London still has England’s best schools – but the gap is closing

Concentrate at the back there. Image: Getty.

About four years ago, journalists and educationalists began to notice something extraordinary: London's schools, long undistinguished, had shown gradual improvement and were now the highest performing in the country and their disadvantaged pupils were performing the best nationally.

The reasons behind the ‘London effect’ are complex, combining demographic trends, funding dynamics and policy interventions. In Lessons from London’s Schools, the Centre for London unpicked these and showed that additional funding, teacher recruitment and school building stock had all made a difference – and that long-term, coherent policy interventions (not linked to significant funding increases) and high-quality leadership provided the impetus for improvement. (See Baars, S. et al (2014) Lessons from London’s school: Investigating the success for details)

Other research highlighted the significant role of immigration, as high performing ethnic groups make up a relatively large fraction of London students.

Journalists often move on, once a story becomes familiar, but there are reasons to revisit this. As GCSE results updates were released recently budget cuts have been continuing and a new funding formula could put the capital’s schools at a disadvantage. So we ask again: how are London schools doing?

London vs the rest

London has kept its lead over the rest of the country – but the gap is closing. In 2016, 60.6 per cent of London pupils achieved 5+ A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent, down from 60.9 per cent a year earlier. That means the difference between London and the rest of England is now 3.4 per cent, the smallest gap since 2009-10.

The changing subject eligibility rules, and resits ceasing to count, explain the fall in 2013-14.

‘Attainment 8’ is one of the new headline measures of school achievement, averaging results across eight subjects, including double weighted English and Maths. London averages an Attainment 8 score per pupil of 51.9 (up from 51.1 last year), while the rest of England averaged 49.8 (up from 48.2) – figures that once again demonstrate the narrowing gap between London and the rest.


‘Progress 8’, the other headline measure, looks at whether secondary school pupils progress more or less than expected. Of 3,036 schools assessed nationally, 282 schools (9.3 per cent) fell below a quality standard, reflecting poorer than expected progression. In London, just 13 schools (3.1 per cent) fell below this standard – the lowest regional proportion in the country. The capital also has the highest proportion of good/outstanding schools (93 per cent), as measured by Ofsted.

While these figures are impressive, and may partly reflect the growing middle-class population in Inner London as identified in Centre for London’s Inside Out, there is concern for older pupils. Further education results (e.g. A-levels) are worse than the national average, potentially having significant consequences for young people’s engagement with higher education and the labour market.

The differences between inner and outer London

Inner London schools have had, for many years, lower achievement than their outer London counterparts, partly reflecting socio-economic disadvantage and lower pupil mobility; but their results have been improving faster since 2000.

While the difference in GCSE results between outer (61.1 per cent) and inner (59.7 per cent) London persists, the gap continues to close, with the inner-outer differential now 1.4 per cent, from 5.6 per cent six years ago. Inner London schools are also closing the Attainment 8 gap on outer counterparts, while only three boroughs experienced year-on-year falls: Tower Hamlets, Croydon and Hounslow.

Gaps in the capital are still at large

In Lessons from London’s Schools, we highlighted that disadvantaged pupils tend to perform better in London than elsewhere, and this aids social mobility in the capital. This trend has continued into 2016; Attainment 8 results show pupils receiving free school meals scored better in London (44.8) than the rest of England (37.7).

Across all ethnicities, London performs better than the rest of England, but the gaps within the capital are still significant. Attainment 8 scores show achievement gaps between ethnic groups persisting – inequality remains a challenge.

Funding – where do we go from here?

For many years London’s schools have enjoyed high funding levels, but the introduction of the new National Funding Formula (NFF), intended to equalise per pupil funding nationally and ,due to be introduced in 2018-19, may mean many boroughs are set to lose out.  As shown below, the proposed transitional arrangement should lessen the potential impact, but the fall in funding will be significant, particularly in inner London.

While reduced funding for London’s schools could have a detrimental effect on pupil achievement, above-average spending is only a partial explanation for above-average achievement. But people are rightly concerned that London’s schools could be knocked back by changes to funding. How these changes play out will depend on how far budget reductions can be absorbed – without losing the quality of teaching.

Alongside continuing cuts and a high cost of living deterring the capital’s young teachers, the success of London’s schools, and all the benefits that accrue from this, may be in jeopardy.

Tom Colthorpe is a research intern at Centre for London. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

As EU funding is lost, “levelling up” needs investment, not just rhetoric

Oh, well. Image: Getty.

Regional inequality was the foundation of Boris Johnson’s election victory and has since become one of the main focuses of his government. However, the enthusiasm of ministers championing the “levelling up” agenda rings hollow when compared with their inertia in preparing a UK replacement for European structural funding. 

Local government, already bearing the brunt of severe funding cuts, relies on European funding to support projects that boost growth in struggling local economies and help people build skills and find secure work. Now that the UK has withdrawn its EU membership, councils’ concerns over how EU funds will be replaced from 2021 are becoming more pronounced.

Johnson’s government has committed to create a domestic structural funding programme, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), to replace the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF). However, other than pledging that UKSPF will “reduce inequalities between communities”, it has offered few details on how funds will be allocated. A public consultation on UKSPF promised by May’s government in 2018 has yet to materialise.

The government’s continued silence on UKSPF is generating a growing sense of unease among councils, especially after the failure of successive governments to prioritise investment in regional development. Indeed, inequalities within the UK have been allowed to grow so much that the UK’s poorest region by EU standards (West Wales & the Valleys) has a GDP of 68 per cent of the average EU GDP, while the UK’s richest region (Inner London) has a GDP of 614 per cent of the EU average – an intra-national disparity that is unique in Europe. If the UK had remained a member of the EU, its number of ‘less developed’ regions in need of most structural funding support would have increased from two to five in 2021-27: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham and Lincolnshire joining Cornwall & Isles of Scilly and West Wales & the Valley. Ministers have not given guarantees that any region, whether ‘less developed’ or otherwise, will obtain the same amount of funding under UKSPF to which they would have been entitled under ESIF.


The government is reportedly contemplating changing the Treasury’s fiscal rules so public spending favours programmes that reduce regional inequalities as well as provide value for money, but this alone will not rebalance the economy. A shared prosperity fund like UKSPF has the potential to be the master key that unlocks inclusive growth throughout the country, particularly if it involves less bureaucracy than ESIF and aligns funding more effectively with the priorities of local people. 

In NLGN’s Community Commissioning report, we recommended that this funding should be devolved to communities directly to decide local priorities for the investment. By enabling community ownership of design and administration, the UK government would create an innovative domestic structural funding scheme that promotes inclusion in its process as well as its outcomes.

NLGN’s latest report, Cultivating Local Inclusive Growth: In Practice, highlights the range of policy levers and resources that councils can use to promote inclusive growth in their area. It demonstrates that, through collaboration with communities and cross-sector partners, councils are already doing sterling work to enhance economic and social inclusion. Their efforts could be further enhanced with a fund that learns lessons from ESIF’s successes and flaws: a UKSPF that is easier to access, designed and delivered by local communities, properly funded, and specifically targeted at promoting social and economic inclusion in regions that need it most. “Getting Brexit done” was meant to free up the government’s time to focus once more on pressing domestic priorities. “Getting inclusive growth done” should be at the top of any new to-do list.

Charlotte Morgan is senior researcher at the New Local Government Network.