The requester sought detailed raw data on FSM and SEN pupil attainment across schools and research regarding a Pupil Premium scheme. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture responded with a business case paper discussing social equity funding and the validity of FSM as a poverty measure, noting that not all requested data was held.
Key Facts
The response includes a business case titled 'Social Equity Funding for Schools' to address under-performance by disadvantaged pupils.
At the end of the 2017-18 academic year, 17.6% of pupils on the Isle of Man were registered for Free School Meals.
Research cited indicates that disadvantaged pupils fall behind their affluent peers by approximately 2 months each year during secondary school.
A study by RAND Europe and the University of Cambridge concluded that FSM eligibility is the most practical measure for explaining variation in pupil achievement.
The authority stated that some information was sent but not all requested data was held.
Data Disclosed
17.6%
2017-18
2 months
2020-02-04
2020-03-02
1165549
1122925
Original Request
Further to the Department's response to FOI Request Reference 1122925 (submitted 6th January 2020) I seek additional related data together with further information allied to FSM and SEN (and associated pupil attainment) together with the work undertaken in regard to the viability of a Pupil Premium viz:
In relation to the two answers regarding the percentages of pupils in receipt of FSM who achieved 5(+) GCSEs at Grades A*-C (inc. E&M) and the percentage of pupils in receipt of FSM achieving 5 or more Level 2 passes at each of the Island's secondary schools I request (for each school) the data they used in order to calculate the percentages given for each measure e.g. at CRHS the percentage of pupils meeting the first measure is given as 10.5% - thus the data required to derive that percentage (10.5) is sought. For example this could be the number of cohort pupils in receipt of FSM and how many pupils in numerical terms achieved 5GCSEs at A*-C (inc. E&M).
Regarding 2019 primary school L3(+) and L5(+) attainment for Key Stages 1 and 2 respectively what data does each primary school hold in relation the achievement of those levels by pupils in receipt of FSM e.g. percentage of Year 6 in receipt of FSM achieving L5(+) in each of the core subjects. The same attainment information to be provided (if held) in relation to pupils classified as having SEN. Note where percentages are provided, I further request the data that enabled the school to determine such percentage figures as may be provided.
I also request copies of such research, analysis or other work that has been conducted by the Dept. (or such work commissioned by it) regarding a Pupil Premium for Isle of Man schools together with any DESC communication regarding costings for the same.
Data Tables (40)
registering their children as eligible, making them reluctant to do so, for example.
Further there are residency requirements for eligibility for benefits on the Isle of
Man, meaning that those who were not born on the Island or have not been
resident for at least five years may not (unless
Department for Education (England)
commissioned RAND Europe and University of Cambridge study which considered
whether other measures of socio-economic status did a better job of explaining
variation in pupil achievement at primary and secondary school. The study
concluded that models with measures of free school meal eligibility worked best, in
practical terms, for explaining variation in pupil achievement. While models with
parental education and parental occupation were marginally better at predicting
pupil achievement, the potential costs of switching to either of these approaches far
outweighed any slight gains.
In addition to the above,
additional pupil premium funding of £2,300 is provided for each ‘looked-after child’.
2018
% entire year group
%FSM
Difference
GLD
69
49
-20
% Sp & List (L2b+
in Y2)
82
71
-11
% Reading (L2b+ in
Y2)
70.7
53
-17.7
% Writing (L2b+ in
Y2)
71.4
52
-19.4
% Maths (L2b+ in
Y2)
79.9
63
-16.9
% Science (L2b+ in
Y2)
89.8
77
-12.8
% Reading (L4+ in
Y6)
90.9
79
-11.9
% Writing (L4+ in
Y6)
84.5
67
-17.5
% Maths (L4+ in
Y6)
89.6
76
-13.6
% Science (L4+ in
Y6)
93.8
83
-10.8
%5 Level 2 passes
64
38
-26
%5 Level 2 passes
(EM)
58.1
34
-24.1
Highest FSM
%FSM
%SEN
LAC
CPP
School A
55
17.8
0
0
School B
51
16.8
0
1
School C
49
18.3
1
2
School D
37
18.3
4
8
School E
32
24.5
0
1
School F
32
16.3
2
3
Average
18.66
1.16
2.5
Lowest FSM
%FSM
%SEN
LAC
CPP
School U
3
14.7
0
0
School V
3
17.4
4
0
School W
4
16.7
0
0
School X
5
11.8
0
0
School Y
7
6.7
0
0
School Z
8
9.2
0
5
Average
12.75
0.66
0.83
No. of pupils (17-
18)
Total additional
cost, if based on
Pupil Premium
(£1320 – primary;
£935 – secondary;
£2300 - LAC)
Total additional
cost, if based on
Pupil Equity
Funding (£1200
per pupil in
receipt of FSM)
Total additional
cost, if based on
Jersey Premium
(£1005 – primary;
£645 – secondary;
£2000 - LAC)
Of the four children in care in Early Years Foundation Stage, 50% achieved a ‘good level of
development’ The Island average for those achieving a good level of development was 69%.
