0 items
(Close Menu)

Tag: Underachievement

Education Workshop goes ‘Beyond the Stereotype’

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

A lively discussion involving around 50 representatives from churches, schools and a range of other key organisations with a role in education took place in Portadown, on Friday (25th March) with a view to helping our children and young people to reach their full potential.

The workshop at Seagoe Parish Centre was hosted by the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC) – representing the Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church and Methodist Church in relation to education in Northern Ireland – and focused on a new research report from Stranmillis University College, Beyond the Stereotype: Approaches to Educational Under(Achievement) in the Controlled Sector in Northern Ireland.

The study, which was commissioned and funded by the TRC, aims to go ‘beyond the stereotype’ of the well-documented challenge of underachievement among Protestant working-class boys from disadvantaged inner-city communities, and to ‘cast the net wider’ to provide a broader and more representative picture.  Particular challenges in rural communities, which have not been reported extensively to date in previous studies, are identified with some school leaders speaking of the difficulty in motivating boys to work hard towards GCSEs.

Significantly, Beyond the Stereotype also finds that while pupils view educational achievement as largely related to success in external exams (such as GCSEs and A-levels), many school and community leaders (including employers) place greater value on a wider range of skills and abilities, and pupils’ mental and physical health, self-confidence, happiness and willingness to learn.

Dr Noel Purdy, who led the research through Stranmillis’ Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement, said: “We’ve certainly identified lots of challenges – there are big challenges facing controlled schools and indeed every school in Northern Ireland – but what we did see was a diverse, committed, community-orientated and innovative sector which is committed to maximising achievement for all children.  In other words, allowing all the children in schools to stand tall and achieve to their full potential.”

The TRC represents its member churches in all matters of education in the region, and oversees the appointment of over 1,500 governors to controlled schools.  The three churches transferred (hence the origin of transferors) their school buildings, pupils and staff into state control on the understanding that the Christian ethos of these schools would be maintained.

You can find out more about the TRC through its website at www.trc-churcheducation.org.  More information on the work of the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement (CREU) can be found at www.stran.ac.uk/research/creu

 

What has happened to the attainment gap during the pandemic?

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

Last week, pupils across Northern Ireland received their GCSE and A-level grades – the culmination of two years of work and learning that have been significantly disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Headlines focused on the rise in top grades awarded and the use of teacher-assessed grades, however we at the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement are keen to understand what the available data can tell us about how the GCSE and A-level attainment gap has been affected by the pandemic.

In a September 2020 blogpost I predicted that “if we were to consider final grades alone, 2020 will superficially appear as a highly successful year in the Northern Ireland Executive’s long-standing commitment to tackling Educational Underachievement”. In May, the release of the latest edition of “Qualifications and Destinations of Northern Ireland School Leavers 2019/20” by the Department of Education (DE), appeared to indicate that this indeed was the case. These data have been used for several years, according to the release, to “inform a wide range of policy areas aimed at raising standards and tackling educational underachievement”. They are used by “policy teams … across the education service”, “are used to respond to Assembly questions”, and “are included in the Department’s accountability and performance management process”. As such, these data represent the best available information for research and policy relating to educational underachievement in Northern Ireland. They feed into the highest levels of policy accountability through the Executive’s Outcomes Delivery Plan and particularly its Indicator 12: the gap between the percentage of non-FSME school leavers and the percentage of FSME school leavers achieving at Level 2 (GCSE) or above including English and Maths. In this blog, we argue that this data release can only provide misleading, half-answers to our question: “did the attainment gap narrow in 2020?”, and should be improved in order to better serve education policy in Northern Ireland.

A disclaimer was added to this year’s release, acknowledging that the way that GCSE and A-level grades were awarded in 2020 was very different to normal years, as well as many other qualifications:

“given the new method of awarding grades in 2019/20, caution should be taken when drawing any conclusions relating to changes in student performance. Year-on-year changes might have been impacted by the different process for awarding qualifications in 2019/20 rather than reflecting a change in underlying performance”.

Whilst this disclaimer confines itself to the technical detail of the awarding of qualifications, it also serves as a reminder of the wider impacts of the pandemic on education, which were unequally felt across the population. Whilst consistent attainment data prior to GCSE is not currently available for Northern Ireland, systematic studies in England identified a loss of learning across age groups and across the curriculum, which was roughly tripled for children eligible for Free School Meals (FSME). Our own research with parents and carers across Northern Ireland in both 2020 and 2021 found that children in disadvantaged households were spending less time learning, and that their parents were less confident teaching them. However – positive steps were also taken during this time, with the release of extra funding to supply low-income families with digital devices for learning and for catch-up programmes, and many inspirational examples of teacher networking, mutual support and upskilling in the use of blended learning. Having some idea of the effects of these unprecedented challenges and remedial interventions on the socio-economic attainment gap is vital as the education system continues to adapt and recover from the pandemic, to avoid further widening of educational inequalities.

