Reading England's Future

Reading england’s future Mapping how well the poorest children read

Acknowledgements This report was written by Hollie Warren for the Read On. Get On. campaign, with support from Richard Brooks and Will Paxton. We would like to thank Dr Rebecca Allen and Dave Thomson for their work and support with the data and analysis in this report.

Published by Save the Children on behalf of the Read On. Get On. campaign 1 St John’s Lane London EC1M 4AR UK +44 (0)20 7012 6400 savethechildren.org.uk

First published 2014

The Save the Children Fund is a charity registered in England and Wales (213890) and Scotland (SC039570). Registered Company No. 178159

This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale. For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.

Typeset by Grasshopper Design Company Printed by Page Bros Ltd. contents

Executive summary iv

1 Understanding the challenge 1 ‘Reading well’ by 11: a definition 2 Background: What do we already know about geographical inequality in education? 2 The remit of this report 3 Action is needed on four main fronts 4

2 Reading between the lines: Patterns in poor children’s reading standards across England 5 Our research remit 5 Reading maps 6 Poor children’s reading by region 6 Poor children’s reading in cities, towns and the countryside 6 London – the stand-out performer, but still short of the Read On. Get On. goal 9

3 Challenges to poor children’s progress: Different routes to falling behind at 11 10 The importance of the early years 10 Different routes for poor children to fall behind in reading at 11: three constituency case studies 12

4 Where are reading levels slipping back – or forging ahead? 13 Areas that are slipping back: the risk of taking our eye off the ball 13 Areas that have forged ahead 15 The potential for improvement: matched constituencies with widely different results 16 Taking on the reading challenge at a local level 19

5 Conclusion 20

Appendices 21 Appendix 1: ‘Countryside’, ‘big city’ and ‘town and country’ classification 21 Appendix 2: Details on the ‘matched areas’ 22 Appendix 3: List of parliamentary constituencies for low-income children reading at 11 24

Endnotes 30 Executive summary

Close to one in four children in England still all parts of the country, a national mission to ensure cannot read well by the age of 11 – in spite all children are reading well at 11 by 2025 will fail. of significant progress in recent years. This figure rises to two in five among children Despite progress, all parts of the country from low-income families. risk allowing poor children to fall behind It is unacceptable that so many children are not The first important point to make is that there reading well by the age of 11. These children are is no part of the country, not one local area, even not just less likely to experience the joy of reading. in London, that has currently achieved the They are more likely to struggle as they make the Read On. Get On. goal for poor children. This gives transition to secondary school and then, later, a sense of the scale of the ambition. into adulthood. But some areas have much further to go than others. That is why a wide range of organisations have come How well poor children are reading varies massively together to lead the Read On. Get On. campaign. across the country. In the best performing areas, Together, we will take action to work towards close to nine out of ten poor children read well. a historic goal for the UK: all children should be In the worst performing areas, four out of ten are reading well by the age of 11 by 2025. falling behind. This report provides new evidence to support the This means that there is no part of the country that Read On. Get On. campaign by charting the geography does not need to do more to reach the goal of all of reading disadvantage in England. It compares the children reading well by 11. reading ability of poor children across parliamentary These worst performing areas – where being born constituencies. If we are to achieve the historic goal poor has the most effect on your chances of reading of all children reading well by the age of 11 by 2025, well – can be found in all regions of the country. we cannot forget a single poor child in any part of They are in cities, towns and rural areas, and in the country. Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat areas.

A focus on young and poor children Rural areas, market towns and coastal towns The foundations laid before children turn 11 are face particular challenges critical. For example, it is recognised that London’s While poor children being left behind is an issue in secondary schools have improved dramatically over all parts of the country, the risks are greater in some the last decade. But less remarked upon is the fact types of areas than in others. that London’s 11–year-olds also read well. First, the risk of poor children falling behind in The Read On. Get On. campaign is focused on children reading are higher in ‘town and country’ and under the age of 11. It argues that children living in ‘countryside’ areas. poverty need to be a particular focus. This report • Almost 40% of ‘town and country’ parliamentary therefore focuses on reading ability among children constituencies are in the bottom 25% of areas eligible for free school meals. These children make up nationally. nearly a fifth of all children and are less likely to read • Close to a third of ‘countryside’ constituencies well than their more affluent peers. Unless more are in the bottom 25% of areas nationally for poor children from low-income families are reading well in children’s reading ability at age 11.

iv Executive summary v

o t

p nd u a

eadteachers igning owns h s t

nd a

eading chools r s

eads l

nd nd a a

ears y

alking t ettings arly

s f e

ith ears w y

reation ncourage them to become champions of arly c port and promote the achievement of the

ties, which, critically, bring together schools and sup to e the campaign, with some settings and schools becoming beacons of good practice working for with their local communities to celebrate and improve reading ci early years services, following thelead of places Sheffield,like embeddedwhich have focus a on language and literacy in early years settings and schools reading to improve levels. Read On. Get On. goal in their local community and Leicester in the East West Midlands, and Witham in the East of England, and perhaps many surprisingly, of these we areas outside are London. However, also seen areashave 35 backwards go the past over decade in termsof the absolute performance of their disadvantaged pupils, which important shows how it is not to off take our eye the ball. Leeds North East, Wokingham, and South Leicestershire the at are top of the list of areas where children from low-income families performing are worse in reading than now ten yearsago. • the The Read On. Get On. campaign will be reporting in on what nationalearly policy 2015 change believe we needs to happen in the next Parliament to reach a Local responses to local challenges theIf going to are Read achieve we On. Get On. ambition, it will require local communities, schools and it.parents That to‘own’ is the why purpose of this report is to inform and inspire locally driven change. want this analysisWe to support every local area to understand its starting point and the nature of its challenge. Every every school local and teacher, area wants all children to be reading – a big well part of the Read On. Get On. campaign will be to inform and tap into this local energy and ambition. Lasting change children for is enabled decisions by made central by government, but ultimately it aboutis schools, pre-school local professionals, government and communities themselves learning from the successes of other areas. The Read On. Get On. campaignis therefore working towards: • all • working

1 ver

ve t o

fi he

ust a

t j verall

o s n

i i ell

w his

re t ngland, etween a

arliamentary

etween gure E b p

b fi

f ith

f o kshire and the o

w eading

his r or kshire and the t

ast Y 0% E or 2

rogress

Y rogress p

p egions he

r t ust

j hildren onstituencies umber,

n c oor c i

H p

oth: ecent a nd

b d he oor

5%, ffer ast ake nd chieve or 2 f E

a a

su m

5% arliamentary 2 reas ey, or Wolverhampton South Eastey, with 5%. outh

p reas reas a

ottom 4 S 5%.

a a f

all

b 2 o

orkshire he ttom Y t % der he e and 11 for their for disadvantaged pupils,e and 11 ttern in the are East of England and South East; d 11 butvery from starting low d 11 points: regions

despite reasonably good starting points: a region with this overall pattern is fiv with this overall pattern the are North West and North is an East; Devon and West Torridge example of a parliamentary constituency where this happens. Humber; Northampton North is an example of a happens. this where constituency parliamentary an pa and SouthendRochford East is an example of a parliamentary constituency with this pattern. bo un 45 n nstituencies in other major urban areas in the are i

Second, seen many have areas we dramatically reading low-incomeimprove by pupils the past over decade example, – for Sleaford and North Hykeham Birmingham Edgbaston, shows similar of pupils levels on free school meals but very different outcomes in readingterms 11. at of children’s We know it can beWe done. First, areas for where poor children falling are behind in reading, there similar are areas demographically that very achieve different results. For example, comparing Daventry with Calder But can children be poor we ambitious all for • Other • Some There are two main routes to poor reading at 11: There two are main routes to poor reading 11: at first, poor language development before a child turns five; second, and poor progressreading in 11. between five and • Some Humber, they do particularlyHumber, badly. • In • In Different routes to 11 falling behind at co bottom Second, there bigger are challenges in some regions. childrenPoor in London reading are well, but in the South East, East of England, and In contrast, no London parliamentary constituency is vi Rnead o . get on. – so that areas and schools that are not doing well doing are not that schools and areas – so that learning school-to-school and area-to-area facilitating include could These action. for future pointers some provides and reading children all getting lie in challenges the of some where indicates report This schools. primary and years early cover both to need will this terms, policy in highlights, report well at 11 reading children all of goal this As by 2025.

providers, Local Authorities and communities. and Authorities Local providers, pre-school schools, and include primary schools, 11 under children secondary on focus than rather that but Challenge, London the to are similar that for schemes acase be may also there London outside regions In improvement. lasting ensuring of ways best the of one is this peers; fromtheir learn to need

hi C t e v a /S co S son et M o J : photo ldren he tt 1 Understanding the challenge

