House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence

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 poverty—including 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 schools—the majority of which are in disadvantaged areas—will 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 choice—which they certainly are—but 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 poverty—including 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 areas—The Education White Paper reports that " . . . there are some communities—often in our most disadvantaged areas—where 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

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 birth—and 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:

27. Opportunity for all reveals "evidence that poorer children fared worse at school than their more affluent counterparts—and 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, and—increasingly—extra curricula activities that may be provided as an integral part of the extended school agenda—has 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:

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 poverty—including improvements within the education system.

37. We summarise the main findings from At Greatest Risk below.

(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 who—if they remain in the UK—need 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. Policies—though reducing poverty overall—have 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 income—made 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.

Parents—increasing 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 all—especially 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 advisers—people 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' champion—to help parents understand the nature of the problems at their school and the options available to address them—and 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 Plus—or STEP) clashed with the pressure group Parents Alliance for Choice in Education—PACE 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 children—a 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 argument—as 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.

The Independent

— 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 penalised—or possibly even fined—thereby 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 support—for 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.

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 will—as promised—be "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) However—as 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 entry—for 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 life—with 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 recommendations—for 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 these—by 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 success—or otherwise—of 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 schools—the majority of which are in disadvantaged areas—will 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 GCSEs—children 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 works—such 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 fair—and 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 children—particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds—about 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 voices—who are usually from more affluent backgrounds—will 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