What the data says about the GCSE attainment gap

So, did the attainment gap narrow in 2020? The graph below plots GCSE or equivalent (Level 2) attainment amongst FSME and non-FSME school leavers (Indicator 12), as reported in the school leavers survey data release over the past ten years. The increase in average grades appears to have benefitted FSME pupils slightly more than non-FSME pupils in this metric, closing the gap between them from 29 percentage points in 2018/19 to 27.7 percentage points in 2019/20.

% non-FSME school leavers and % FSME school leavers achieving at Level 2 or above including English and maths, School Leavers’ Survey 2019/2020

Taken at face-value, these data would indicate that the attainment gap did narrow in 2020, and therefore that rates of educational underachievement improved. It is clear that average grades increased significantly as a result of the use of centre-assessed grades, and it appears that FSME pupils benefitted slightly more than non-FSME pupils. Provisional GCSE statistics for 2020 released by CCEA suggest that the percentage of GCSEs awarded C or above increased by 7.5 percentage points in 2020, having remained roughly stable since 2016.

Upon closer examination, however, we see that the data underpinning this picture are misleading. The extent to which the attainment gap was narrowed by the new method of awarding grades is obscured by the fact that each year school leaver survey data includes a large number of pupils who left school in 2020 at the end of Year 13 or 14 and therefore sat their level 2 exams one or two years prior. A rough estimate based on numbers of school leavers with A-levels as opposed to GCSEs as their highest qualifications reported in the release, suggests that two-thirds of school leavers fall into this category. For 2019/20, this means that most school leavers sat their exams in ‘normal’ pre-covid circumstances. These pupils, who according to the same data are more likely to be non-FSME, won’t have benefitted from the 2020 uplift. As such, it may be that much of the closing gap observed in the graph above is due to this discrepancy. This effect will be present in this data for at least the next three years, but it is difficult to know its magnitude as the release gives only a proxy indication of the numbers leaving school at the end of year 12, 13 and 14. Furthermore, as DE has suspended the annual Summary of Annual Examination Results (SAER) for 2019/20 and 2020/21, no other administrative data will be available on Key Stage 4 achievement for corroboration during this period.

What about A-level grades?

The point can be further supported by turning our focus to A-level grades as reported in the 2019/20 school leavers’ data, almost all of which will have been awarded in 2020. Here the increase in the percentage of students achieving the benchmark of 3 or more A-levels A*-C is significantly greater than with the Level 2 benchmark. However, we now see that the increase for non-FSME pupils exceeded the increase for FSME pupils by two percentage points, widening the attainment gap by as much.

% non-FSME school leavers and % FSME school leavers achieving 3 or more A-levels A*-C

 

If the uplift in average A-level grades benefitted non-FSME pupils more than FSME pupils, it is unlikely that the opposite is true at GCSE, despite the impression we might get from the first graph (indicator 12). The closing of the attainment gap only appears evident in the 2020 data because proportionally more FSME pupils leave education at 16 and received their grade in 2020.

How could the available data be improved?

In sum, this data release can only provide unclear, incomplete and inaccurate answers to the question “did the attainment gap narrow” in any given year. This crucial question lies at the heart of the Outcomes Delivery Plan’s indicator 12, and so we would contend that, given the uncertainties highlighted above, this data release does not serve its purpose to “inform a wide range of policy areas aimed at raising standards and tackling educational underachievement” and this is particularly the case in relation to the Level 2 (GCSE or equivalent) results which are most often cited as the key measure of educational achievement in Northern Ireland. The release would be greatly improved if it were to provide an accurate breakdown of the number/percentage of pupils represented within each year group, and this breakdown should be reflected in Indicator 12 statistics.

Of course, there may be several other policy areas and indicators that we have not considered here that are equally ill-served by this data. A clear implication of this conclusion is that a more comprehensive range of measures and available data are needed for effective policymaking and accountability. England’s National Pupil Database, which since 1996 has provided detailed, individual pupil data for research and policymaking, should serve as an example. Such data not only allows for accurate, disaggregated analysis of the impacts of policies and interventions, it also avoids duplication of data collection efforts by researchers and government departments. It can also be powerfully linked to other administrative data such as census, health, and employment data – something that has been explored recently in Northern Ireland to explore patterns of GCSE attainment.  The recent Action Plan of the expert panel on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland (A Fair Start) indicated that a forthcoming System Evaluation Framework in preparation at DE will make progress in this area, and argued that it must include the standardised collection of Key Stage 1-3 cohort data as well as more accurate measures of attainment at GCSE and A-level (or equivalent). Past failure to achieve consensus with teaching unions and schools should not stand in the way of progress in this area, which is it vital to understanding the true nature and extent of educational underachievement (especially post-covid) and to tackling it effectively.

