House of Commons - Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children

Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children - Education Committee Contents

4 Addressing the problem

Accountability

79. The headline accountability measure for schools is currently the proportion of children achieving a benchmark at key stage 2 or key stage 4.[123] We have argued previously that this encourages schools to focus on pupils at the borderline of this threshold—the C/D candidates at GCSE level—rather than seek to improve the performance of all pupils.[124] From late 2016, the "Progress 8" measure will be introduced as the floor standard, "measuring students' progress measured across eight subjects: English; mathematics; three other English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subjects (sciences, computer science, geography, history and languages); and three further subjects, which can be from the range of EBacc subjects, or can be any other approved, high-value arts, academic, or vocational qualification".[125] We welcome this change, and believe that it will be beneficial to all pupils—including white working class children.

80. Ofsted told us that "It is now harder for schools to be judged good or outstanding where the achievement of disadvantaged pupils is below that of other pupils".[126] This is also to be welcomed.

"Closing the gap"

The Pupil Premium

81. The pupil premium is additional funding given to publicly funded schools in England "to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils and close the gap between them and their peers".[127] Introduced in 2011, the funding is available to both mainstream and non-mainstream schools, such as special schools and pupil referral units. Since 2012 it has been paid to schools according to the number of pupils who have:

· registered as eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years ('Ever-6 FSM')

· been in care for 6 months or longer[128]

In the 2013/14 financial year, schools receive £953 for each eligible primary-aged pupil and £900 for each eligible secondary-aged pupil. "Ever-6 FSM" covers 1.83 million pupils.[129] In addition, the Government has recently announced a prize fund of £4m to be awarded to schools that best improve the performance of their disadvantaged pupils.[130]

82. The question of how well the pupil premium is performing for disadvantaged children was explored by the think tank Demos, which found that in 72 out of 152 local authorities in England the free school meals attainment gap at GCSE level widened in 2012/13, and that in 66 areas the gap was wider than when the pupil premium was introduced.[131] In a letter to the Guardian, Professor Becky Francis, Dr John Dunford and Dr Kevan Collins described a brighter picture at primary level, with the gap closing by 3 percentage points at Key Stage 2 between 2011 and 2012.[132] We asked the Minister for his views on the evidence for the impact of the pupil premium. He told us:

133

83. The Minister also told us that the pupil premium would be the appropriate source of funding for parental engagement activity:

134

135

84. Nevertheless, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission suggests that "nearly two-thirds of students not getting English and maths GCSE at grades A*-C are ineligible for the pupil premium […] Schools should have some flexibility to use the pupil premium for disadvantaged students and for low attainers".[136]

85. We welcome the introduction of the pupil premium and the recent announcement of its extension to early years. The Government should continue to monitor the impact of this policy.

86. Ofsted produced a report in February 2013 on the way in which the pupil premium was being used by schools, based on visits to 68 primary and secondary schools.[137]

87. We welcome Ofsted's 2013 report on the use of the pupil premium and recommend that a similar report be produced annually to highlight how effective schools are in using this money, focusing on the impact and highlighting case studies of schools where the greatest progress is being achieved.

OTHER DISADVANTAGE FUNDING

88. The Minister emphasised that in excess of £6 billion was being spent on deprivation funding in schools, only £2.5 billion of which was the pupil premium. The other funding, distributed by local authorities, was based on IDACI measures of deprivation and low prior attainment, and thus included children who were not eligible for free school meals or the pupil premium but were still underachieving.[138] The Minister argued that the apparent cliff-edge of eligibility for the pupil premium was softened by the use of these measures,[139] but he was willing to consider whether other methods should be used to target money in the future:

140

89. We were particularly interested to learn during our visit to the Netherlands, as part of our Sure Start inquiry, that the level of parental qualifications was used as a means of targeting additional funding for disadvantaged pupils. The Minister told us that he was "perfectly open and perfectly interested in commissioning work on whether there are other characteristics of pupils [that should be used to target disadvantage funding] […] We have, so far, distributed money in the most rational way open to us based on the evidence. It would be useful to go on looking at that evidence and trying to improve the system".[141]

90. We welcome the Minister's willingness to investigate whether other measures of disadvantage may be more appropriate for allocating disadvantage funding and tracking the performance of disadvantaged groups. The Government should move quickly to do this.