Being able to read well is the foundation on which so much else depends. Reading unlocks the door to a child’s future. But every year, close to one in four1 children leave primary school without being able to read well. Among poorer children that figure rises to two in five2 – almost double the rate of their better-off peers. Leaving school without this foundational skill has repercussions for the rest of a child’s life. A child who is behind in reading at age 11 is likely to face a difficult time at secondary school and, beyond that, in the world of work: one in four people earning less than £10,000 are not functionally literate, compared with fewer than one in 25 of those earning over £30,000.3 The Read On. Get On. campaign was launched in September 2014. Organisations and individuals have come together on an unprecedented scale to seek to achieve the historic goal of ensuring that all children are reading well by the age of 11 by 2025. Reaching our goal will require action at a national level – by government, civil society and businesses – and across society, a celebration of the joy of reading, so that it becomes part of our national conversation. However, it will also require local communities, schools and parents to ‘own’ the ambition. We will never achieve a nation where all children are reading well without local action. This report examines the current, highly varied pattern of achievement in reading across England. There is no area in the country that does not have to make significant further improvements in children’s reading. However, as this report shows, some have further to travel than others. In this chapter we present the context: we review what is already known about the differences in educational attainment for secondary school-aged children. However, little is known about the patterns for primary school-aged children. We go on to show how this report helps to address that gap.

1 2 Rnead o . get on. in geog we been impressive. In 2007, inner London was the the 2007, In was London impressive. inner been certainly has London in improvement of rate The counties. home the in including areas, rural in and – for example Liverpool, around and –in areas urban They are country. in the in areas of types across all are scattered schools these London outside report), this in core argument the linked to closely (and Second are London. in schools these of none First, 2012. in TwoGCSEs here. are noteworthy points their in worst did children poor which in schools secondary the of location the shows report, Ofsted fromthe taken page, next the on map The country. the of parts unexpected perhaps low some in very be to shown was children poor among attainment challenge’. ‘urban an simply Rather,longer educational no was pupils by low-income attainment poor that was report Ofsted fromthis keyThe conclusion region. the in authority local every in GCSEs their in families fromlow-income foraverage children national the below achieving behind, fallen consistently had children poor for example, East, South the as such region wealthy arelatively in below), (see story success aparticular is London while regions: English between differences large highlighted It country. the of parts different in at school are doing poorest, the particularly how in well children, remained variations significant improved had overall, nationally attainment levels GCSE of while that 2013,In reported Ofsted B ackground level’ for 11-year-olds from2016 onwards. new ‘expected the as introduce will government the what to equivalent is using is campaign On. Get On. Read the ‘reading that of well’ measure The ‘R good GCSEs. get to on going of chance agood give children to shown been has that alevel reading to of bar the level raises level of This 4. expected current the from up a‘level steps call 4b’ –two educationalists what is new measure this of equivalent current

e eading

a ducation lread raphical 5

y w k ell : W now ?

i ’ ne b ha y 11 q

t a ua

bout d : a o lit

y y efinition

6 4

The The the the Challenge, London as such programmes reform and improved school buildings; recruitment; teacher includes This itself. systems school secondary the within happened has what on focus to tended has explanations possible of set additional An British children. British white poor –including capital the in better are doing groups ethnic all and areas other many than more not gentrified has London that finds It are rejected. CfBT, explanations these experts, by education study However, gentrification. in a its recent or mix ethnic unique its –for example, London of demographics the concern explanations possible of set One England? of parts other outstripped London has First. First. (IFS), presented some significant findings. findings. significant some presented (IFS), Studies for Fiscal Institute by the this, of assessment An literacy. in particularly children, younger of learning the in improvements of contribution potential the attention: little surprisingly received has for London’s story success explanation possible One paper. this of section final the in it to we return country; the of parts other to experience London the spread howto about thinking when finding reported by the government since 2013. since government by the reported been only has of reading definition advanced new, level The 4. using possible more only is this over and time constituencies by parliamentary reading in trends the tracking included has analysis the of part well’. important an because is This level –level expected current the uses report this ambitions, of raising wethis welcome While – w best, beaten to the top spot by outer London. by outer spot top the to beaten best, second now is the –it England of whole the in GCSEs at outcomes for educational region worst second but also across communities. across also but schools, –in system” level the of at every “leadership effective of importance the factor: another out However, single impact. an had particularly they have are factors’, to likely ‘enabling which important hen assessing whether children are ‘reading children whether assessing hen conversion of schools into academies and Teach and academies into schools of conversion In its report, CfBT concludes that these are these that concludes CfBT report, its In 8

9 This is an important important an is This

7 4 Why Why 1 Understanding the challenge 3

than

fewer

where

roportion and

eport r 14%)

age Norwich er his upils v p t

average

- f e v o hese

t (national bo

or f Stage

ith r

, 2013 Key w

CSE Sunderland of he

Portsmouth Leicester G T One of the assumptions underpinning the EMITRead On. Get On. campaign is that it is critical to get things right early on: when children fall behind age, a young at particularly in critical skills such as reading, their chances of catching up much are diminished. The IFS study strongly supports this contention. This report therefore seeks tounderstand the scale and nature of the challenge in the early years and in the primary school phase of education in different parts of the country. While the research reported t Leeds end

Swindon a

the

chools Sheffield s 10 Southampton y pupils

FSM

Birmingham of

012 2

erformance n i p

Liverpool econdar s 11 11 proportions

1 enchmark f b

owest Plymouth l o

CSE G

ith 11 he t

above-average

w ation , with

ttained oc a

L upils

p upils schools 1

111 SM

SM F

F on f

o “… that the“… big improvement the over last decade in FSM results in London and other big cities is unlikely to have been driven secondary by schools, as was previously thought. Instead, the roots are likely to lie in primary schools.” “We show that“We show the higher achievement of level at (the end secondary of school) and the improvement in results disadvantaged for pupils in London and other big cities can be mostly explained differences by in prior attainment (at the end primary of school).”

% of figure Source: Ofsted, Unseen Children: Access and achievement years 20 on – evidence report It concluded that their analysis suggests: It stated that: 20 Based 4 Rnead o . get on. This • The • It • ways: important of number a in different is it work, previous on builds here on Read On. Get On.: How reading can help children escape poverty escape children help can reading How On.: Get On. Read Children, the Save Source: • areas: key children’s acrossfour reading support to needed be will Action ambition. the behind fully be also must society civil and schools in Others alone. change achieve to lasting able be not will it but achieve, to we want what to critical be will action Government well by 11 reading children all of own. their on they cannotachievefundamental, a national goal S organisations and individuals. While schools are frommany and settings acrossmany action require will challenge the of scale the to Responding A 1 twofold: is for this authorities or individual schools. The rationale par box below). (see approach acomprehensive achieved be through only children’s improving that will reading assertion campaign’s On. Get On. Read the supports This school. even start children before years early the in happens what of importance the demonstrates It five. of age at the measured development, bu years. ten of over course the changed has children for poor achievement howand reading acore indicator as meals school free on children ex ction

they have less chance of learning to read well. well. read to learning of have chance they less reading: of enjoyment the celebrating communities, In c amine reading achievement at11 age achievement reading amine for t also looks at children’s early language at children’s language looks t also early In t In parties need to address in the coming election. election. coming the in address to need parties all that issue an then, is, It parties. political the for all and country the of parts different in achallenge is children, poorer among particularly language, and reading improving showshow research Our us. with action take to them encourage to order in reading, and children’s to language regards early with areas their in happening is what understand overs liamentary constituencies, rather than local

r r esearch esearch he run up to the election, we want MPs to to MPs we want election, the to up run he

c when children do not enjoy reading enjoyreading not do children when hildren

i s n oes

d eeded

ifferent u

nder n ot

t nly

he b

ecause

f a ocus ge n

f w o

our 1 n e 1.

s u

chools, W se e

m ain

f ronts still face. face. still localities challenge the of scale the details and areas, many in made progress the celebrates report This well. are reading children all ensuring of short far remain ago adecade than better much now reading are children where areas Even children. poorest for the particular improve,in to need not does that country the in area one not is there well, reading children all of goal we achievehistoric are to If the We • This • • • • starting from and how far it has to travel. travel. to has it how fromand far starting is it where know should area local each ambition, On. Get On. Read the towards progress making ba bit. their doing –all services pre-school –particularly services local other and communities local about is it And goals. and targets local ownambitious and set to working schools and settings years early no children; but some need more support and help. and support more need some but children; for their best the want all they teachers: important most the be can families extended home: the In achieve to even autonomy more. and resources support, the need they difference, ahuge make already schools and teachers school: In forever. lives their shape can aschool in foot set have they before happens what levels: language early good establishing in child’s are critical life school: starting Before 2

seline for each area. As we look forward to to forward we look As area. for each seline t solely about central government; it is about about is it government; central about t solely Pa done before. done been has than detail closer in but country, acrossthe communities of types different in happening is what We analyse to wanted authorities. local than measurement area

i ntend r rliamentary constituencies are a smaller are asmaller constituencies rliamentary eport