End of Key Stage 1 – Expected level of attainment, Level 2B
Three pupils in care (60%) attained the expected level or greater in speaking and listening.
The Island average for all pupils was 82%.
One pupil in care, (20%) attained the expected level or greater in reading. The Island
average for all pupils was 71%.
Two pupils in care (40%) attained the expected level or greater in writing. The Island
average for all pupils was 71%.
Four pupils in care (80%) attained the expected level or greater in mathematics. The Island
average for all pupils was 80%.
Three pupils in care (60%) attained the expected level or greater in science. The Island
average for all pupils was 90%.
End of Key Stage 2 – Expected level of attainment, Level
Three pupils in care (75%) attained the expected level or greater in speaking and listening.
The Island average for all pupils 91%.
Three pupils in care, (75%) attained the expected level or greater in reading. The Island
average for all pupils was 91%.
Three pupils in care (75%) attained the expected level or greater in writing. The Island
average for all pupils was 84%.
Three pupils in care (75%) attained the expected level or greater in mathematics. The
Island average for all pupils was 90%.
All pupils (100%) attained the expected level or greater in science. The Island average for
all pupils was 94%.
GCSE
In 2018, 11 children who are cared for on the Isle of Man completed Year 11 and were
eligible to take GCSE examinations. Of those 11 children;
One pupil attained English GCSE grade B
27% of cared for students got grade C or above in English. The Island average for all pupils
was 76%
One pupil attained mathematics GCSE grade B and one pupil attained mathematics GCSE
grade C - 18% of students, therefore, got grade C or above. The Island average for all
pupils was 68%
In addition, one pupil in care achieved an additional 7 GCSE examinations with grades from
A – C and another achieved an additional 7 GCSEs with grades B – C
Year 13
Three pupils in care completed Year 13
One achieved AS mathematics grade E
One student achieved three A2 examinations with grades A-E
One student achieved three A2 examinations at grade D
parents may feel stigmatised when registering their children as eligible,
making them reluctant to do so, for example. Further there are residency requirements for
eligibility for benefits on the Isle of Man, meaning that those who were not born on the
Island or have not been resident for at least five years may not (unless
Department for Education (England) commissioned
RAND Europe and University of Cambridge study which considered whether other measures
of socio-economic status did a better job of explaining variation in pupil achievement at
primary and secondary school. The study concluded that models with measures of free
school meal eligibility worked best, in practical terms, for explaining variation in pupil
achievement. While models with parental education and parental occupation were
marginally better at predicting pupil achievement, the potential costs of switching to either
of these approaches far outweighed any slight gains.