THE EEF TOOLKIT

91. Joint written evidence from the Sutton Trust and the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) highlighted the 'EEF toolkit'[142] as a way of schools assessing the effectiveness of interventions. The toolkit is a synthesis of over 8,000 research studies which identifies high-impact techniques such as improving the quality of feedback to pupils and the use of collaborative learning to raise attainment.[143] The Toolkit currently covers 33 topics, each summarised in terms of their average impact on attainment, the strength of the evidence supporting them and their cost. According to the National Foundation for Education Research (NFER), 36% of school leaders say that their school uses the toolkit to help decide how to use pupil premium funding, with 67% using either the toolkit or some other kind of research evidence.[144]

92. We see the EEF Toolkit as a positive development which will help schools to make informed decisions about how to make best use of pupil premium funding. This will be particularly important to support the roll-out of the pupil premium to early years settings.

Tackling regional variation

A national strategy versus area-based responses

93. Despite the existence in the past of a range of targeted strategies for tackling ethnic minority underachievement, relatively few of our witnesses called for a specific national strategy for addressing white working class underachievement. The Minister argued that:

145

Teach First supported this view: "[...] White working class children are not a homogenous group. The challenges they face vary greatly and are often driven by geographical and economic factors, rather than ethnicity".[146] Buckinghamshire County Council suggested that "The impact of relative deprivation by comparison with the community you live with is distinct from being a member of a community where a larger number are from a similar social and economic context".[147] The Minister told us that he was "[…] not particularly in favour of devising all sorts of different strategies for different ethnic groups", but that

148

REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

94. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission noted that the performance of poor white pupils in London was much better than in other parts of the country, and that "London is proving that deprivation need not be destiny":[149]

150

95. Some witnesses attributed the recent improvement in the performance of children in London to the "London Challenge". This programme was established in 2003 to tackle underperformance in London secondary schools. Primary schools were included in 2008. Ofsted reported on the scheme in 2010, noting that secondary schools in London had improved at a faster rate than the rest of the country in terms of examination results.[151] The model was extended in 2008 to The City Challenge, which included programmes in Manchester and the Black Country.[152] The more generalised 'National Challenge' programme was also introduced by the then Government in 2008 to all English secondary schools whose standards were below the floor target.[153]

96. Ofsted noted that the eight-year time span for the London Challenge was important: "It had sufficient time to make a real impact. It is crucial that any future area-based strategies are not seen as quick fix solutions to complex problems. Along with high levels of accountability, such approaches must be given time to implement change and bring about sustainable improvements".[154] Total funding for the City Challenge was approximately £160m: £28m for the Black Country, £50m for Manchester and £80m for London.[155] Professor Gorard emphasised the importance of suitable funding for any such approach: "The London Challenge was set up in an era of relative economic prosperity and was reasonably well-funded. In addition to any activities or changes, schools got extra money. It is not reasonable to expect other and poorer parts of England, such as the North East, to achieve the same without the same funding".[156]

97. Ofsted noted in Unseen Children that "area-based initiatives are often successful in stimulating local activity and are viewed positively by teachers and parents. However, it is less clear whether they offer good value for money or are accessed fully by the most disadvantaged pupils".[157] The report notes that the London Challenge is a notable exception to this.

98. We heard some evidence which was more sceptical about whether the improvements in London's performance should be attributed to the London Challenge. Professor Gorard told us that the London Challenge was "one possible explanation", but that

158

99. The improvements in London's educational performance suggest that the problem of white working class underachievement in education can be tackled. In determining future policy in this area the Government must carefully assess what positive impact the London Challenge may have had and what its key features were.

SUB-REGIONAL CHALLENGES

100. Sir Michael Wilshaw has recommended the development of sub-regional "challenges", aimed at raising the achievement of disadvantaged pupils,[159] and the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has also recommended this approach.[160] Ofsted explains that "The potential strength of such an approach would lie in the fact that it would allow different areas to set up coherent and well-focused strategies for improvement that take into account the specific needs of a particular locality".[161] We asked the Minister for his views:

162

101. We agree with the Minister that sub-regional challenges risk prioritising one area over another, but would reiterate the importance of school collaboration and cooperation, and the need to encourage this on a local basis.

REGIONAL FUNDING

102. Sir Michael Wilshaw has drawn attention to the fact that the distribution of underachievement has shifted away from big cities and is now most concentrated in "deprived coastal towns and rural, less populous regions of the country".[163] This makes it all the more important that the school funding formula distributes money fairly according to need, and it is disappointing that the Government has not fulfilled its promise of introducing a new national funding formula. The allocation of an additional £350m in 2015 to 2016 for the least fairly funded areas provides a welcome downpayment, but the problem has not been fully addressed.[164] We recognise the political difficulties of redistribution, but the case for reform is overwhelming and the Government must act further. In the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss MP), the Government must "ensure that a future national funding formula properly reflects the costs, such as attracting and retaining high-quality staff in rural areas".[165]

103. Given the changing distribution of educational underachievement across the country, the Government must develop a new funding formula for schools which better matches allocation with need.

