Alternative Approaches to Grouping Disadvantaged Schools

New research by SchoolDash, commissioned by Gatsby Charitable Foundation, proposes an innovative model for categorising schools based on a broad range of socioeconomic indicators, including the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and higher education participation (POLAR4) in the areas served.

Educational disadvantage is complex, encompassing more than just socioeconomic status. It includes factors such as teacher availability, regional challenges, and student demographics. Currently, the primary income metrics used for assessing school needs – the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) and the Pupil Premium – employ a binary threshold that oversimplifies deprivation, categorising students as either “disadvantaged” or “not disadvantaged”. This fails to capture the continuum of deprivation and can obscure significant differences among schools. Schools with identical Pupil Premium figures can experience vastly different local conditions, including variations in crime rates, educational resources, environmental factors, health and housing.

Schools have also previously been prioritised for support by geographic location. For example, the introduction of Education Investment Areas aimed to concentrate support within certain local authorities. However, as shown by previous Gatsby and SchoolDash research, this approach does not effectively group schools with similar needs, only those within the same administrative areas.

This new research proposes a more nuanced model for categorising schools and utilises k-means clustering and principal component analysis to identify six distinct school types, each with unique needs:

• Cluster 1, Suburban: Middle-income, suburban communities outside major cities. Socioeconomic and educational indicators are mostly unexceptional.
• Cluster 2, Affluent Suburban: Wealthier suburban and rural neighbourhoods. The incidence of income deprivation is very low, but educational outcomes are weaker than might be expected.
• Cluster 3, Affluent Urban: Wealthier city areas, especially in London. Much greater levels of income deprivation than Cluster 2, but also higher levels of educational engagement and better outcomes.
• Cluster 4, Poor Urban: Mainly in the North and the Midlands, but also to the east of London and elsewhere in the country. Lots of adverse socioeconomic indicators, coupled with relatively weak educational outcomes, but not as bad as might be expected given the levels of poverty.
• Cluster 5, Poor Suburban: Mainly in the North and Midlands. IMD indicators are mixed, but income deprivation is high and educational outcomes are poor. These are the areas that have fallen furthest behind.
• Cluster 6, Urban: Middling city areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester, among other places. Moderately high levels of income deprivation, but relatively good educational outcomes.

By clustering schools in this way, we can see that urban schools consistently outperform suburban and rural schools with similar levels of deprivation. Simply looking at Pupil Premium rates hides information about the type of deprivation a school faces. By recognising the diversity in disadvantage and using this clustering approach that combines a variety of deprivation measures, we can ensure schools receive the support they truly need to thrive.

Over the next few months, we will work with SchoolDash to explore this approach further and examine a variety of policy issues including the implications for teacher supply.

Read the full research