Tangible Benefits
Red Benefits
Hard £ Benefits
(these broadly equate to
‘Cheaper’)
Orange
Benefits
Productivity
Improvements
(includes ‘Faster’)
Expected Intangible
Benefits
Green Benefits
Qualitative Factors
(these broadly equate to ‘Better’)
Initiatives
Red Benefits
Orange Benefits
Green Benefits
Achievement 1
An increase in the
attainment of pupils whose
parents are in receipt of
Free School Meals
Achievement 2
An increase in the
attainment of pupils who are
‘looked-after’
Achievement 3
An improvement in the
‘cultural capital’ of pupils
whose parents are in receipt
of Free School Meals and
who are ‘looked-after’
Achievement 4
An improvement in
attainment and cultural
capital for pupils whose
parents are not in receipt of
Free School Meals or are not
‘looked-after’
No. of pupils
(17-18)
Total additional
Total additional
cost, if based
on Pupil Equity
Funding (£1200
per pupil in
receipt of FSM)
Total additional
cost, if based on
cost, if based on
Pupil Premium
Jersey Premium
(£1320 –
(£1005 –
primary; £935 –
primary; £645 –
secondary;
secondary;
£2300 - LAC)
£2000 - LAC)
Primary - FSM
1,364
£1,800,480
£1,636,800
£1,378,820
Secondary - FSM
768
£718,848
£921,600
£495,360
LAC
60
£138,000
N/A
£120,000
Total
£2,657,328
£2,558,400
£1,994,180
No. of pupils
(17-18)
Total additional
cost, if based
on Pupil Equity
Funding (£1200
per pupil in
receipt of FSM)
Option 4
One-off
Total
Cost
Bid
2020-21
Bid
2021-22
Bid
2022-23
Long Term
Adjustment
to base
Social Equity Funding
£2,657,000
£2,657,000
£2,657,000
£2,657,000
Training
£30,000
£30,000
Total Department Bids
£30,000
£2,687,000
£2,657,000
£2,657,000
£2,657,000
Name:
Glenn Shimmin
Title:
FD
Date:
22-08-2019
Signature:
Name:
Ronald Barr
Title:
CEO
Date:
22-08-2019
Signature:
Full Response Text
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE
BUSINESS CASE FOR SOCIAL EQUITY FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS
Executive Summary
This paper seeks to set out the key issues with regard to the school
performance of pupils from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds, on the Isle of
Man. It considers the policy approaches to the same issue in other jurisdictions and
seeks to present possible options for consideration. As stated by Marc Rowland,
‘schools cannot be expected to solve all of society’s inequalities … but academic
attainment still opens up life choices and opportunity.’
Is FSM the best measure of poverty?
Throughout this paper a link is made between eligibility for Free School Meals
(FSM) and social disadvantage. This is not unproblematic and it’s worth, briefly,
considering if receipt of Free School Meals is the best indicator of relative poverty
for use in schools.
Eligibility for Free School Meals is a ‘passported’ benefit provided to children
of families on means-tested benefits – Jobseekers’ Allowance (JSA), Employed
Person’s Allowance (EPA) and Income Support (IS). At the end of the 2017-18
academic year 17.6% of pupils were registered to receive Free School Meals on the
Isle of Man.
Chris Taylor, among others has questioned whether the Free School Meals
measure fully captures all those who have socio-economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. Some have pointed out that parents may feel stigmatised when
registering their children as eligible, making them reluctant to do so, for example.
Further there are residency requirements for eligibility for benefits on the Isle of
Man, meaning that those who were not born on the Island or have not been
resident for at least five years may not (unless it would be “exceptionally harsh or
oppressive” to deny them benefits) be eligible.
However, Taylor concluded that in terms of income and poverty, it certainly
seems the case that children who are eligible for Free School Meals are amongst the
poorest and that ‘this simple binary measure is a very good indicator’ of socio-
economic disadvantage.
Such a conclusion is reinforced by the Department for Education (England)
commissioned RAND Europe and University of Cambridge study which considered
whether other measures of socio-economic status did a better job of explaining
variation in pupil achievement at primary and secondary school. The study
concluded that models with measures of free school meal eligibility worked best, in
practical terms, for explaining variation in pupil achievement. While models with
parental education and parental occupation were marginally better at predicting
pupil achievement, the potential costs of switching to either of these approaches far
outweighed any slight gains.
Objective
The main objective of the paper is to seek financial support to enable schools
to more effectively tackle under-performance by pupils from socially disadvantaged
backgrounds.
Background
There is a wealth of evidence, across the educational community, supporting
a connection between social deprivation and low attainment. Research by academics
at University College London and Kings College London, for example, found that a
child's social background is the crucial factor in academic performance, and that a
school's success is based not on its teachers, the way it is run, or what type of
school it is, but, overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils. Jon Andrews,
David Robinson and Jo Hutchinson concluded, in 2017, that disadvantaged pupils fall
behind their more affluent peers by around 2 months each year over the course of
secondary school.
The English and Scottish Governments, in particular, have sought over
many years to close this gap. A particularly eye catching initiative (introduced by the
Coalition Government in 2011) has been the development of pupil premium funding,
in England, which accords an additional £1320 (primary) or £935 (secondary) per
pupil eligible for free school meals, to be used by schools. In addition to the above,
additional pupil premium funding of £2,300 is provided for each ‘looked-after child’.
