New report examines school disadvantage by local context

A new report commissioned by Gatsby examines the relationship between local circumstances and the experiences of secondary schools in England. 

SchoolDash analysed mainstream state schools using measures of local income, employment, health, housing, crime, the environment and participation in higher education. Schools with similar local characteristics were then organised into six groups for each phase. 

The analysis updates research commissioned by Gatsby in 2024. It is intended to complement the Pupil Premium, which identifies disadvantaged pupils but does not describe the wider circumstances in which schools operate. Schools with similar proportions of pupils receiving Pupil Premium funding may be located in communities with different housing costs, transport links, labour markets and access to further and higher education. 

The report finds that attainment is generally lower in more deprived areas. But the pattern for pupil progress is less consistent. Schools in the Urban London group record relatively strong progress despite high levels of deprivation, while affluent suburban schools have high attainment but more modest progress. 

Subject participation also differs between groups. Pupils in more deprived areas are less likely to take triple science at GCSE and A-level physics. Participation in other STEM subjects, including A-level maths and chemistry, varies between different types of places rather than following a simple relationship with income deprivation. 

The reports also identify differences in staffing. Poor urban secondary schools have the highest sickness absence, vacancy rates and agency spending. Urban London and affluent high-housing-cost secondary schools have higher staff turnover, while affluent rural primary schools have an older workforce. 

The findings provide further detail on how educational outcomes, subject participation, staffing and pupil destinations vary across different local contexts. They are relevant to policies including the government’s commitments to widen access to triple science and expand technical education from age 14. 

Timo Hannay, Managing Director, SchoolDash, said: “We often treat schools with similar proportions of pupils on free school meals as if they face similar challenges, but this isn’t necessarily true: the educational effects of poverty differ between the countryside and the city, the north and the south, coastal areas and inland locations. Yet, as we show, there are national patterns that can be teased out and used to support decision-making. As well as providing specific insights, we hope that the novel approach we have used here acts as an example of how to use AI in the service of better-informed policy.”

Jenni French, Head of STEM at Gatsby said: “The differences in STEM participation are particularly striking. Pupils in more deprived areas are less likely to take triple science at GCSE and A-level physics, but for other STEM subjects the picture varies much more by type of place. The government has committed both to widening access to triple science and to expanding technical education from age 14. If those ambitions are to translate into genuine opportunity, policymakers need to understand why access to subjects and routes varies so much between different places.”

To read the full analysis visit: Understanding school and community deprivation – Part 1: Secondary schools