, 2014 , while thousands of head teachers, teachers, head of thousands while

mothers and fathers, carers and and carers fathers, and mothers or i s

l t inked his

r eport

the early years of a of years early the t o

t lan o

f rovide or

a ction

a n

i t mportant hat

i s

2 Reading between the lines: Patterns in poor children’s Reading standards across England

This chapter presents a comprehensive mapping across England of reading among children from low-income families at age 11. It demonstrates that poor children – meaning here those on free school meals – have very different levels of reading, depending on where they happen to be born and grow up. We know that to achieve the goal of all children reading well by the age of 11 will need an ambitious approach in all areas of the country, even those that are doing relatively well. In places where poor children are falling behind more than average, we need to do even more. A key message in this chapter is that the problem of poor children falling behind exists in all parts of the country – in different regions; in cities, towns and rural areas; and in Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat heartlands as well as in marginal seats. At the same time, this chapter highlights significant variations in poor children’s reading in different parts of the country: • Poor children in London are doing relatively well – though even here the Read On. Get On. ambition is some way from being met. • Some English regions – the East of England, the South East, and Yorkshire and the Humber – have a disproportionate number of parliamentary constituencies where poor children fare particularly badly in reading. • Children from low-income families in smaller towns and rural areas are particularly likely to fall behind in reading.

O ur rESEARCH remit children who are on free school meals. We have chosen to focus on these children because they The data used in this report comes from the are statistically more likely to be behind in reading National Pupil Database, which contains information than their better-off peers. Furthermore, this group about schools in England. This report therefore only makes up nearly one-fifth of all pupils. refers to constituencies in England. This focus of our research should not be taken to In this report, when groups of children are referred suggest that poverty is the only causal factor for to as ‘poor children’, ‘disadvantaged children’ or children failing to develop good early language skills ‘children from low-income families’, this refers to and to read well at 11. We also acknowledge that

5 6 Reading england’s future through their primary school years. years. school primary their through 11 and to up school years the start they –before in fare at we how look children chapter next the In Two • • noting: are worth points additional Three West. North the being exception the with country, the of regions nine the of eight in are highlighted that constituencies are parliamentary there areas, these of Outside West the and Midlands. Manchester Greater Merseyside, East, North the as such conurbations large few are other in very and are London in ch the highlights page opposite the on map second The mo rural few are relatively There Birmingham. and Manchester Liverpool, –for example, cities large other in are concentrations there addition, In highlighted. is London of all Almost classmates). better-off their worse than perform children poor areas, performing best –so even the in persist children non-FSM and meals school free on children between gaps cases, all almost in that here noting worth is it (although 13 show areas highlighted the map, first the In well. reading children poor of terms in are England in places worst and best the show where opposite maps The R measure in different parliamentary constituencies. this on do children how on poor focuses chapter 11. of age levels at the reading of is analysis this This by 11, reading on focus in used core measure the campaign’s On. Get On. Read the with Consistent children. of group this within variations local and regional understand to well at 11. reading children important therefore is It all of goal the reaching way to along us take will well at 11 reading children poor getting on focusing Nevertheless, area. to fromarea may differ meals school free on children of characteristics group eading 3 in total – where poor children are doing best best are doing children poor –where total 3 in ildren’s reading. None of these constituencies ildren’s constituencies these of None reading. fro bottom pa south coast and almost all of the Kent coast. the of all almost and coast south the of parts coast, Essex and Suffolk the of much –including poorly are reading children poor where towns and areas coastal of number alarge is There re visible because they each cover a larger area. area. cover alarger each they because re visible

ottom

rliamentary constituencies that are in the are the in that constituencies rliamentary c t m the Wash into the East Midlands. Midlands. East the Wash into m the onstituencies he

areas

5% 2

2 5%. 5%

have m o f

aps O o p f arliamentary

ne a

c i

onstituencies n particular

i s t he

K ent.

t op

concentration c 5%, he onstituencies

i o n

a ther

t lthough erms

s tretches

of hey p – oor

12 a

b the in There • i HILDREN P an ch constituencies few have parliamentary also relatively regions three 11. of age well at the read to are unable These children poor where constituencies parliamentary of number have adisproportionate England of East Y children’s at 11 reading 8). page 3on Figure (see HILDREN poor in country acrossthe variation wide is There P bo Fi b constituencies London of majority vast The by distance. some children’s poor of and terms reading, in region top-performing the is London 4shows, Figure As classification.) this on details 1for further Appendix (See instances. some in category aseparate We as London present Town • B • Countryside • urbanisation: of bydown degrees constituencies parliamentary breaks 8) 4(page Figure 85 big n ottom or oor oor y gure 4 also shows that a higher proportion of of proportion ahigher that shows 4also gure

d in the East of England only three of 57. of three only England of East the d in ildren’s reading. In the South East only three of of three only East ildren’s South the In reading. t

ttom

co children do particularly badly in reading at 11. reading in badly particularly do children poor where East South the in London around They include market towns and seaside towns. seaside and towns market They include ci 30 people.250,000 th ha 30 p

he c

kshire and the Humber, the South East, and the the and East, Humber, the and South the kshire c r arliamentary ig ity ty with a population of over 250,000 people. people. over of 250,000 apopulation with ty eir population living in cities or towns of over of towns or cities in living population eir ve nstituencies in the Thames Thames the in nstituencies

% %

egion ities t c c

hird

c ity r o 2 2 o

ountr

onstituencies ural,

a f 5% 5%. c c ver a

nd t re c

he 2 onstituencies

5% (

c a 38%

t p 5% ountry

t a ut n

hat opulation re

owns c umber b

onstituencies

c and

o onstituencies i

c re n a y f ompared

re p t

he c a eople a

ot nd onstituencies i de re o n

’ ’ t

s s

l op h p t iving p i a he

n here ave art

r r arliamentary

nd iving

2 w eading eading t he

5%.

op o

m a ith i

n re

f a a

t V ore

re a

re op 2

i r

all n

1 O t ural 5% l

8%). arge hose n

i r ey and dotted ey dotted and

nly n 2 a t ural one han

5% f t

or a he

reas; t l B

ess

own

ne t i a

h p y n han t reas. ith

alf oor op

i ontrast, he t s

han m

o a 2 t

ver

f he any 5%,

2 Reading between the lines: Patterns in poor children’s reading standards across England 7

n e dr hil c r es fo ci n e u it st n Parliamentary constituencies in the top 25% for reading children’s poor y co 1 r 1 t ta a

n ell ame w

li r f pa o eading r

5% e 2 b

o t

ottom ottom Parliamentary constituencies in the bottom 25% for reading children’s poor b amilies f nd

op a come in - he t T

2 ow l e

ur ig rom F f Source: Analysis of National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. campaign Notes: (i) Poor children are identified using Free School Meals measure (ii) Reading well is measured using(iii) the current Uses data 3-yearexpected and 2013 2012 average level, of 2011, level 4. 8 Reading england’s future campaign On. Get On. Read for Database Pupil National of Analysis Source: the country. country. the across massively varies are reading children poor Howwell others. go than to have further much areas some demonstrates, section this as But ambition. the of scale the of asense gives This short. falls children, disadvantaged most well for the very does which London, Even children. for poor goal On. Get On. Read achieved the currently has that area, local one not country, the of t As th around: way other are the constituencies country and town campaign On. Get On. Read for Database Pupil National of Analysis Source: on F F e Yorkshire and the Humber the and Yorkshire igure igure

t his report set out at the start, there is no part part no is there start, at the out set report his op

oor 2 3 5%. 4% Town and country Town and 3 4

East of England of East

West Midlands

P H a

East Midlands East c re oo Countryside ow North West North South WestSouth hildren North East South East South

i n r

London London Big city Big

d he c ifferent hildren

b ottom 0 0 ’ s

r eading

’ 5% t Percentage of parliamentary constituencies Percentage of parliamentary Percentage of parliamentary constituencies Percentage of parliamentary s

y r

pe eading a nd 25 25 s

o j t ust f 1

p 1

1 arliamentar

5% a t

1 i n 50 50 1

y r at school, or a combination of both these factors. these both of acombination or at school, progress poor are making they because or school, start they when behind being children to due is this whether at 11 reading in behind are falling children –examining where differences the explores chapter next The schools. and years early the be course of will focuses well at 11. reading children getting play arolein Two big we believe will that factors different are many there that clear been has campaign On. Get On. Read The Liberal Democrat areas. areas. Democrat Liberal and Labour, in and Conservative areas, rural and towns cities, in case the is It behind. falling of risk are at aparticular children poor where areas are some there England of region every In egion y 75 75 c onstituencies

