Social Selection on the Map

The Sutton Trust has produced a series of research studies looking at socio-economic selectivity in the comprehensive system in England, repeatedly finding evidence that top comprehensive schools are, in practice, often highly socially selective. The most recent addition to this series of reports, Selective Comprehensives 2024, added to this body of research, showing that selectivity at high performing schools remains high.

This piece looks beyond just high performing schools, and digs deeper into the geographical patterns of socio-economic segregation in the comprehensive system as a whole, showing the wider impacts of selection. The data provides an unprecedented insight into the dynamics of secondary school admissions in England, including local authority-level analysis of school segregation.

Alongside the brief, we have published an interactive map. The map provides, for the first time, school-level information about how the socio-economic profile of school intakes reflect their local area, for almost every state secondary school in England. It allows schools and policy makers to compare the socio-economic intakes of schools in local authorities across the country.

27%

The difference in the English and Maths attainment gap between the most and least segregated areas

26%

The proportion of pupils who would need to move schools in the North East for an even spread of disadvantage

1 in 5

The proportion of pupils across England who would need to move schools to achieve parity

Key Findings

Schools in the North East have the highest levels of socio-economic segregation in England, with Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Stockton-on-Tees, and North Tyneside in the top ten most segregated local authorities. The North West has the second highest levels of segregation.
In the most segregated area in England, Solihull, you would need to redistribute 32% of pupils across schools in order to achieve an even spread of disadvantaged pupils. In the least segregated area, Torbay, this is just 6%.
London, the West Midlands and the South West have lower levels of segregation on average.
Areas with more faith schools have more segregation, particularly Catholic schools. Areas with higher proportions of English as an additional language pupils have lower segregation. Rural areas have lower segregation than urban areas.
Local Authorities with high levels of segregation have larger attainment gaps between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils. Areas with the highest segregation have gaps in the rate of passes in English and maths 27% higher than areas with low segregation.
Grammar schools contribute particularly strongly to segregation in areas with high levels of academic selection.

Recommendations for Schools

School leaders, including school governors, should implement a fair access review for their school. This should include reflecting on their year 7 intake each year and reviewing whether it reflects the local and national pictures in terms of levels of socio-economic disadvantage, as well as reviewing how their admissions policies could be adapted to address any inequalities. It is important to do this periodically, as intakes can see fluctuations year on year. Schools looking to become more socially diverse and inclusive should consider the following range of measures in relation to a) admissions policies and oversubscription criteria and b) the wider cost of schooling:

Making admissions policies fairer:

Include pupil premium students in oversubscription priority criteria. The Schools Admissions Code currently allows for the use of pupil premium status as an oversubscription criterion, so more schools, particularly high performing schools, should move to implement this in order to create a more socially balanced intake and better reflect their local communities. This could for example mean giving pupil premium students priority up to the average proportion of those students in the local area, or up to a set level higher than this group’s proportion in the school’s current intake.
Introducing either ballots or a banding system to determine the allocation of places when the school is oversubscribed. Introducing pupil premium priority is likely to help to improve access for the most disadvantaged pupils but will not necessarily alter the wider socio-economic mix of the student body. Introducing a system of ballots or banding has the potential to make a school’s intake more representative across the socio-economic spectrum.
Ballots are where potential students are selected for admission using a lottery, meaning everyone entered for a place via the ballot has an equal chance of getting in. This could be done as a full ballot for all places or used only for a proportion of the school’s intake, such as ‘marginal lotteries’. This is where most school places could be allocated on the basis of existing criteria with a smaller proportion, say 20%, reserved for applicants outside the catchment allocated by lottery. The appropriate balance of ballot allocated places will depend on a school’s specific circumstances, including the profile of the neighbourhoods around the school.
Banding tests are currently used by a number of schools. Pupils sit an entrance test, but rather than allocating places based on ability, places are allocated equally across all ability ‘bands’. This means a balance of abilities are admitted, which is likely to have a knock-on effect on the socio-economic profile of the school. Banding is most effective when there is cooperation between schools in an area, and where all children are entered for banding tests, with tests ideally being carried out in local primary schools. Groups of schools should thus be encouraged to develop a shared approach to admissions, possibly facilitated by a local authority or a local admissions forum.
Particular care should be taken by schools with additional admissions criteria, including faith schools or those with a focus on a specific subject specialism (such as musical aptitude). This work has shown that on average faith schools are consistently more socially selective than non-religious schools. These schools should therefore take particular care to ensure their criteria are not contributing to socio-economic inequalities in access. This could be done, for example, by implementing policies such as pupil premium priority and having this priority apply before any of their own specific admissions criteria.