Best practice in schools

Ofsted's 2008 good practice report-white boys from low income backgrounds

104. While Ofsted noted that there was a limit to the effect that schools alone can have, its 2008 thematic report identified the following examples of good practice in tackling the underachievement of white boys from low income backgrounds, based on a survey of 20 schools in England:[166]

· Support to develop boys' organisation skills and instill the importance of perseverance; any anti-school subculture 'left at the gates'

· Rigorous monitoring systems that track individual pupils' performance against expectations; realistic but challenging targets; tailored flexible intervention programmes and frequent review of performance against targets

· A curriculum that is tightly structured around individual needs and linked to support programmes that seek to raise aspirations

· Creative and flexible strategies to engage parents and carers, make them feel valued, enable them to give greater support to their boys' education and help them make informed decisions about the future

· Strong partnership with a wide range of agencies to provide social, emotional, educational and practical support for boys and their families in order to raise their aspirations.

105. We welcome Ofsted's recent focus on the issue of economically deprived white children underachieving in education, and its 2008 report on good practice in this area. We recommend that this continues to be a focus for Ofsted, and that an updated good practice report is produced.

PROVIDING SPACE TO COMPLETE HOMEWORK

106. Data from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in Education[167] (LSYPE) includes information on the number of evenings per week young people spend completing homework. Analysis by Professor Steve Strand shows that white British students from low SES homes made the least progress over the course of secondary school, and that the most significant factors in explaining this were the frequency with which young people completed homework, their "academic self-concept" (how good they felt they were at school work), their attendance at school (see paragraph 67), and their educational aspirations (whether they aspired to continue in full-time education after age 16).[168] White British low SES students scored lowest on each of these counts: number of evenings spent doing homework, academic self-concept, and educational aspirations:Table 9: Mean number of evenings per week spent doing homework, by ethnicity, children classified as NS-SEC 6-8 (i.e. "working class")

Ethnic Group Mean number of evenings per week % 3 or more evenings per week

White British 2.54 49.3%

Mixed Heritage 2.60 52.8%

Black Caribbean 2.79 64.6%

Bangladeshi 3.02 65.8%

Pakistani 3.13 68.5%

Black African 3.13 66.8%

Any other group 3.18 67.1%

Indian 3.29 70.4%

Average 52.8%

Source: Strand, S., "Ethnicity, gender, social class and achievement gaps at age 16: intersectionality and 'getting it' for the white working class", Research Papers in Education, Vol 29 Issue 2, 2014Figure 7: Mean number of evenings per week spent doing homework, by ethnicity, children classified as NS-SEC 6-8 ("working class")

Source: Strand, S., "Ethnicity, gender, social class and achievement gaps at age 16: intersectionality and 'getting it' for the white working class", Research Papers in Education, Vol 29 Issue 2, 2014

107. The Association of Colleges noted that poorer students often had nowhere to work at home,[169] and Professor Denis Mongon argued that this was a better explanation than a lack of willingness to work:

170

Owen Jones added that "If you have parents who themselves are professional middle class university-educated people, then they are in a far better position to be able to help with homework".[171]

108. One possible response to this is providing time at the end of the school day for children to complete homework. The EEF Toolkit cites research evidence from the USA which suggests that increasing the length of the school day can add two months' additional progress to pupils' attainment over the course of a year, with pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds benefitting by an additional half a months' progress relative to their peers.[172]

109. The current trend towards longer school days presents an opportunity for schools to provide space and time for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to complete homework, which may particularly benefit white working class children. We recommend that Ofsted publish a best practice report on this subject to provide guidance for schools.

SPREADING GOOD PRACTICE AND SCHOOL COOPERATION

110. Witnesses emphasised that one in seven schools manage to buck the national trend for performance of FSM children.[173] The question therefore is how to spread this good practice. Alex Burghart from the Centre for Social Justice told us that the successful schools "have clearly developed interesting means of working with their pupils and their parents. At the moment, I do not think that we have the mechanisms available to help share the learning that those schools have already developed with other schools that would benefit from it. We should probably start with what is already succeeding in the system".[174] Dr Chris Wood (Her Majesty's Inspector, Ofsted) agreed:

175

111. In our 2013 report on School Cooperation and Partnerships we supported Sir Michael Wilshaw's proposal that an 'Exceptional' rating for headteachers should be introduced to incentivise school collaboration. The Government rejected this recommendation, stating that:

176

The Minister explained:

177

112. Good leadership and school cooperation are critical to school improvement. We warmly welcome the Minister's commitment to encouraging system leadership and look forward to examining the Government's proposals in due course.