10 10 0 0

p In best performing 25% performing best In 25% performing best 2nd In 25% performing best 3rd In 25% performing worst In In best performing 25% performing best In 25% performing best 2nd In 25% performing best 3rd In 25% performing worst In erform

2 Reading between the lines: Patterns in poor children’s reading standards across England 9

1 1 t 8%. a 8

s i on-poor

n he

ell s t a

f eading o r

86%) ( eading

r kshire and the Humber

ell or w

London London London London Y Region London London London London London upils hort p s

hildren

eal eading r

t till a

s oor

p ell

chool w

ut s or a b

, 8% 4% 9% 40% 36% 37% % pupils on free mealsschool 29% 16% 24% 35% vertheless, in London even there is still ildren across England the – national average for some distance to until go the Read On. Get On. goals Even achieved. are the highest performing constituencies in London fall short of the goal. The challenge will greater be even when looking at the more advanced definitionreading of well used theby Read On. Get On. campaign (see page 2). ch non-free Ne almost

t a erformer

p onstituencies

c t etter y b

85% 84% 84% 85% % pupils on free school meals readingwell at 11 86% 86% 85% 85% 85% 85% ou 0% - 1

east oal l

t g tand a

arliamentar p oing

he d

t en re t a Poor children Poor in Battersea do

– 13 . Get On.. Get op T 4%. 7

s 1 i

d On a ading than the national this average for group, West Ham Kensington Hammersmith Sutton and Cheam Constituency Battersea Chipping Barnet Putney Old Bexley and Sidcup Bermondsey and Old Southwark Sheffield, Hallam e ondon able R re which As London the is maps a stand-out show, In allperformer. other parts of the country there parliamentaryare constituencies where children fallingare that, 1 shows behind. Table of the top ten constituencies poor for children reading well six in inner are London and theby age of 11, three in outer are London. children Poor inthese constituencies L Source: Analysis of National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. campaign Note: (i) Uses data 3-year and 2013 2012 (ii) average Uses of 2011, free school meals for ‘poor children’ and Level 4 as the measure of reading well T 3 Challenges to poor children’s progress: different routes to falling behind at 11

The Read On. Get On. campaign has set out four key drivers for children to learn to read well: early years; primary schools; mothers, fathers and carers; and communities. The findings in this report support this call for a comprehensive response to the problem. Many primary schools are achieving very impressive results against all the odds. But what happens in schools is only part of the picture. Other factors – in particular, levels of early language development14 – are also critical to whether or not children are behind in reading by 11. This chapter looks at how areas in different regions and categories perform in terms of poor children’s language development in the early years and in reading ability at primary school. First, it shows the importance of early language development in all contexts and areas of the country. Second, this chapter highlights the different challenges faced by different local areas in promoting poor children’s reading. In some areas, the biggest challenge concerns early language development; in others there are serious questions about poor children’s progress in reading during their primary school years; and other areas face an acute challenge at both stages – in children’s early language development and in primary schools. We include case studies of three constituencies to illustrate these three types of challenge.

T he iMPORTANCE of the development and in reading at 11. By contrast, a early years much wider range of areas – the South East and the East of England, for example – do badly in terms of Figure 5 shows poor children’s early language both early language for low-income children and their development and their levels of reading at 11 in the reading level at 11. nine different English regions. There are other interesting regional differences. For It shows first the close relationship between poor example, the North East and North West regions children’s early language development and how have a high proportion of constituencies in the well they are reading at the age of 11. Similar to the bottom 25% for achievement in early language and maps on page 7, Figure 5 shows that poor children literacy at five, but do better on ‘reading well’ at the in London do very well – both in early language age of 11.

10 3 Challenges to poor children’s progress: Different routes to falling behind at 11 11

e v London

fi - nd ge a a ,

e v West i North nd f

t In worst performing 25% In 3rd best performing 25% In 2nd best performing 25% In best performing 25% a pe

y t East y North 0 10 opment el v e West South d

75 onstituenc c y egion ading 5–11 r West Re development in the early years is one of the factors, along with primary school performance, behind the huge gains made the by capital’s secondary schools the pastover ten years (see page 2). All other types of area – countryside, town and country, and cities – face a challenge. Region y Midlands anguage b

1, 1, 1, 1, 50 1 1 o t t a East

e Midlands rly language arliamentar v i p

Ea f

25 ge upils eading a p

and the s Percentage of parliamentary of Percentage constituencies Humber ’ Yorkshire Yorkshire SM etween b F ading at 11 rom

f f

Re o

East of hildren England c

Big city London eading r r ationship

Countryside n el tandard oo i s

R P East South

y 6 5 Town andTown country 0 75 50 25 ure 100 ogress

terac Percentage of parliamentary constituencies parliamentary of Percentage ig igure li F pr

In best performing 25% In 2nd best performing 25% In 3rd best performing 25% In worst performing 25% F Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. campaign Note: Age five literacy standard measured as proportion of children reaching expected standardelement on the Communication, of the Foundation StageLanguage Profile and Literacy Figure 6 shows children’s development in theFigure 6 shows children’s early years to according the breakdown of constituencies into countryside, town and country, and big city, London. It shows a very similar pattern to that (see Figure 4, page 8). readingfor 11 at London again performs – and well it is likely that children’s Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. campaign Note: Age five literacy standard measured as proportion of children reaching expected standardelement on the Communication, of the Foundation StageLanguage Profile and Literacy 12 Reading england’s future re reading ‘t N Midlands East the in North and five between Northampton 11 – development, but poor progress in reading language early Good 2: Scenario well at 11reading by 2025. children all of goal the reach are to they if years early on more much to focus need profile this and five of ages the match that 11, constituencies improve between to progress continuing well as As average. national the as same the almost is constituency this in and five of ages the between Progress 11 school. primary through progress of rates reasonable Ho children for average FSM national the with compared five, of age at the literacy early and language in F of before Ch 75% w at o Torridge West South the in –Torridge school West and Devon primary development but good progress through language Poor 1: early Scenario at D f rural constituencies for children reading well reading for children constituencies f rural own and country’ category for FSM children children for FSM category country’ own and ell at 11,ell of averages national with compared

or ading ifferent 1 ildren in this constituency are falling behind behind are falling constituency this in ildren wever, children in this constituency then make make then wever, constituency this in children 1. 1 SM children are reaching the expected level expected the are reaching children SM

thampton o

1: 6 f

9% t

F w w

hey

SM o t a ell ell

f nd

o hree 5

f h c 1%. a a

c ave W hildren t t N hildren

1 1

est

1, 1. r

or e

outes J c ven D c th ust ompared

onstituenc a

ev i

nd s r 6

n eached on 1% i n

F 8

SM t 6%

i he s o

f f i w

c or o h b

ith hildren s ere t f ottom

chool. he n

on-FSM 7

b a 5% p re ottom oor

2 o O n r 5% n eading ationally. y nly

F c

SM c o hildren. 2

4 f 5% c

ase 2% t

a he

hildren

s tudies th national th 53 at 11 by 2025. well reading be are to improve children all if and to are children if focus asignificant be to need will schools primary and years early both challenge: adual face East like Rochford Southend and Areas progress. average to and five ages between school through 11, compared progress poor make here children addition, In le 37% fiveonly at – behind are significantly Poor children fo R East Southend – Rochfordand school through progress poor make then and language early poor with school start Children 3: Scenario reading. underpinning of language importance continued the recognises that schools children’s poor on primary in needed reading is focus sharper amuch And period. pre-school the levels during language early the on build to need children’s poor of terms reading in pattern similar show a that areas other and North Northampton and five of ages the between 11. progress average to compared school through oc vel at age five. vel atfive. age r children reading well at 11 reading r children category. cities the in is constituency then make very poor progress progress poor very make then constituency is e expected level at five, compared to an FSM FSM an to compared level at five, e expected % hford

o o

f f t

F F

o a SM SM

verage a

f c c all hildren

hildren S outhend

o f

b 5

1%. ehind a i n re

E his H r ast eaching owever,

onstituency i s

i i n n

t t

he c r hildren

eading b e ottom xpected

r each

i n

4 Where are reading levels slipping back – or forging ahead?

Achieving the Read On. Get On. goal of all children reading well at the age of 11 by 2015 will require all areas of the country to make considerable progress. This chapter outlines why we should be optimistic about the potential for rapid improvement, but also warns of the risk of taking our eye off the ball. The risk is that, if we lose focus on poorer children, they fall through the cracks and, in extreme cases, some areas see reading levels of poor 11 year olds slipping backwards. This section details areas that have seen just such an unacceptable trend over the last decade. However, this chapter also charts the rapid rates of improvement seen in some parts of the country. Perhaps surprisingly, given the high performance of London constituencies described in the previous two chapters, the top ten parliamentary constituencies in terms of rates of improvement in recent years are mostly outside London. What is more, some preliminary analysis presented here – which is a precursor to subsequent more detailed work by the Read On. Get On. campaign – shows how areas with similar demographic characteristics can have very different reading levels among poor children. In showing what is possible, it suggests real cause for optimism.

