Place-based disparities faced by stuck schools in England: a contextual understanding of low performance and the role of inspection outcomes

Figures & data

Table 1. Data sets used in our study.

Data set	Purpose
Ofsted management information 2005–2018	To define “stuck” status To determine where neighbouring schools are performing similarly, better, or worse, with implications for admissions applications of prospective pupils, and for teacher turnover
Get information about schools records	To identify school governance including trust and sponsor status and history To identify geographical location and area deprivation To identify school phases and types used to classify schools
School census pupil records	To identify demographic details and additional needs To identify changes in enrolment over time To identify the nearest schools to pupils’ home addresses to define which schools ‘compete’ for the same pupils. Grade differentials were computed between the school attended and local alternatives
School performance tables	To identify school accountability measures of attainment and value-added pupil progress at ages 11 (Key Stage 2) and 16 (Key Stage 4) used by Ofsted to inform inspections’ lines of inquiry
School workforce census records of teachers and leaders	To compute cumulative teacher turnover and binary indicators of head teacher change since 2010

Note: Ofsted = Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills.

Table 2. Summary of variables in our study.

Variable name	Variable definition	In PSM analysis	In Path analysis
Stuck school (outcome)	Three or more inspections in 2005 to 2018 of which none were judged “good” or “outstanding” (all were “satisfactory”, “requires improvement”, or “inadequate”)	Yes	Frequency < “good”
Ofsted grade differential	Number of Ofsted grades difference between the school and the average of its 10 nearest neighbours	Yes	Yes
Population density	ONS urban/rural classification for the school	Yes	No
School size	Pupils enrolled	Yes	No
Deprivation	Percentage of school’s intake that were eligible for free school meals	Yes	Yes
	Median Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index score of residential neighbourhood for the pupil intake	Yes	No
Ethnicity and EAL	Percentage of the intake that belongs to a low-attaining ethnic group	Yes	No
	Percentage of the intake that speaks English as an additional language (EAL)	Yes	No
Special educational needs and disabilities	Percentage of the intake recorded with school support	Yes	No
	Percentage of the intake recorded with a statutory plan	Yes	No
Pupil mobility	Percentage of pupils who joined after the starting age	Yes	No
	Percentage of pupils who left before the leaving age	Yes	Yes
Pupil progress	Performance tables value-added Key Stages 2–4 (KS2–4) or Key Stages 1–2 (KS1–2)	Yes	Yes
School finance	Total annual income	Yes	No
Governance (categorical)	Joined a multi-academy trust, or federation	Yes	Yes
	Was a sponsored academy; or converter	Yes	No
Teacher turnover	Percentage of teachers that left in the last year	Yes	No
	Percentage of teachers that left in the last 3 years	Yes	Yes
	Head teacher change in the last year	Yes	Yes

Note: Ofsted = Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills; ONS = Office for National Statistics; PSM = propensity score matching.

Figure 1. Path analysis secondary school population model.

Figure 2. Path analysis secondary school intervention model.