The growth in the attainment gap between poorer 16-year-olds and their better-off peers between 2019 and 2023 can be “entirely explained” by higher absences for disadvantaged pupils, new research suggests.
A report by the Education Policy Institute found absences were a “key, and growing, driver of the disadvantage gap”.
The think tank said its report was the “first to quantify the role of pupil absence as a driver of the disadvantage gap and how this changed since 2019”.
Had poorer pupils had the same level of absence as their peers in 2023, the attainment gap “would have been almost one month smaller at age 11 and over four months smaller at age 16”.
In 2023, poorer year 11 pupils were 19.2 months behind their peers, up 0.5 months since 2019.
The report also found that at all key stages, at least half of the attainment gap is explained by gaps that open at an early age.
‘Disturbing’
Natalie Perera, the EPI’s chief executive, said the report’s findings were “disturbing”.
“Today’s report casts a harsh light on the impact of under-investment in education and wider children’s services.
“A lack of early intervention and the inability of many families to access adequate SEND and mental health support for their children have led to an unacceptable and unnecessary widening of inequalities.”
Chris Paterson, co-CEO at the Education Endowment Foundation, said the report “acts as a stark reminder of the significant barriers faced by many disadvantaged pupils.
“Our own research has found that three-quarters of schools identified poor attendance as the biggest challenge to disadvantaged pupils’ attainment.
“Today’s findings reinforce just how deeply poor attendance is contributing to the attainment gap, making it even harder for disadvantaged pupils to reach their full potential.”
Pupils ‘already 4.6 months behind’ when starting school
The report examined changes in the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers between 2019 and 2023. It used the national pupil database, and looked at the attainment of pupils based on different characteristics and absence rates.
It found disadvantaged children were already 4.6 months behind when starting school. The EPI said poverty was the main reason for this inequality.
“This is not just a story of post-pandemic spikes in illness absence. It is unauthorised absence that is of key concern, particularly at secondary school,” said the report.
“Without an effective strategy for tackling pupil absence, policymakers’ efforts to narrow the disadvantage gap will be limited.”
Almost 60 per cent of disadvantage gaps among 11-year-olds had already emerged by the time the pupils were seven, the EPI said. The gap then widened by 0.5 months at age 16 between 2019 and 2023.
Absences “account for the entire increase in the gap since 2019” and may be symptomatic of other factors, such as declining mental health.
Gender gaps narrow
Gender gaps at GCSE have narrowed by 3.2 months, with boys substantially narrowing the gap.
The EPI said while this was positive it also reflected the “slower progress” girls make during secondary school.
The report recommended increasing the early years pupil premium to match pupil premiums in later schools year, prioritising training in child development, and absence strategies to include improved SEND support.
The report also recommended a pupil premium for students aged 16 to 19 to help address the “cliff-edge” in funding for disadvantaged students.
It also backed calls to introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals, re-introduce targets to reduce child poverty and abolish the two child limit benefit cap.
Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said the report’s findings were “no surprise”.
“We welcome the government’s commitments to improving attendance and reducing the attainment gap.
“However, this will only be possible if it addresses the fundamental issues of child poverty and SEND as well as curriculum, assessment and accountability reform, and significantly increase school funding.”
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, warned improving attendance “cannot be the sole responsibility of schools.
“Too often, the burden of ensuring children attend school falls entirely on teachers and leaders, who are then held accountable for absences beyond their control.
“Without a broader system of support, it is extremely difficult for schools to drive meaningful change in attendance rates.”