A reas tHAT are slipping back: some areas. It is also possible that there are good the risk of taking our eye off explanations for this fall in attainment in some areas – for example, a change in unemployment levels or the ball job opportunities. Nevertheless, if we are to achieve Overall, there have been improvements in reading the national ambition set out by Read On. Get On., levels over the last decade. The national data shows then it is right to shine a light on areas that are that in 2003, 65% of low income pupils were reading slipping back and ask why this has happened. at the government’s current expected level; by 2013, Table 2 (page 14) shows the ten parliamentary this had risen to 75%. constituencies in which poor children’s chances However, some parliamentary constituencies have of reading well has regressed the most. The map seen worrying trends. Today, poor children in some in Figure 7 shows all the constituencies where areas are less likely to be reading well by the age results were worse in 2013 than in 2003. While of 11 than they were a decade ago; poor children’s these constituencies are quite broadly spread – prospects have gone backwards. This needs to be in the countryside, towns and big cities, and one kept in context – only 35 of 533 constituencies have in London – they are more likely to be rural, seen results go into reverse. In addition, overall and there is a disproportionate number in the trends may mask more recent improvements in South East.

13 14 Reading england’s future Notes: (i) Poor children are identified using Free School Meals measure (ii) Reading well is measured using the current expected level, level 4 level level, expected current the using measured is well Reading (ii) measure Meals School Free using identified are children Poor (i) Notes: campaign On. Get On. Read for Database Pupil National the of Analysis Source: on T able Bexhill and Battle and Bexhill Wokingham constituency Parliamentary Hove Orpington Cambridgeshire East South Romford Cambridgeshire South Broadland CentralSefton andTiverton Honiton DerbyshireSouth Redditch Forest Epping Daventry Colchester Surrey East West Devon South Ludlow Congleton Wantage Torridge West and Devon Clacton points percentage five than less of Drop Richmond ( Hexham Witney Norfolk Mid Ewell and Epsom Berwick-upon-Tweed and Southam Kenilworth South Wirral Cornwall East South points percentage 5–10 of Drop Downs South and Arundel Bromsgrove South Leicestershire Leeds East North points percentage ten than more of Drop

a v 2 er

P age ar Y or liamentar

ks) i n

r eading y c

w onstituencies ell

a t 1 1 t han Y South East Y East South Region South East East South London England of East London England of East England of East West North South West East Midlands West Midlands England of East East Midlands England of East South East South West West Midlands West North South East West South England of East East North South East England of East East South East North West Midlands West North West South East South East South East Midlands or or

kshire and the Humber Humber the and kshire kshire and the Humber the and kshire w

t here en y ea F SM SM rs

p e upils arlier

a ( re 2003 2003

p erforming Urban Rural Rural Rural Urban ofCategory constituency Urban London Rural London Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Town Urban Rural Town Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Town Rural t o 2 013)

w orse

4 Where are reading levels slipping back – or forging ahead? 15

eading r ’ ’ upils p

ome inc - ow l

Table 3 (page 3 showsthe top 16) tenTable parliamentary constituencies the improvement for last over decade. Interestingly – and perhaps unexpectedly – only one of these is in London. Most London parliamentary constituencies strong show rates of progress, but not as strong as in some other parts of the country and not enough to dominate the top ten in that a way is the (see case the for absolute results 11-year-olds for somepage give context, 9). the To national average rate the of improvement same over time period is percentage points ten13 over years. The areasdemonstratedTable 3 identifiedhave in what is possible. their example, Taking can we aspire to rapid reading improvementsat levels in children’s the age of 11. w

003 2 in HICH

n i

ead han ities’ c t

big ‘ 013 013

ountryside n 2 i c

n i n onstituencies i

c rged re 19%) ( y a

– orse ix fo

w e

5% v 7 ust j

as –

w ith ha

w liamentar

ar ent P

em t 7

v ompared onstituencies c c

hie igure tside London, and just two in London. reas eas, F ac Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for the Read On. Get On. coalition Notes: (i) Poor children are identified using Free School Meals measure (ii) Reading well is measured using the current expected level, level 4 While some parliamentary constituencies have seen seen have constituencies parliamentary some While reading the get last worse over poor children’s decade (2003–13), just under 500 parliamentary constituencieseither have maintained out of 533 readingor improved poorer for levels pupils. Some very achieved impressivehave rates of improvement: A HAT ar ou The map below shows the location of the 35 parliamentary constituencies in which reading levels than in 2003. poor for pupils worse in 2013 were The ‘bottom highlighted are 10’ in dark of red. 24 these 16 Reading england’s future T account for the difference between two matched matched two between difference for the account fa in ch the are in that constituencies –compare respectively constituencies parliamentary urban and country, and town rural, 10 9and match 8, –which Figures matched parliamentary constituencies.) how on we details more 2gives (Appendix different. children’s poor where levels are widely but reading urbanisation of degree and mix ethnic pupils, FSM of proportion the as –such respects many in similar are that constituencies we at looked parliamentary further, for improvement To potential the explore OTENTIAL wi ma T 4 level level, expected current the using measured is well Reading (ii) measure Meals School Free using identified are children Poor (i) Notes: campaign On. Get On. Read for Database Pupil National the of Analysis Source: in ab ctors not recognised in this data comparison that that comparison data this in recognised not ctors

he Hackney North and Stoke Newington Stoke and North Hackney South Nottingham South Bristol Blyth Tyne upon North Newcastle Copeland West Bromwich Witham Leicester West Hykeham North and Sleaford constituency Parliamentary ildren’s at 11 reading constituencies similar with t

he b del tched le oor ottom

t p 3 op V a

y lley

2 c op

5%. d 2 hildren 5% ifferent

t c

en o onstituencies f f

c p

ourse, p erformers arliamentar

r f eading or

here r

esults i

mpro i n

t w erms ay ell

y b e v c

( l em onstituencies w ocal f 26 27 27 27 27 29 29 31 32 37 points in percentage Change, 2003 2003

p oor ith ent

: 2 013) their community. community. their in children of improveachievement to the able be might behind are falling that areas which in ways specific out draw and well, very are performing that constituencies from some learned be can that lessons children’s at We particular look reading. then will poor of terms in outcomes different very achieving are respects many in are similar that areas why two reasons the explore and closely more areas these of at some workwe look On. will Get On. Read the of phase next the of part As challenges. own particular their face all areas local that we recognise time, same At the have to aspirations. high possible is it moment, at the poorly comparatively are reading families fromlow-income children where areas the in that, is comparisons fromthese take to message main The country. the of parts many in more achieve to children for significantly poorer possible is it suggests analysis this Nevertheless, constituencies.

f or

t en -y ea r London East Midlands West South East North East North West North West Midlands England of East East Midlands East Midlands Region

c hange

4 Where are reading levels slipping back – or forging ahead? 17 0 0 10 10 y

88 90 90 84 83 83 83 83

ountr 82 81 80

79 de 78 80 80 77 si 75 75 y nd a

69 68 70 70 66 66 65 64 64 64 ountr own t c 61 61

59 n n i i 60 58 60 1 1 1 1 t t a a

50 50

eading eading 40 40 r r

s s ’ ’