Deployment of teachers

The Talented Leaders Programme and National Service

113. Ofsted's Unseen Children report highlights a significant regional variation in the supply of good secondary school leadership in deprived areas:

178

114. A 2008 report for the National College of School Leadership on improving the achievement of white working class children concluded that "more of the best school leaders will need to be encouraged to work in challenging contexts".[179] Written evidence from the Future Leaders Trust supported this view, arguing that "more passionate and outstanding school leaders should be placed in posts where their efforts can have the most impact".[180] The Trust places its leaders in areas with high numbers of white working class students such as Grimsby and the Isle of Wight, and is focusing on expanding further into coastal and rural towns.[181]

115. At the North of England conference in January 2014, the Minister said that "We need a better distribution of high-quality teachers and leaders, and support systems across the country. If not, we risk solidifying social divisions, rather than breaking them down".[182] In that speech he announced a tender exercise to identify the "delivery partner" for the Talented Leaders Programme, which would allow schools in challenging areas to "request a high-performing school leader from a pool of some of our brightest talents". The programme is expected to be launched formally later in 2014, but it has been announced that within its first two years it will match 100 high-quality school leaders to schools which need to improve. The Minister argued that:

183

116. The Government's response to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission's first annual report noted that Teach First will be training 1,500 graduates in 2014 to 2015 and placing them in the most challenging schools, and that as of 2014/15 Teach First will be placing teachers in every region of England.[184]

117. Dr Kevan Collins (Chief Executive, Education Endowment Foundation) noted that "we do not necessarily have incentives to encourage our very best teachers or our best teaching to be supporting the children who are hardest to teach or have the most to learn".[185] We asked the Minister whether he agreed that there were insufficient incentives to tackle this problem, or whether a form of "national service" for teachers was appropriate, as is the case in Shanghai. He told us that:

186

187

118. We explored the specific issue of whether headteachers were placed at significant personal risk to their careers if they take on a failing school, given that they might subsequently be asked to leave if performance did not improve quickly. Ofsted told us that it would not be possible for headteachers to be given a "grace period" unless that was something that was built into the statutory framework.[188] Dr Chris Wood added that:

189

119. In considering this issue we note that "good teaching" can be contextual: while a "good" teacher may perform particularly well in one school environment, it is not obvious that transplanting teachers from one area to another will be effective in itself. Nevertheless, we believe that quality within the system should be encouraged to move towards the areas that need it the most, and that challenging schools need to be able to attract the very best applicants.

120. It is essential that the best teachers and leaders work in the areas that need them the most. The Government should publish an analysis of the incentives that influence where teachers choose to work, and use this to design a system that ensures that the most challenging schools can attract the best teachers and leaders.

DATA ON THE DEPLOYMENT OF NEWLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS (NQTS)

121. Unseen Children notes that there is a lack of data on where the best teachers are based:

190

The Minister told us that the DfE had a project underway that would link teacher data from the school workforce census across years and to other datasets, including on initial teacher training, which would "[...] enable analysis of teacher mobility including movers between posts/grade/schools/location and those leaving the profession".[191]

122. We welcome the Government's plans to enable the analysis of data on teacher mobility, and where newly qualified teachers choose to work; this will allow for better monitoring of the effects of incentives in the system.

Parental engagement

Evidence for the use of this approach

123. Jenny North told us that improving parental involvement and parental behaviour was a "promising" area of intervention, but was cautious about the evidence base for it:

192

A NIACE report on Family Learning argued that engaging the most disadvantaged parents in their children's education, while simultaneously offering them the chance to learn themselves, can improve pupils' attainment by 15 percentage points and improve a child's reading age by six months.[193] Evidence summarised in the Sutton Trust-EEF Toolkit (see below) notes that "higher parental engagement is related with better attainment outcomes, but increasing low parental engagement is challenging".[194]

