to be addressed.
57. However, specific recommendations regarding
some groups are in short supply. Although children with disabled
parents are particularly vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion,
their needs are not mentioned in the Education White Paper. Nor
does it refer to children who are homeless, or living in temporary
or overcrowded accommodation, or to the children of asylum seekers.
58. The Education White Paper states that
"Children will succeed best when they are healthy, self-confident
and well-motivated" (para 6.1) CPAG believes that families
should have an income that enables them to provide a healthy diet
for their children. Although we welcome improvements to nutritional
standards in school meals, the Government must ensure that children
are able to access theseby ensuring that costs do not become
prohibitive, improving take up and extending entitlement to free
school meals.
CONCLUSION
59. The Government and local authorities
are responsible for the successor otherwiseof the
education system. The provision of good schools in all areas is
more important than the extension of "choice" which
tacitly accepts that that some schoolsthe majority of which
are in disadvantaged areaswill inevitably continue to be
bad.
60. It is unacceptable that "children
who fail to reach expected levels at age 11 are far less likely
to get five or more good GCSEschildren from low income
families (entitled to free school meals) are far more likely to
fall behind in these core subjects." (para 4.9) Although
the impact of low incomes on educational disadvantage is acknowledged,
this is not being adequately addressed within the educational
arena.
61. Educational disadvantage cannot be resolved
without more detailed information about the location and needs
of the families whose children who are failing. CPAG warmly welcomes
the proposal in the Education White Paper that a single School
Improvement Partner (SIP) "will be equipped with new data
that will pinpoint pupils or groups of pupils (for example those
from particular minority ethnic groups or middle ability boys)
who are making less than expected progress . . . they will then
work with their schools, assisting them to put in place plans
for improvement." (para 2.63) However, such a process should
precede reform of the educational system as a whole.
62. There is compelling evidence that early
interventions may redress later disadvantages. The link between
poverty and underachievement from the very earliest stages in
a child's life must be addressed. It is cheaper and more effective
to pre-empt social and educational problems than resolve them.
Investment in early years education and ensuring that families
with young children have an adequate income must be a priority.
63. The Government should ensure that all
schools are good by investing in training, reducing class size,
implementing programmes that it knows workssuch as Reading
Recovery. [93]
Such measures need to be complemented by a raft of measures that
would reduce inequalities and disadvantage, such as improving
financial support for families, ensuring take up of benefits and
investing in housing.
64. The Government aims to provide "more
good places and more good schools" and to "ensure that
the process for deciding who secures a place is open and fairand
that the less affluent are not disadvantaged. We will continue
to ensure that priority is also given for the most vulnerable
groups such as children in care (Looked After Children) and those
with Special Educational Needs" These aspirations could be
fulfilled without implementing major structural changes.
65. It is essential that changes to the
structure of schools and local education authorities improve educational
outcomes for the UK's most disadvantaged children. Education is
part of a continuum, and it is important that the Every Child
Matters agenda inform educational provision. Although local
authorities are required to consult with and represent disadvantaged
families to ensure that both childcare and educational provision
reflect their needs, we are concerned that they may come to be
viewed as the champions of more affluent parents in education,
and the champions of working parents in childcare.
66. There is a big difference between involving
parents in their child's education, consulting them about how
they would like things to improve, and making them responsible
for improvements to the education system. Parents cannot and should
not be made responsible for the quality of their child's education.
Educational standards are the responsibility of central and local
government.
67. The Government should consult with childrenparticularly
children from disadvantaged backgroundsabout what changes
they would like to see within the educational system. Would children
rather move to schools in better areas, or do they want to stay
within their own community? Do they want more choice in education,
or the reassurance of knowing which school they and their friends
are likely to attend? Do they think their parents should make
choices about their education, or would they rather choose for
themselves?
68. Much more needs to be done to ensure
that the admissions system does not continue to disadvantage children
from poorer backgrounds. Although the introduction of "value
added" league tables may help, parents who have choice may
still prefer schools with fewer disadvantaged children. Ensuring
that all schools are of high quality, irrespective of their intake
or area, would obviate the need for the often tortured and competitive
exercise of parental choice.
69. CPAG does not believe that prioritising
parental choice (or implementing sanctions and penalties for parents
who fail to take "responsibility" for their child's
behaviour) rather than children's socio-economic needs, will raise
educational standards. We urge the government to implement an
educational strategy which engages with the complexity of poverty.
70. We are worried that parents with the
loudest voiceswho are usually from more affluent backgroundswill
inevitably and understandably generate a selective, short-term
perspective that focuses on the needs of their own children. Who
will provide the long-term, demographic overview of educational
needs?
71. We endorse any strategy that encourages
services providers to "reach out to parents", however,
significant additional resources are needed to ensure that such
a service is effective. It should be linked up with other service
provision that impacts upon a child's educational achievement
level including benefit advice.
ABOUT CPAG
CPAG is the leading charity campaigning for
the abolition of poverty among children and young people in the
UK and for the improvement of the lives of low income families.
CPAG aims to: raise awareness of the extent, nature and impact
of poverty; bring about positive income policy changes for families
with children in poverty; and enable those eligible for benefits
and tax credits to have access to their full entitlement.