30 30 Percentage of poor children reading well at 11 Percentage of poor children reading well at 11 hildren hildren

haracteristics haracteristics c c 20 20

c c

est performing 25% est performing 25% oor oor

p p

10 10 In b In b f f imilar imilar s s o o

ith ith 0 0

w w

parison parison Harlow National National Daventry Waveney om om Gloucester York Outer Blyth Valley Winchester Mid NorfolkMid Bromsgrove C C York Central York North Devon Calder Valley Calder Surrey HeathSurrey

and Castlefordand Loughborough 9 8 New Forest West North Shropshire Warrington SouthWarrington Warrington NorthWarrington Weston-Super-Mare Northampton North Somerton Frome and nstituencies nstituencies In worst performing 25% In worst performing 25% Normanton, Pontefract Normanton, Pontefract igure igure Haltemprice and Howden and Haltemprice Torridge and West Devon F co F co Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for the Read On. Get On. coalition Notes: (i) Poor children measured using free school meals (ii) Reading well definition is ‘level 4’ Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for the Read On. Get On. coalition Notes: (i) Poor children measured using free school meals (ii) Reading well definition is ‘level 4’ 18 Reading england’s future Notes: (i) Poor children measured using free school meals (ii) Reading well definition is ‘level 4’ ‘level is definition well Reading (ii) meals school free using measured children Poor (i) Notes: coalition On. Get On. Read the for Database Pupil National the of Analysis Source: Rochford East and Southend 0 ( F photo: Jo Metson Scott/Save the Children Wolverhampton South East e igure South Denton and Reddish and Denton South x In worst performing 25% performing worst In Manchester, Withington Birmingham, Edgbaston cl uding Sheffield South East South Sheffield 1 Nottingham South Nottingham Portsmouth South Portsmouth Salford and Eccles and Salford Oldham East and and East Oldham

C Dudley North Dudley Saddleworth om L on National parison Leigh don

) w

o In b In ith f

10 p est performing 25% performing est oor

s imilar

c 20 hildren

ch Percentage of poor children reading well at 11 at well reading children poor of Percentage 30 aracteristics

’ s

r 40 eading

t 1 1 60 i n

b 63 ig 65

68 70 c 69 70 it

71 y 75 c onstituencies 80 79 80 80

82 82 83 90

10 0

4 Where are reading levels slipping back – or forging ahead? 19

el v e l

the campaign will focus on , the focus is on working in 15 ocal l

t a

promoting children’s reading in thepromoting community children’s – among children and families in the local area – through a range of exciting projects, activities and events. The campaign aims to bring together local partners. and national Sheffield’s ‘Every Sheffield Child Articulateand brings together partnersLiterate 11’ across by health, education and social services usinga three- approachlevel to support language children’s therewas development. and Between 2011 2010 an improvement percentage of seven pointsin the proportion of five-year-old achievingchildren of developmenta good level in Communication, Language and Literacy and a significant closing of the gap between the lowest achieving children and theirpeers. The percentage of children in Sheffield theachieving above expected in Reading level and also age increased at seven in Writing markedly, underpinned schools’ by focus on speaking and listening. other examples of localTwo campaigns in are with Working Middlesbrough. Oxfordshire and the National Literacy these Trust, areas are working in different ways to get children reading. In Oxfordshire primary schools, ensuring that children who are falling behind the support have that they need. In Middlesbrough . This hallenge c

eading r

he t

aking The initiative is intended to teach parents the basics of language development issues and covers like dummy use, background noise, and the importance of reading and singing to child your from birth. In readingparticular, to baby is your highlighted as an activity that can secure aid attachment, bonding and the development of language skills. The campaign builds on the ‘Stoke Speaks Out’ initiative, which focused on early language development. Again, this initiative was a reaction to data that that showed two-thirds of three-and- a-half-year-old children entering nursery in Stoke had a language delay. The ‘Stoke Reads’ scheme, whichtakes place in parents coaches centres, children’s and libraries in fun techniques to get children excited about reading. This campaign was developed as a reaction being bottomto Stoke-on-Trent of the league table seven-year-oldsfor in reading (as as well writing and maths). Stoke Reads is one of a series of projects being planned the for next three years, targeted at everyone from pre-school children to teenagers. One example of an area that is already doing good work to both aimto improve language development and reading is Stoke-on-Trent Tn is not to that say Stoke has been yet successful in improving achievement – but it is oneof a number of areas thatseeking are to address the challenge of children falling behind in reading on a local level. 5 conclusion

Earlier in 2014, the Read On. Get On. campaign As we have clearly set out in this report, all areas called for commitment to the goal of getting across the country have some way to go to meet the all children reading well at age 11 by 2025. goal of all children reading well at 11 by 2025. The In order to achieve this goal, there needs to Read On. Get On. coalition will drive this campaign be a step change in the action taken to get for many years but, to a great degree, in order to be children reading, with particular focus on the successful, this campaign must be owned locally. poorest children. The Read On. Get On. campaign is therefore working towards: This campaign needs schools, parents, early years • all early years settings and schools signing up to services and the wider community to unite and to support and promote the achievement of the own the goal of all children reading well. If we are Read On. Get On. goal in their local community going to achieve this ambitious goal, it will require • working with early years leads and headteachers changes to national government policy, action by civil to become champions of the campaign, with some society at local and national levels, businesses to play settings and schools becoming beacons of good a role, and the whole of society to celebrate the joy practice for working with their local communities of reading as part of our national conversation. to celebrate and improve reading Alongside this, local communities, schools and • the creation of talking and reading towns and parents will need to ‘own’ the Read On. Get On. cities, which, critically, bring together schools and ambition. We will never achieve a nation where all early years services, following the lead of places children are reading well, without local action. We like Sheffield, which have embedded a focus on know that, along with policy change and action on language and literacy in early years settings and a national level, this is key to achieving change. schools to improve reading levels. A key purpose of this report is to raise awareness The Read On. Get On. campaign will be reporting in of areas that have the hardest job because they have early 2015 on what policy change we believe needs the furthest to go in reaching the goal of getting to happen in the next Parliament to reach a goal of all children from low-income families reading well, all children reading well at 11 by 2025. As this report and to highlight the nature of that challenge. And highlights, this will need to cover both early years and alongside raising awareness, we aim to increase schools policy. expectations and improve understanding so that This report indicates where some of the challenges local areas can take action accordingly. lie in getting all children reading, and provides some It is also important for different areas to learn from pointers for future action. These could include each other. Lasting change for children is enabled by facilitating area-to-area and school-to-school learning decisions made by central government, but ultimately – so that areas and schools that are not doing well it is about schools, pre-school professionals, learn from their peers; this is one of the best ways local government and communities learning from of ensuring lasting improvement. In regions outside the successes of other areas. This approach to London, there may be a case for schemes that are improvement is in keeping with the emphasis on similar to the London Challenge, but which focus on schools learning from the experience of others in children under 11 rather than secondary schools, and their ‘family of schools’ – that is, schools that share include primary schools, pre-school providers, local similar circumstances. authorities and communities.

20 Appendix 1: ‘Countryside’, ‘big city’ and ‘town and country’ classification

The classification of areas into ‘Countryside’, • an ‘other urban’ constituency has less than 30% ‘big city’ and ‘town and country’ was carried of its population rural and does not qualify as a out using a classification of parliamentary ‘major urban’ or ‘large urban’ constituency constituencies from the Rural Evidence • a ‘significant rural’ constituency has more than Research Centre.16 The generation of our 30% but less than 50% of its population in rural categories worked as follows: settlements (including ‘larger market towns’ where these occur) In stage 1, Census Output Areas (COAs) are • a ‘rural 50’ constituency has more than 50% allocated to four broad classes according to whether but less than 75% of its population in rural they are located within one of the following types settlements (including ‘larger market towns’ of area: where these occur) • the six ‘major urban areas’, with a population of • a ‘rural 75’ constituency has more than 75% of its more than 750,000 population in rural settlements (including ‘larger • the 17 ‘large urban areas’, with a population market towns’ where these occur). between 250,000 and 750,000 We have then generated our classification by • an urban area with a population of more than simplifying the above classification into: 10,000 that is not identified as a ‘larger market • London as a separate category town’ • ‘major urban’ and ‘large urban’ grouped as • the remaining ‘rural’ set of COAs are deemed to ‘big cities’ be ‘rural’ under the new rural/urban definition, • ‘other urban’ as a single category – ‘town and but includes those COAs comprising the ‘larger country’ market towns’ • ‘significant rural’, ‘rural 50’ and ‘rural 75’ all The main classification generated is: grouped as ‘countryside’. • a ‘major urban’ constituency has at least 50% of its population within a major urban area • a ‘large urban’ constituency has at least 50% of its population within a ‘large urban area’

21 Appendix 2: Details on the ‘matched areas’

This appendix presents details on the matched areas. In each table the pairs of areas are presented with the area where children read poorly in bold, followed by the matched area. We have matched areas using three factors: • degree of urbanisation • percentage of pupils on free schools meals • percentage of non-white pupil population

F1igure A Countryside: case study areas and their matched parliamentary constituency

Parliamentary constituency Region Pupils on free Non-white school meals (%) ethnicity (%)