The ongoing challenge for government, and for schools, is not only to keep on closing the attainment gap, but to do so in a way that is meaningful in terms of ensuring quality educational opportunities for all to create a more equal society. To do this, we will need better data, which will necessitate the allocation of adequate resources and require schools, teaching unions and government to reach a consensus.

Dr Jonathan Harris is the Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement

Report: Loyalist and Republican Perspectives on Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

This small-scale pilot project, conducted in collaboration with St. Mary’s University College, owes its origins to an informal conversation held between its Principal Investigator and the facilitator of a group of loyalist community activists including former prisoners. During the discussion, the facilitator made it clear that the members of his group felt strongly about issues of educational underachievement and would welcome a conversation about the challenges faced by the loyalist community and how those difficulties might best be addressed. An invitation was issued to come and meet the members of the group. During the ensuing meeting, it soon became clear that this group felt strongly that theirs was a story that needed to be told and that this was one of educational disadvantage which, they felt, was not being heard or listened to by government. Consequently, they believed, the educational achievement gap, which they fully acknowledged, between the working-class Protestant community and the respective working-class Catholic community was destined to continue and to widen still further.

Struck by the eagerness of the members of this loyalist group to talk and to seek to redress the imbalance of their community’s educational outcomes, a project design was drawn up to explore individuals’ educational journeys, and to consider how they felt educational underachievement could best be addressed. Increasingly, however, it became clear that there was a need to include the “other” story too, the story of working-class republicans, including former republican political prisoners, to provide perspective on the loyalist concerns, but also as a story of immense interest in its own right.

Over twenty years since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, the Troubles continue to cast a shadow over communities in many different respects. Cycles of disadvantage and poverty within the communities most affected by the conflict are reflected in low levels of educational achievement, high unemployment, entrenched criminality and continued paramilitary activity. This small-scale pilot study, conducted in autumn 2020, examines the links between educational underachievement and social disadvantage in the context of Northern Ireland’s loyalist and republican communities. It draws on focus groups involving loyalist community activists (including former prisoners) and members of Coiste Na nlarchimí, a coordinating body for groups and projects providing services to republican ex-prisoners and their families.

Using a Bourdieusian theoretical framework, the report unpacks the salient points of similarity and difference in the reported educational experiences of loyalist and republican interviewees, and in their perspectives on how best to address educational underachievement within their communities. In doing so, it provides a basis for further work to understand the educational experiences and perspectives of loyalist and republican activists, as well as young people most at risk of involvement in paramilitarism. Such work is vital if our society is to unleash the transformative ‘liberating force of education’ to create a truly equitable education system to benefit all our children and young people within a more peaceful and prosperous society.

Loyalist and Republican Similarities and Differences

Despite obvious differences of political allegiance between the loyalist and republican focus group participants, there emerged some striking convergences of childhood educational experience within the respective working-class communities. There was a strong sense in which, as children, their opportunities were severely limited. Most grew up in families where education was valued, and there were several examples recounted of inspirational parents whose lack of formal educational qualifications did not limit their practical intelligence or readiness to engage in often political discussion and debate. Participants recognised that access to grammar schools was a pathway to academic success leading to enhanced job prospects, but most never contemplated such an educational pathway and knew few if any other children from their communities who had passed the 11+.

Nonetheless, significant differences began to emerge when discussion turned to the value and purpose of education at that time. Several of the loyalist participants spoke of how employment opportunities in Belfast’s heavy industry sector depended on family or community connections, rather than educational qualifications. The republican experience was markedly different, as forced displacement during the early years of the Troubles and greater involvement in street protests led to a much stronger identification with political struggle. A further significant distinction emerged in how education was perceived in prison by the respective groups. While the loyalist former prisoners spoke of their realisation of the value of education and of their engagement with Open University courses (e.g. Maths), these were on an individual level, and were unrelated to the external circumstances of the Troubles. For the republican prisoners, by contrast, education played a key role in developing greater cultural awareness and identity, but also provided an opportunity to instil political principles (including radical socialism) and to prepare for a longer republican political struggle following release from prison.