Schools can choose how to spend their pupil premium money and often deploy it to
cover the costs of extra one-to-one or small-group support, employing extra
teaching assistants to work with classes, running catch-up sessions before or after
school or running a school breakfast club. Pupil Equity Funding (£1200 per pupil in
P1 to S3 in receipt of free school meals) is also provided through the Attainment
Scotland Fund and allocated directly to schools, targeted at those children most
affected by the poverty related attainment gap.
Nonetheless, commentators have remarked on the intractability of such
issues. Academics at London Metropolitan University, for example, have found that,
despite numerous Government initiatives to reduce social inequality in education,
‘the attainment gap at GCSE level between pupils eligible for free school meals and
those who are not has remained at about 27 percentage points throughout the last
decade’.
Fellows and Barton, in their review of the role of governing boards in
spending, monitoring and evaluating the pupil premium, noted considerable
variability in the success with which pupil premium is used. They stated that ‘many
schools … are too inwards looking’ and need to make decisions based on external
data, academic research and, in particular, the Education Endowment Foundation
Toolkit. They further identified a ‘disconnect’ between the uses to which pupil
premium is often put and the barriers and challenges faced by disadvantaged pupils,
suggesting that a more holistic outlook, combining pastoral and academic support is
more effective. Usefully, they draw attention to the fact that the use of pupil
premium is not the only determinant of the progress of disadvantaged pupils and
concluded that ‘schools with high progress for all were very likely to have high
progress for pupil premium pupils. ‘We can’, they suggest ’attribute some, but not
all, of the difference in progress gaps between schools to the way pupil premium is
used.’
Fellows and Barton go on to suggest that ‘pupil premium funding needs to be
protected in real-terms’ and draw attention to a National Audit Office report (NAO
2015) which found that ‘75% of secondary schools and over 85% of primary schools
felt that pupil premium had boosted pupil attainment.’ However, they warn that the
impact of pupil premium spending appears to be threatened by its use to subsidise
other spending commitments which ought to be funded from the schools’ core
budgets and are less effective in narrowing that attainment gap.
There is considerable congruence here with the work of Marc Rowland and
Katherine Bruce who have also documented the factors that can positively impact on
attainment of pupils in receipt of Free School Meals if adopted by schools. Following
a rigorous evaluation of their Achievement Unlocked programme in North Yorkshire,
they suggest that, in order to be successful, any programme to tackle educational
disadvantage, needs to include;-
Consistent, values led leadership – changing the culture and language in a school,
in terms of ‘labelling’ and limiting expectations, for example, by grouping children
based on prior attainment;
Strong relationships across the whole school community, including between
pupils, staff and families;
High quality, inclusive teaching and learning – ensuring consistently good
pedagogy and teaching which is ‘open to difference’ and effective, as the first point
of intervention;
A deep understanding of the characteristics of less successful learners;
A deep understanding of barriers to learning (eg limited vocabulary,
underdeveloped oral language, self-regulation, lack of social and cultural capital, lack
of good quality Early Years provision etc) and a commitment to tackling the causes
of educational disadvantage (rather than the symptoms);
The critical importance of developing literacy, oral language and vocabulary –
providing language rich classrooms by, for example, incorporating problem-solving
activities linked with tools to support reasoning and oral language, dialogic talk or an
insistence on lengthier oral contributions from pupils;
Research evidence – a rigorous reliance on research evidence (for example the
Education Endowment Foundation Toolkit) to inform strategy, activity and spending
decisions;
A school-wide understanding of the strategy – a ‘whole-school’ commitment to a
common language, ethos and expectations (eg ‘growth mindset’ or metacognition);
Monitoring and evaluation – rigorous consideration of whether ‘interventions’ are
having the desired impact;
Accountability – that teachers, leaders, support staff and governors hold
themselves to account for the impact of pupil premium decisions and ensure wider
efforts to improve outcomes for disadvantaged pupils.
Rowland, in particular, draws attention to the well-intentioned but ineffective
strategies used by schools to support disadvantaged pupils but which may reinforce
the dependence of learners (eg overly supporting pupils) some of which were listed
above. This practice suggests a widespread lack of understanding of how to best
address the needs of socially disadvantaged pupils.