Reducing the cost of attending the school:

School leaders should ensure that wherever possible, they remove potential financial barriers to attendance at their school. Financial concerns are a significant factor for parents from low-income households when making school choices. Therefore, schools should look to reduce these costs wherever practically possible. Unnecessary costs can include expensive uniforms, extensive equipment lists or expansive costs for trips or extra-curricular activities. On uniforms specifically, schools should commit to having no more than one branded item in their uniform, keeping total uniform costs under (or as near as possible to) £100 and ensuring second hand items are available for purchase or for free. Schools should also avoid collaborating with single uniform suppliers where possible, as this often increases the cost of uniforms. Where costs on any of these items cannot be avoided, schools should look to give financial support to lower income families, and to clearly advertise the availability of this support on the admissions pages of their website and at open days.
Secondary and primary schools should collaborate to ensure that parents are well informed before making school choices, especially regarding their rights to free transport to school. For children eligible for FSM this extends to their three nearest suitable schools within six miles of their home, 15 miles for a faith school or up to 15 miles to their closest grammar school. Schools should ensure parents are aware of this support, and given information on how to access it, when making school choices

Recommendations for Government

The government should review existing admissions code policies, including making pupil premium eligibility a required part of school’s oversubscription criteria. As well as requiring schools to include pupil premium, they should also ensure schools justify where it is placed within the order of their oversubscription criteria. Schools should be able to decide if this is an unlimited priority for this group, or whether it applies up to a certain proportion or number (e.g. the proportion of pupil premium students in the local authority, or nationally), but would need a justification behind their decision. Where schools use distance from the school or a defined catchment area among their oversubscription criteria, these should not apply to pupil premium eligible students.
The government should hold schools accountable for the fairness of their admissions policies. School admissions policies should be better regulated, with a focus on improving access. Schools should be held accountable for their admissions policies and the impact of those policies on the socio-economic mix of their student body. Socio-economic inclusion should form part of the new Ofsted report cards.
Government should review current eligibility for free school transport, so that it does not become a hidden barrier to parental choice. This could include extending eligibility to all pupils eligible for pupil premium (and, therefore, those eligible for FSM in the last six years), so that families have greater certainty about the support that will be available over a longer time period. Current support also limits parents to support in a relatively small geographical area, which is likely to be particularly limiting for families in lower density or more rural areas, who could have few schools within the current maximum distance of six miles. Government should look at greater flexibility or extending the maximum distance within which this support is available.
Government should do more to ensure the cost of school uniforms is not a barrier for school choice, by strengthening existing rules and guidelines. Existing government guidance requires school governing bodies to ‘consider’ issues related to uniform costs but falls short of stipulating concrete actions. The government should impose limits in key areas. This could include only allowing one piece of branded uniform, and not allowing single suppliers for uniforms unless this can be shown to lead to more economical outcomes for parents.
The government should work to raise the quality of all schools, with a view to increasing the representativeness of their intakes compared to their surrounding areas and making the school system fairer. Reducing FSM gaps in schools and a more equal school system are likely to be a virtuous circle. Previous Sutton Trust research has found that schools serving disadvantaged communities experience greater difficulties in, for instance, teacher recruitment and retention, particularly in secondary schools. Data here has found the greatest disparities between the social make up of schools and their catchment areas, and lowest number of top schools, concentrated in some parts of the country with the highest FSM rates. The government should make extra funding and resources available for tackling such issues at the local level in the most disadvantaged areas.

Related Research

Selective Comprehensives 2024

Fairer School Admissions

Selective Comprehensives 2017