124. Ofsted produced a short report on Family Learning in 2009 based on themed inspections of 23 local authority providers of family learning and observations of 36 family learning classes on the premises of schools, at Sure Start children's centres and in a library.[195] Ofsted concluded that "Family learning programmes had a considerable impact on the achievements of both children and adults," with the needs of priority groups generally met through well-targeted provision, but "very little provision was available beyond primary education".[196]

125. In 2011 the Department for Education published a review of best practice in parental engagement which encompassed school-home links, support and training for parents, and collaboration with the community.[197] The review stated that "the evidence of the impact of family literacy, language and numeracy programmes on children's academic and learning related outcomes is extensive and robust[...][Literacy and numeracy programmes] can have a positive impact on the most disadvantaged families, including the academic outcomes of the children".[198] Specifically, the Department's review noted that programmes in which parents were trained to listen to their children read produced an effect size of 0.51 (about 4 months of progress), with the largest impacts produced when parents themselves taught specific reading skills to their children, with an effect size of 1.15 (over a year's progress, and over six times more effective than simply encouraging parents to read to their children).[199]

126. The DfE found, however, that there was "little robust evidence on many academic and learning related outcomes, and on many of the specific activities schools and services should undertake in pursuit of the general features of an effective parental engagement strategy".[200] Written evidence from Professor Stephen Gorard explained that while there is a strong association between parental engagement and educational performance, this does not necessarily mean that actions to increase engagement will have the desired result.[201] He explained that:

202

A report for the Nuffield Foundation based on a meta-analysis of studies of parental involvement criticised the quality of evidence for the benefits of enhancing parental engagement.[203] Professor Gorard described a "mixed and far from encouraging picture" of the benefits of this intervention: "[Some studies] have suggested positive outcomes, some no effect, and some that parental involvement interventions may actually harm children's attainment".[204] Professor Gorard concluded that "interventions are most likely to succeed when they are aimed at young children and involve parents and staff meeting regularly in an institution". However:

205

127. The EEF is funding a number of programmes to improve parental engagement, including the Plymouth Parent Partnership, which provides parents with the skills they need to help their child learn to read.[206] Meanwhile, the EEF Toolkit lists parental involvement as being "moderate impact for moderate cost, based on moderate evidence [...] Although parental involvement is consistently associated with pupils' success at school, the evidence about how to increase involvement to improve attainment is much less conclusive. This is particularly the case for disadvantaged families".[207] The Minister told us that:

208

128. In the context of early years education, we recommended in our 2013 Sure Start children's centres report that "research is needed into what kind of engagement with parents in their children's learning in the family home makes the difference in narrowing the gap between the most disadvantaged children and their better-off peers".[209] This is particularly the case now that the pupil premium is to be extended to the early years.[210]The Government's response to this recommendation did not refer to the issue of parental engagement,[211] and we therefore reiterate the need to investigate this.

129. We recommend once again that the Government commission research into what kind of engagement with parents in their children's learning makes the difference in narrowing the gap between the most economically disadvantaged children and their better-off peers, and in particular, identify from specific schools and local authorities examples of best practice that could be shared more widely.

Early Years

130. In our report on children's centres, we noted the "critical importance of early years for future life chances makes this a fundamental test of the Government's seriousness in closing the attainment gap between the most disadvantaged children and their peers".[212] The evidence referred to in paragraph 24 of this report showing the 25 percentage point gap for white British children by the age of 5 underlines the relevance of our previous findings to this group of children. We endorse the new integrated check for 2½ year olds which should enable professionals to identify those children needing additional help and we welcome the expansion of early education for these age groups which should address this need.

131. As with primary and secondary schools, there is an urgent need to ensure that the best teachers and leaders are engaged with the most disadvantaged children. We support the Government's aim of raising the quality of the early years workforce but we remain concerned at the lack of a strategy towards realising the vision of equality between early years teachers and those in schools.

Vocational education

The impact of the Wolf reforms on white working class boys

132. FSM pupils are more likely to study vocational programmes, including those deemed to be 'Wolf-approved' (i.e. counted towards the achievement of the 5 A*-C threshold measure from 2014, as a result of the recommendations in the Wolf report.).[213] In 2012, 56% of white FSM pupils entered one or more Wolf-approved equivalent qualification, compared to 47% of all other pupils (although this pattern is the same for non-white FSM pupils).[214] The Department concluded that "The [Wolf] reforms [are expected to] have a larger impact on white FSM pupils […] almost 5% of white FSM pupils rely on non-Wolf qualifications to achieve the expected level, whereas 3% of all other pupils and just over 4% of all other FSM eligible pupils [do] [...]". The DfE also noted that the reforms will also impact more on white FSM boys than white FSM girls.[215]Table 10: Modelled impact of Wolf recommendations on key stage 4 outcomes, 2012