Daventry East Midlands 11 7

Calder Valley Yorkshire and the Humber 12 6

Mid Norfolk East of England 11 7

North Shropshire West Midlands 11 6

Normanton, Pontefract and Yorkshire and the Humber 19 6 Castleford

Blyth Valley North East 21 4

Somerton and Frome South West 10 6

New Forest West South East 9 7

Torridge and West Devon South West 14 5

North Devon South West 14 4

York Outer Yorkshire and the Humber 5 7

Haltemprice and Howden Yorkshire and the Humber 5 5

Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. coalition

22 Appendix 2: Details on the ‘matched areas’ 23 y y Non-white ethnicity (%) 7 10 20 20 34 24 5 8 15 19 12 8 Non-white ethnicity (%) 18 45 9 6 26 34 23 19 30 46 43 45 arliamentar p

atched m

arliamentar p

heir t Pupils on free school meals (%) 8 9 16 16 23 18 18 17 8 7 17 17 Pupils on free school meals (%) 23 23 18 17 24 23 26 26 19 22 34 34

nd atched a

reas heir a t

y nd a tud

ase reas a c y y: y: West Midlands West North West East of England Midlands East Midlands East West South East of England West South East South EastSouth Yorkshire and the Humber North West Region East of England Midlands East North West North West Midlands West North West East South North West Yorkshire and the Humber North West Midlands West Midlands West Region tud s

ountr c ase

c : nd a

ities n c y y y

ig ow B T

A A nstituenc nstituenc Bromsgrove SouthWarrington Harlow Loughborough Northampton North Gloucester Waveney Weston-Super-Mare Winchester Surrey Heath Central York Warrington North Parliamentary constituency Rochford andRochford Southend East Nottingham South Reddish and Denton Leigh Dudley North Oldham East and Saddleworth Portsmouth South Salford and Eccles Sheffield East South WithingtonManchester, South East Wolverhampton Birmingham, Edgbaston Parliamentary constituency igure igure co Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. coalition F3 Source: Analysis of the National Pupil Database for Read On. Get On. coalition F2 co Appendix 3: List of parliamentary constituencies fo r low-income children reading at 11

This list is based on data that shows the percentage of free school meal pupils reaching the expected level (Level 4) in reading at age 11 (Key Stage 2). This data is from the National Pupil Database and is based on the average over three years (2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 data). Constituencies are not ranked in order. In each category, constituencies are ranked alphabetically.

1. Bottom quartile of parliamentary constituencies

There are 134 parliamentary constituencies (out of a total of 533 parliamentary constituencies) in the bottom quartile for low-income children reading well at age 11, based on data over the past three years. The list is divided into sub-categories: a) the bottom 25; b) the bottom 25–50; c) the bottom 50–100.

The bottom 25 parliamentary constituencies Ashford Maidstone and The Weald Rotherham Basildon and Billericay Mid Worcestershire Scarborough and Whitby Berwick-upon-Tweed Mole Valley Sheffield, Brightside and Clacton Normanton, Pontefract and Hillsborough Daventry Castleford South East Cambridgeshire Derby South North West Leicestershire South Thanet Faversham and Mid Kent Northampton North South West Bedfordshire Great Yarmouth Northampton South Waveney Ipswich Norwich South Wokingham

The bottom 25–50 constituencies Barnsley East Crawley Peterborough Batley and Spen Dudley South Salisbury Bognor Regis and Littlehampton Elmet and Rothwell Scunthorpe Bournemouth West Gravesham Sittingbourne and Sheppey Brigg and Goole Great Grimsby South West Norfolk Burton Hemsworth South West Wiltshire Bury St Edmunds Leeds East York Central Canterbury Leeds North East Chatham and Aylesford North East Cambridgeshire

24 Appendix 3: List of parliamentary constituencies for low-income children reading at 11 25 k Outer k or Y Albans St Staffordshire Moorlands Stevenage Stockton North Malling and Tonbridge Devon and West Torridge and Falmouth Truro Wakefield West South Wolverhampton Wycombe South Norfolk South Staffordshire South Suffolk South Surrey West Spelthorne Coastal Suffolk Tamworth Malton and Thirsk Wantage Wealden Wellingborough Wentworth and Dearne Winchester Witney Wyre Forest 00–134 1 etween b ey

all V anked r Rugby South Basildon and East Thurrock South Holland and The Deepings Test Southampton Leeds North West Middlesbrough Newark North Herefordshire North Norfolk West East Reading Reading West Rother Lincoln Mansfield Mid Norfolk Newbury North East Hertfordshire North Swindon North Thanet North Cambridgeshire West Norwich North Nuneaton Portsmouth South Redditch Strood and Rochester and SouthendRochford East Sevenoaks Sheffield South East Sheffield, Heeley : rtile ua onstituencies q c 0–100 ottom 5 b

he t

n i

o esbury ls he A Bedford Boston Skegness and Bournemouth East Bradford West Bromsgrove Cannock Chase Corby South Coventry Fareham Havant Isle of Wight Kingston upon Hull East Bracknell East Bristol West Bristol Denton Reddish and NorthDudley East Worthing and Shoreham Eddisbury Folkestone and Hythe Gillingham and Rainham Gosport Grantham Stamford and Harlow Hastings and Rye Herefordshire South and Hereford Horsham Kettering T Ayl OTTOM 26 Reading england’s future ( Easington Dover Doncaster Central Don Derbyshire Dales Derby North Dartford Darlington Coventry West North Coventry East North Congleton Colne Colchester Cleethorpes Christchurch Chippenham Chichester Cheltenham Chelmsford Ipswich North and Suffolk Central DevonCentral Carlisle Cambridge South Bury Burnley Broadland South Bristol WestBristol North Brighton, Kemptown and WestBridgwater Somerset South Bradford East Bradford Bosworth East North Bolton Blackburn Auckland Bishop Birmingham, Northfield Ladywood Birmingham, Crayford and Bexleyheath Beverley and Holderness Beaconsfield Central Barnsley Banbury Ashfield Amber well at11, age reading for 2010–13: data on based children for low-income quartile third the in are all constituencies parliamentary following The T 2. be low hird V all V V all ey al ey ley

q a v ua er age rtile )

o f

p arliamentar Meon Meon Maldon Maidenhead Ludlow Horncastle and Louth Loughborough Lewes Leicester West Leicester East Leeds West Central Leeds Fleetwood and Lancaster Hyndburn Huntingdon Huddersfield Hove Hitchin and Harpenden Hexham Stortford and Hertford Henley Knaresborough and Harrogate Harborough Guildford Fylde Dean of Forest Stoke Bradley and Filton andEsher Walton Erewash Ewell and Epsom Eastleigh Eastbourne East Surrey East Pendle East Oxford Warwickshire North Shropshire North Norfolk North Bedfordshire East North Durham North Dorset North Tyne upon Newcastle Central New Forest East Lunesdale and Morecambe Bedfordshire Mid Y ork V all shire ey y c onstituencies Richmond ( Richmond Reigate Redcar North Portsmouth Plymouth, Moor Moor Plymouth, Border The and Penrith Penistone and Stocksbridge Wolverhampton South East South Wirral West Worcestershire Suffolk West West Dorset Watford andWarwick Leamington Warley Wansbeck Tunbridge Wells Totnes Torbay and Honiton Tiverton Thurrock The Wrekin Stoke-on-Trent North Stockport Stafford West Devon South South Swindon Northamptonshire South Leicestershire South Cornwall East South Dorset South DerbyshireSouth Cambridgeshire South and Frome Somerton Shipley Sherwood Central Sheffield Sedgefield Rutland and Melton Rossendale and Darwen North Romsey Southampton and Rochdale Y e ovil