November 2005
62 "The Children's Statement" delivered
at the opening address of the UN General Assembly's Special Session
on Children, 8 May, 2002, reported in A World Fit for Children
Millennium Development Goals Special Session on Children's Documents
The Convention on the Rights of the Child. Back
63
G Preston (Editor) At Great Risk: the children most likely to
be poor (CPAG, 2005). Back
64
See G Preston (ed) At Greatest Risk. Back
65
See DWP, Opportunity for all: Seventh annual report
2005, p. 149. Back
66
Social Exclusion Unit, Breaking the Cycle: taking stock of progress
and priorities for the future Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
2004, p. 10. Back
67
Jo Sparkes, Schools, Education and Social Exclusion, CASEbrief12,
November 1999. Back
68
See Opportunity for all Indicators if progress, "An
increase in the proportion of 16-year-olds with at least five
GCSEs at grades A*-C, and in all schools with at least 20% to
reach this standard by 2004, rising to 25% by 2006, p161. Back
69
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion,
2004. Back
70
DfES (2002) Education and Skills: investment for Reform, p. 9-quoted
in End Child Poverty (ECP) briefing, Child Poverty and Education,
2004. Back
71
David Miliband, (2003) speech given by the School Standards Minister
at the NASUWT/NUT conference on learning or Leaning? London 30
January 2003-quoted ECP briefing, Child poverty and education. Back
72
Opportunity for all (seventh edition, p. 149). Back
73
J Blanden, P Gregg, Paul, and S Machin. Intergenerational
Mobility in Europe and North America (Centre for Economic
Performance, London School of Economics, a report supported by
the Sutton Trust, 2005). Back
74
JRF Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2004, findings D14. Back
75
"The Children's Statement" delivered at the opening
address of the UN General Assembly's Special Session on Children,
8 May 2002, reported in A World Fit for Children Millennium Development
Goals Special Session on Children's Documents The Convention on
the Rights of the Child. Back
76
Citizens Advice-The cost of a free education. The full
briefing can be downloaded from: www.cpag.org.uk/campaigns/cost-of-free-education-briefing.pdf Back
77
T Brunwin, S Clemens, G Deakins and E Mortimer The Cost of
Schooling (BMRB Social Research, 2004). Back
78
Ridge T (2003) "Listening to children: developing a child
centred approach to childhood poverty in the UK" in Family
Matters No. 65 Winter 2003, quoted in The cost of a free education
briefing. Back
79
Equity and Excellence: Education and Social Mobility a
keynote speech by Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for
Education and Skills, hosted by IPPR 26 July 2005. Back
80
R Cassen is undertaking research as part of the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation project on into "education and poverty: Questioning
assumptions of current UK educational policy". Back
81
S Regan and J Neuberger "Children in acute housing need"
in G Preston (ed) At Greatest Risk p 54-55. Back
82
Social Exclusion Unit, A Better Education for Children in
Care, The Stationery Office, 2003. Back
83
M Stein, "Young people leaving care: poverty across the
life course" in At Greatest Risk, pp167-169. Back
84
S Cemlyn and C Clark "The social exclusion of Gypsy and
Traveller children", At Greatest Risk, p156. Back
85
Sarah Cassidy, "Schools use expensive uniforms to deter
poor" in The Independent, 7 November 2005. Back
86
See, for example, D Hango, Parental Investment in Childhood and
Later Adult Well-being: Can More Involved Parents Offset the Effects
of Socioeconomic Disadvantage? (CASEpaper 98, May 2005). This
report found a variable impact on socio-economic disadvantages
for children aged 7, 11 and 16 of the involvement of mothers and
of fathers. The author reports that although parental "can
reduce the harmful effect of childhood poverty . . . parental
involvement was not sufficient to completely cancel the negative
association between poverty and educatation: instead it acted
as a "partial mediator", p 14. Back
87
M Taylor, "City academies accused of deserting poor"
in The Guardian, 31 October, 2005. Back
88
BBC news, "City academies in one of the most deprived areas
of Britain are expelling significantly higher numbers of children
than other schools", 23 November 2004 reporting on research
undertaken by Professor Stephen Gorard of York University. Back
89
See The Guardian 25 November 2005 which reports that "attainment
at GCSE had not improved because youngsters were not entering
secondary school with the appropriate skills and attitudes". Back
90
Rates of Eligibility for Free School Meals at the Top State Schools,
(Sutton Trust, October 2005). Back
91
"School reform threatens to bring admissions chaos, warn
Labour MPs" (Guardian, November 16 2005, Patrick Wintour
and Rebecca Smithers). In a debate. Back
92
See The Advisor Centre for Education (ACE) response to
the Government White Paper reported by ePolitix Back
93
The Reading Recovery National Literacy scheme was launched in
1998. Research carried out by Dr Jane Hurry and Professor Kathy
Sylva in 1997 indicated that "Reading Recovery provides significant
long-term benefits", Institute of Education, 24 September
1997. In April 2000, the 10th anniversary of the Reading Recovery
Programme, education experts and schools confirmed that Reading
Recovery (an intensive one-to-one programme for children with
serious reading and writing problems) "yields spectacular
results". Government funding for the programme was withdrawn
in 1995. The scheme is very expensive (nearly £1,000 per
pupil not including cost of training teachers) but "headteachers
who have used feel it provides excellent value for money, as an
early investment that pays off" (see National Literacy Trust
website). The Government is currently piloting Reading Recovery
schemes. Back
|