DfE modeling White FSM All other pupils Total

Number of eligible pupils 54,753 511,937 566,690

Number achieving 5+ A*-C inc E&M 16,948 313,340 330,288

% achieving 5+ A*-C inc E&M 31.0% 61.2% 58.3%

Number achieving 5+ A*-C inc E&M (Wolf) 14,298 296,388 310,686

% 5+ A*-C inc E&M (Wolf) 26.1% 57.9% 54.8%

Difference -2,650 -16,952 -19,602

% Difference -4.8% -3.3% -3.5%

Source: Department for Education (WWC 28) para 55

133. We asked Professor Alison Wolf to comment on this:

216

We consider that vocational education is an important subject that deserves future scrutiny. In particular, a careful balance needs to be struck between ensuring that young people are given access to an academic education while avoiding portraying vocational routes as a second-class option.

WORK-RELATED LEARNING

134. We noted in our 2013 report on Careers Guidance for Young People that the statutory duty for schools to provide work-related learning had been removed in August 2012,[217] and the NUT raised this again in relation to this inquiry: "Such contexts could help young people learn about and for work through the school curriculum, and could assist in particular those young people who come from homes where there is no wage earner or who come from backgrounds where they lack the social networks to learn about work or to be exposed to employment or work experience opportunities".[218] We note that new guidance for schools has been published recently and we look forward to exploring how well this meets the need for guidance on work-related learning.[219]

135. We are encouraged that the Sutton Trust has commissioned work to investigate the quantitative evidence for the effect of careers education and guidance, including analysis by social class, and we look forward to receiving the results in due course.[220]

136. The consequence of low educational attainment is too often "NEET" status—not in education, employment or training. A report for the Employers Federation found that positive relationships exist between the number of employer contacts (such as careers talks or work experience) that a young person experiences in school (between the ages of 14 and 19) and their confidence (at 19-24) in progression towards ultimate career goals and the likelihood of whether (at 19-24) they are NEET or non-NEET.[221]

Aligning social and education policies

137. As the Sutton Trust observed, "This problem will not be solved solely through the education system".[222] Given the breadth of issues explored in Chapter 3, it is also relevant to consider how other social policies interact with schools. ASCL told us that:

223

138. Similarly, a background report for Ofsted on the educational attainment of white British students from low income backgrounds as part of its Access and achievement in education 2013 review notes that "Systemic solutions will require more than excellence in the application of basic good practice by individual schools, it will require the aligned effort of a range of services and institutions". The paper goes on to explain that "Evidence [...] points directly to the mutual and accumulative benefits which services can bring to one another when improved health, housing, parenting, home learning and schooling operate in a virtuous circle".[224]

139. The National Children's Bureau and Council for Disabled Children propose that the Government should create a Children and Young People's Board, "with full ministerial representation to develop and implement a genuinely cross-government multidimensional strategy to reduce the inequality and disadvantage children and young people face".[225] NASUWT's written evidence to the inquiry observed that:

226

140. The Minister provided an example of current cross-department working in the form of the new child poverty strategy, which encompasses social policies such as housing and healthcare, with links to educational attainment. He told us that "we work closely with other Departments in Whitehall that impact on children's lives".[227] Nevertheless, the Minister told us that he was keen to concentrate primarily on school-based interventions:

228

229

141. We agree that there is much that schools can do to address white working class underachievement. Broader societal factors also have an enormous role to play, but this should not deflect attention from the central importance of improving school and teaching quality.

123 Department for Education, Progress 8 factsheet Back

124 Education Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, The administration of examinations for 15-19 year olds in England, HC 141, para 192 Back

125 Department for Education, Progress 8 factsheet Back

126 Ofsted (WWC 23) p 1 Back

127 Department for Education, "Pupil Premium: information for schools", 22 January 2014 (accessed on 12 February 2014) Back

128 Department for Education, "Pupil Premium: information for schools", 22 January 2014 (accessed on 12 February 2014) Back

129 Q332 Back

130 "Schools best at helping disadvantaged pupils to share £4 million prize fund", Department for Education, 1 May 2014 Back

131 "A tale of two classrooms: London results skew national picture as educational inequality on the rise", Demos, January 2014 Back

132 "Positive signs on the Pupil Premium effect", The Guardian, 3 February 2014 Back

133 Q329 Back

134 Q365 Back