In an interesting trial, in the Isle of Man context, Rowland worked with Jersey
to develop the use of ‘Jersey Premium’, rolling this out to all schools from January
2017. Jersey schools receive extra funding calculated on the number of eligible
children they have each year. Schools are required to demonstrate that they have
used their Jersey Premium budget to make a measurable difference to the learning
and educational outcomes of their eligible pupils and publish this on their school
website as a strategy for the coming year. Approximately 3,500 local pupils
benefited from Jersey Premium funding during 2017-2018 though this number has
reduced for the current year following a change in eligibility criteria. Rowland
concludes that ‘whilst a gap still remains between JP eligible and non-eligible pupils,
there has been a significant improvement in attainment for JP eligible pupils in all
areas with the exception of maths at GCSE.’
What provision is made currently on the Isle of Man?
The budget for secondary schools is fully devolved to the schools and
decisions about expenditure are made locally. Primary schools have devolved
responsibility for most budget headings but the most significant exception is primary
staffing which is allocated centrally primarily on the basis of pupil numbers and
reviewed annually to reflect changes in school demographics. In determining the
staffing for a particular school each year, the Department officers also take account
of a number of other indicators, including levels of additional need and, to a limited
degree, the percentage of pupils, at the school, who are eligible for Free School
Meals.
Frankham et al, in 2007, indicated that ‘a key feature of successful projects
working with disengaged pupils was to build close relationships, not just with the
young people, but their families, addressing the family circumstances as well as the
child’s learning needs, and making education a shared enterprise between, family,
child and educator’. With this in mind, the Department has funded the development
of five Family Support Worker posts in Willaston, Victoria Road, Jurby, Peel
Clothworkers’ and Manor Park Schools.
With the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department has
supported the development of a ‘Early Help and Support’ framework which has
helped to tackle more complex social needs in schools and enabled different
agencies to work in a ‘joined up’ way. This programme seeks to build a team of
professionals around the family, based geographically, who aim to co-ordinate
support to improve the health, education, well-being and safety outcomes of
children who have a range of additional needs.
The Problem
We have much to be proud of with regards to the attainment of pupils, on the
Isle of Man. Standards in almost all key indicators are the highest they’ve ever been
and are continuing to rise. Despite the considerable commitment above, however,
across all key indicators the performance of pupils in receipt of Free School Meals on
the Isle of Man is lower than their non-FSM peers.
Comparative data is limited but, just considering attainment in 2018 as an
example, the comparative performance of pupils in key measures is set out below;-
2018
% entire year group
%FSM
Difference
GLD
69
49
-20
% Sp & List (L2b+
in Y2)
82
71
-11
% Reading (L2b+ in
Y2)
70.7
53
-17.7
% Writing (L2b+ in
Y2)
71.4
52
-19.4
% Maths (L2b+ in
Y2)
79.9
63
-16.9
% Science (L2b+ in
Y2)
89.8
77
-12.8
% Reading (L4+ in
Y6)
90.9
79
-11.9
% Writing (L4+ in
Y6)
84.5
67
-17.5
% Maths (L4+ in
Y6)
89.6
76
-13.6
% Science (L4+ in
Y6)
93.8
83
-10.8
It is apparent, from the table above that 20% fewer pupils, in receipt of Free
School Meals, at the end of the Reception year are achieving a Good Level of
Development (GLD) than their non-FSM peers.
Though, in some areas, this gap narrows a little in primary school, it is still
pronounced at the end of Key Stages One and Two. In writing, for example, Manx
7-year-olds in receipt of Free School Meals perform 19.4% less well than their non-
FSM peers. This gap is still 17.5% at the end of Key Stage Two.
The gap between performance of pupils, in receipt of Free School Meals and
peers becomes widest at the end of Key Stage Four when 24.1% fewer pupils in
receipt of Free School Meals achieve the key benchmark of 5 Level 2 passes,
including English and maths.
Indeed it is notable that pupils in receipt of Free School Meals do not out-
perform their peers in any of the key measures listed above.
An analysis of the context of secondary schools on the Isle of Man is
challenging, given that they, largely, have ‘mixed’ catchment areas (the percentage
of pupils in receipt of Free School Meals ranges from 11-20% in secondary schools
and differences are not so pronounced). However, a comparison of the primary
schools with the highest and lowest percentages of Free School Meals reveals a
further contrast in percentages of Special Educational Need, ‘looked-after children’
and those on Child Protection Plans.
Highest FSM
%FSM
%SEN
LAC
CPP
School A
55
17.8
0
0
School B
51
16.8
0
1
School C
49
18.3
1
2
School D
37
18.3
4
8
School E
32
24.5
0
1
School F
32
16.3
2
3
Average
18.66
1.16
2.5
[Response truncated — full text is 83,627 characters]