Povery and inequality in the UK: 2008

This report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows why tackling child poverty is a difficult.

Some extracts:
- There was a small rise in poverty amongst families with children. As with overall poverty, this was not statistically significant, but it is the second year that child poverty has risen.
- Between 2006–07 and 2010–11, child poverty needs to fall by an average of 300,000 per year to meet the government’s targets. Although Budget 2008 announced a £0.9 billion package of measures to reduce child poverty, additional spending of £2.8 billion will be required to have a 50:50 chance of meeting the target.
- Child poverty has risen slightly since 2004–05 using income-based indicators, but it has fallen using the government’s new combined low-income–material deprivation indicator over the same period. Our own indicator of relative material deprivation is unchanged since 2004–05, showing that the living standards of poor families with children have risen since 2004–05 but have not caught up with those of richer families with children.
- Levels of material deprivation generally fall as incomes rise, but children in households with less than 40% of median income – so-called ‘severe’ poverty – are, on average, less deprived than those in households with between 40% and 60% of median income.
- Children in a working lone-parent family are less likely to be in income poverty than those in a one-earner couple family, but they are more likely to be in poverty using a material deprivation indicator. Also, they tend to have higher levels of deprivation than children in a one-earner couple family with similar levels of equivalised income.
- Families with children and disabled adults are less likely to be in income-based poverty than those without disabled adults, presumably because many receive disability-related additions to state benefits. However, they are more likely to be in material deprivation poverty

Pupil population, England

This statistical release from the DCSF updates on the number of pupils by age, gender, free school meal eligibility, ethnicity, first language, SEN (special educational needs) and gifted and talented pupils together with a range of class size information.

Key points:
- The full time equivalent (FTE) number of pupils in primary, secondary and special schools stood at around 7.3 million, the same as in 2007, with both the primary and secondary sectors showing a decrease.
- Figures indicate a decrease in the proportion of pupils in state funded schools known to be eligible for free school meals.
- In 2007 the percentage of pupils in LA maintained nursery and primary schools known to be eligible for free meals was 15.9% and this has fallen to 15.5% in 2008.
- In January 2008, 13.1% of pupils in secondary schools were known to be eligible for free school meals. This represents a decrease from 13.4% in 2007.
- In secondary schools, 12.8% of were known to be eligible for free school meals in 2008, representing a decrease from 13.1% in 2007.
- In primary schools the percentage of pupils who were classified as minority ethnic origin has increased from 21.9% in 2007 to 23.3% in 2008. A similar trend is apparent in secondary schools with 18.0% of pupils classified by minority ethnic groups in 2007 and around 19.5% in 2008. These changes may be due in part to an improvement in the completeness of the data held by schools.
- The percentage of pupils whose first language is known or believed to be other than English was 14.4% in primary schools and 10.8% in secondary schools. These figures represent an increase almost 2 per cent points in primary schools.
- There are 331,680 pupils in the Gifted and Talented cohort in primary schools, this is an increase on the 2007 figure of 282,410 and represents 8.1% of the school population. In secondary schools the figure for 2008 was 448,570, an increase on the 2007 figure of 416,540 and represents 13.6% of the school population.
- Some 223,430 (or 2.8% of) pupils across all schools in England had statements of SEN. The proportion of pupils with statements of SEN is similar to the proportion in 2007.
- In 2008 the percentage of pupils with SEN without statements across all schools was 17.2%, which represents an increase from 16.4% in 2007.
- The incidence of pupils with SEN without statements is greater in primary schools (18.1%) than in state funded secondary schools (17.8%). Distribution across the types of SEN is similar to last year. In primary, secondary and special schools the most prevalent need amongst pupils with SEN was ‘Moderate Learning Difficulty’ (around 26%) followed by ‘Behaviour, Emotional & Social Difficulties’ (around 23%) and ‘Speech, Language and Communication Needs’ (around 15%).

Exclusions in England

This Statistical First Release by the DCSF provides information about permanent and fixed period exclusions from primary, secondary and special schools and exclusion appeals in England during 2006/07. It reports national trends in the number of exclusions together with information on the characteristics of excluded pupils such as age, gender and special educational needs as well as the reasons for exclusion.

Key Points:
- There were 8,680 permanent exclusions from schools in 2006/07, which represents 0.12% of the number of pupils in schools (12 pupils in every 10,000). Compared with the previous year the number of permanent exclusions has decreased by almost 7%.
- In 2006/07 there were 363,270 fixed period exclusions from state funded secondary schools compared with 348,380 in the previous year. This represents an increase of just over 4%.
- The average length of a fixed period exclusion in state funded secondary schools was 3.3 days, for primary schools the average length of a fixed period exclusion was 2.7 days. The majority of fixed period exclusions (almost 90%) lasted one week or less.
- Overall, 61% of pupils who received a fixed period exclusion during 2006/07 were only excluded once, 19% of pupils received two fixed period exclusions.
- In 2006/07 the permanent exclusion rate for boys was nearly 4 times higher than that for girls. The ratio of permanent exclusion between boys and girls has remained stable over the last five years with boys representing around 80% of the total number of permanent exclusions each year. A similar trend is apparent with fixed period exclusions.
- Boys are more likely to be excluded (both permanently and for a fixed period) at a younger age than girls, with very few girls being excluded during the primary years. The most common point for both boys and girls to be excluded is at ages 13 and 14 (equivalent to year groups 9 and 10). Just over 50% of all permanent exclusions were of pupils of this age.
- Pupils with special educational needs are over 9 times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than the rest of the school population.
- The most common reason for exclusion (both permanent and fixed period) was persistent disruptive behaviour. Some 31% of permanent exclusions and 23% of fixed period exclusions were due to persistent disruptive behaviour.

Sure Start Children's Centres - the impact

The report by the DCSF gives a summary of the research undertaken into the impact the Sure Start (later named Children's Centres) have and what lessons have been learnt. Drawing on the National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) research as well as ofsted and international research. A good read for anyone interested in Early Years!

The report is spilt into assessing the impact on:
- good outcomes for children
- reaching excluded and disadvantaged groups (BME, SEN-D)
- support for parents (including fathers)
- joined up working & partnership
- health
- governance, leadership, consultation
- workforce

Ideas on special educational needs

The think tank Policy Exchange and Centre Forum have jointly released this report with suggestions of the future of Special Educational Needs (SEN) education. After discussing the issues around SEN, with data showing that the UK has a very high prevalence of SEN the author goes on to suggest policy changes.

Key points:
- SEN is very high in the UK and disproportionally effects the poorest in society.
- Parents, not politicians, are best placed to decide where their children should be educated
- More school choice and freedoms should be given to schools, similar to the Academies programme
- School league tables should be made clearer to enable parents with SEN children to make informed evaluations
- Better training of teachers so there are more SEN specialists, this should be funded by a reduction in the number of teaching assistants