Y or ks) V ie w Appendix 3: List of parliamentary constituencies for low-income children reading at 11 27 e at Y

ey all V Tottenham Wallasey Walsall North Walsall South Walthamstow Warrington North Sunderland West and Washington Wells Hatfield Welwyn Weston-Super-Mare Wigan Windsor Witham Woking Worcester Romford Weybridge and Runnymede Salford and Eccles Selby and Ainsty Shrewsbury and Atcham Sleaford and North Hykeham Slough South Hertfordshire West Itchen Southampton, West Southend Southport St Austell and Newquay St Ives Central Stoke-on-Trent Stone Urmston and Stretford Stroud Sunderland Central Surrey Heath Tatton Deane Taunton Telford Tewkesbury Thornbury and Orpington Oxford and Abingdon West Plymouth, Sutton Devonport and Preston Rayleigh and Wickford Ribble onstituencies c y Hessle Cleveland arliamentar Halesowen and Rowley Regis Halifax East Harrow Harrow West Harwich and North Essex andHayes Harlington Hempstead Hemel Hertsmere Heywood Middleton and High Peak GreenHornsey and Wood Houghton Sunderland and South Ilford South Keighley Kenilworth and Southam Kingston Surbiton and Kingston upon Hull North Kingston upon and Hull West Kingswood South Leicester Wanstead Leyton and Lichfield Wavertree Liverpool, Luton North Luton South GortonManchester, Derbyshire Mid Sussex Mid SouthMiddlesbrough East and Milton North Keynes Milton South Keynes West Forest New East Tyne upon Newcastle Newcastle-under-Lyme North Cornwall North East Derbyshire North East Hampshire North East Somerset Somerset North North Durham West North Wiltshire Nottingham North Nottingham South p

f o

) ) rtile ua rage dley q e ar v Y a ey

e all V v econd abo Camborne and Redruth Chesham Amersham and Chorley City of Chester City of Durham Copeland CentralCroydon SouthCroydon Devizes Dewsbury NorthDoncaster East Devon East Hampshire Edmonton Ellesmere Port and Neston Epping Forest Exeter Feltham Heston and Finchley and Golders Green Garston Halewood and Gloucester Blackley and Broughton Blackpool North and Cleveleys Blackpool South Bolton South East West Bolton Bootle Braintree Central Brent Brentwood and Ongar Brighton, Pavilion Broxtowe Buckingham Bury North Calder Aldershot Downs South and Arundel Ashton-under-Lyne Barking Barrow and Furness Bassetlaw Bath Bexhill and Battle Birmingham, Erdington Birmingham, The following parliamentary constituencies all are in the bottom quartile low-income for children based on data 2010–13: for reading age at 11, well 3. S 3. ( 28 Reading england’s future East Ham andDagenham Rainham Woodford and Green Chingford Cheadle and WallingtonCarshalton Peckham and Camberwell Isleworth and Brentford North Brent Bolsover Blaydon Oak Selly Birmingham, Barr Perry Birmingham, Hill Hodge Birmingham, Green Hall Birmingham, Birkenhead Basingstoke Aldridge-Brownhills T Jarrow North Islington Shoreditch and South Hackney Southall Ealing, Westminster and London of Cities Fulham and Chelsea Charnwood Point Castle Chislehurst and Bromley T Hackney North and Stoke Stoke and North Hackney Greenwich and Woolwich Eltham West and Norwood Dulwich Barnet Chipping Bow and Green Bethnal Southwark Old and Bermondsey Battersea A T 50–100. top the c) 25–50; top the b) 25; top the a) well at11, age reading for 2010–13. sub-categories: into data on divided is list based This children for low-income quartile top the in are all constituencies parliamentary following The T 4. op o o ltrincham and Sale West Sale and ltrincham Newington p p 50 25 25 op –50 –100 q uartile : p arliamentar Manchester, Withington Central Manchester Liverpool, West Derby Liverpool, Walton Liverpool, Riverside Leigh Knowsley Finsbury and South Islington Hornchurch and Upminster Hendon Grove Hazel Halton andHaltemprice Howden Gedling Gateshead and Thamesmead Erith Southgate Enfield, Twickenham Whiston and South Helens St Solihull Central Sefton Rushcliffe Tyne upon Newcastle North Meriden West Penge and Lewisham Lewisham East Ruislip, and Pinner Northwood Park Richmond Putney Poplar and Limehouse Sidcup and Bexley Old Deptford Lewisham, Kensington Pancras St and Holborn Kilburn and Hampstead Hammersmith y c onstituencies Weaver Weaver Coldfield Sutton Streatham Stourbridge North Helens St Shields South Ribble South and Ripon Skipton West Hampshire North TynesideNorth Devon North Newton Abbot North Preston Wyre and WestWirral Wimbledon Westminster North West Lancashire Ruislip South and Uxbridge Tynemouth Ham West V Tooting Cheam and Sutton Hallam Sheffield, WaldenSaffron Wythenshawe and Sale East Sale and Wythenshawe Workington Westmorland and Lonsdale West Bromwich West au xhall V al e Appendix 3: List of parliamentary constituencies for low-income children reading at 11 29

Pudsey Hyde Stalybridge and Stockton South South Stoke-on-Trent Stratford-on-Avon The Cotswolds SouthWarrington Bromwich EastWest North East Wolverhampton and Eccles SouthWorsley Worthing West onstituencies c y Hartlepool Ilford North Macclesfield Makerfield Mid Dorset and North Poole Morden and Mitcham Morley and Outwood Nottingham East Oldham East and Saddleworth Oldham and Royton West Poole arliamentar p

f o

rtile ua q op t

t ey

all i

V lso eckenham Anhe Birmingham, Edgbaston Blyth Broxbourne Chesterfield and NantwichCrewe NorthCroydon Ealing Central Acton and Ealing North Enfield North Gainsborough B Endnotes

1 Statistics from Department for Education, National Curriculum 10 E Greaves, L Macmillan and L Sibieta, Institute for Fiscal Studies and Assessments at Key Stage 2, 2012 to 2013, https://www.gov.uk/ Institute of Education, Lessons from London Schools for Attainment government/publications/national-curriculum-assessments-at-key-stage- Gaps and Social Mobility: Research report, Social Mobility and Child 2-2012-to-2013 Poverty Commission, 2014, http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/ docs/london_schools_june2014.pdf 2 Statistics from Department for Education, National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stage 2, 2012 to 2013, https://www.gov.uk/ 11 E Greaves et al – see note 10 government/publications/national-curriculum-assessments-at-key-stage- 12 For all the reading-at-11 results in this chapter we have used ‘three 2-2012-to-2013 year averages’ – for 2011, 2012 and 2013 – rather than rely on one year’s 3 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Skills for Life survey: results. The reason for this is that in some areas, particularly those with Appendix of tables, London: DfBIS, 2011 a smaller number of FSM pupils, there will be a natural variation from year to year. However, when looking at averages over three years we 4 Department for Education, Reforming assessment and accountability can be more confident that we are recording the real level of reading for primary schools: Government response to consultation on primary school among poor children in these areas. assessment and accountability, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297595/Primary_ 13 This is based on the national average over the three years 2011, Accountability_and_Assessment_Consultation_Response.pdf 2012 and 2013. The figures were 71%, 77% and 75%. These are the same years for which we are basing the three-year averages for each 5 Our common sense explanation of this level of reading, as set out constituency on. The exact figure is 74.3%. in Read On. Get On.: How reading can help children escape poverty is: “‘Reading well’ by the age of 11 means that children should not only be 14 This report uses children’s early language development, as measured able to read the words that are written down, but they should also have through the Early Years Foundation Profile (the EYFS). The measure a wider understanding of the meaning behind stories and information uses the ‘Communications, Language and Literacy’ element of the Early and be able to talk about them and comment on them. As well as being Years Foundation Stage Profile and includes a mix of skills, including able to read and understand books such as Treasure Island or a Harry early phonics – linking sounds and letters – some measures of reading, Potter book, they should also be able to read a range of different and writing. We have chosen this broader measure of communication materials, including magazines and newspapers, many websites, letters and literacy, rather than just reading, as this better reflects the language and dictionaries.” skills that are necessary at an early age and on which solid reading when older is then developed. 6 See Ofsted, Unseen Children: Access and achievement 20 years on, 2013, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/unseen-children-access-and- 15 J Gross, Two Years On: Final report of the Communication Champion for achievement-20-years children, Office of the Communication Champion, 2011 7 See Ofsted, Unseen Children: Access and achievement 20 years on, 2013, 16 Rural Evidence Research Centre, A Classification of Parliamentary page 24, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/unseen-children-access- Constituencies by Rural–Urban Type and an Analysis of General and-achievement-20-years Election Results 2001–2005, http://public.hildebrand.co.uk/rerc/ findings/documents_rural/RD7PCClassn_Guide.pdf 8 S Barrs et al, Lessons from London Schools: Investigating the success, page 9, Centre for London and CfBT Education Trust, 2014, http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2014/r- london-schools-2014.pdf 9 S Barrs et al, Lessons from London Schools: Investigating the success, chapter 5, from page 97, Centre for London and CfBT Education Trust, 2014, http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2014/r- london-schools-2014.pdf

30 COVER Ph COVER

Reading england’s ot o : g et t future y im ag e Mapping how well the poorest children read s

The Read On. Get On. campaign has brought together a wide range of organisations to take action towards a historic goal for the UK: all children should be reading well by the age of 11 by 2025. Reading England’s Future charts the geography of reading disadvantage in England, by comparing the reading ability of poor children across parliamentary constituencies. The research finds that every area in the country needs to make significant improvements; however, some have further to travel than others. This report provides new analysis on the types of areas that face the biggest challenges in getting all children reading well, and calls on local communities to join the campaign and to support and promote our goal.