Addressing current challenges

Discussions around the current challenges of addressing educational underachievement again raised many similarities of perspective, with both groups speaking of the importance of a relevant, engaging curriculum which aimed to prepare children and young people for employment but also to develop a broader set of skills for life within broader society. Both groups agreed the need to abolish academic selection and transfer tests, which were universally seen to favour middle-class children and discriminate against children from their working-class loyalist and republican communities. Both groups were also clear that the problem of educational underachievement in their communities was complex and would require a range of solutions at different levels, including tackling poverty, housing and hunger, the problem of drugs (mentioned solely by loyalists), investing in early years provision in their communities and developing more extensive opportunities for community education and life-long learning. Both groups felt that there was a need for stronger links between schools and families/communities, but this seemed to be most acute among the loyalist participants, who spoke of a general disconnect between schools in their areas and the surrounding community.

This feeling of disconnection fed into an overriding impression from the loyalist participants of marginalisation, disenfranchisement and abandonment by the education system, the churches and mainstream Unionist political leaders. Participants spoke repeatedly of “closed shops”, “closed doors” and a lack of opportunity to exert a positive influence on children and young people’s educational futures, despite their best efforts. In contrast, the former republican prisoners enjoyed greater levels of acceptability within their own communities, easier access to schools, and a clear line of communication to political leaders, many of whom had similar life experiences to themselves as former prisoners or relatives of former prisoners.

The report ends by asking the following questions:

  • How do we, as a society, address effectively the underlying causes of educational underachievement (e.g. income poverty, unemployment, poor housing, hunger), exacerbated by the current pandemic and within a resulting context of financial constraints?
  • How do we create a more equitable education system in which no child is disadvantaged as a result of their social background?
  • How do we address the increasing political, social and educational marginalisation of the loyalist working-class community?

Link to the full report

Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland: Review of Research 2021

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

This updated review seeks to build on the Evidence Summary published by CREU in January 2020. In the year since then, the significant and complex challenge of educational underachievement has been thrown into fresh relief by the coronavirus pandemic. This updated review adds more recently published research in the field of Educational Underachievement in Northern Ireland, to provide an up-to-date account of the research literature. It also considers this evidence in the light of the upheaval caused by the pandemic in our education system through school closures, home learning, and exam cancellations.

The review includes 62 original research articles and reports in its qualitative synthesis, highlights core themes and gaps in the existing research evidence, and recommends several priorities for future research and policy in this area:

1.

The overall assessment that in Northern Ireland, socio-economic inequalities in education lead to wider disparities in educational achievement based on wealth and class remains unchanged since Gallagher and Smith’s report in 2000. Since then, and despite policymakers’ repeated calls for progress in this area, only one substantial academic research project (Leitch et al., 2017) has fully focused on educational underachievement.

2.

It appears to be widely accepted that boys underachieve in relation to girls, but little research has attempted to explain why this might be the case in Northern Ireland. More research in this area is needed to identify ways in which boys can be more equally served by the curriculum in place here.

3.

Several statistical analyses point to inequalities between and within religiously defined groups in Northern Ireland. However, no recent research has evaluated the impacts of faith-based education on educational attainment and inequality or the role of the churches in addressing educational underachievement.

4.

Further research on the fairness of assessments, whether related to academic selection or public examinations, must be prioritised post-pandemic. Two key foci should be a) how curricular choices can be widened and access/inclusion improved through the use of educational technologies, and b) what adaptations are needed following a year with no transfer test, and what changes to the transfer process could enable greater social mobility.

5.

The impacts of Covid-19 have been wide-ranging and will continue to affect children and young people well into the future. Research is urgently required both to help understand the pandemic’s effects, and to rapidly identify and evaluate any new interventions introduced to mitigate these effects or to retain valuable elements of pandemic school practice, for instance around blended learning.

6.

Existing research and government monitoring of educational underachievement using GCSE and A-level attainment data skews our attention to post-primary education. However, there is a need for long-term evaluation of key policy interventions in Early Years introduced with the stated aim of raising attainment for disadvantaged children.

Click here to access the full report

On the 11th of May 2021 we held a webinar event to share the findings of the report and to stimulate discussion – you can catch up below:

Report: Second Northern Ireland Survey of Parents/Carers on Home-Schooling during the Covid-19 Crisis

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has once again forced the vast majority of parents/carers of school-aged children in Northern Ireland to engage in responsibility for ‘home-schooling’, with this second extended period of home learning extending from January to March/April 2021, with the exception of vulnerable children, the children of key workers and children attending special schools. In May 2020, the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement (CREU) at Stranmillis University College, Belfast, published its first report on Home-Schooling in Northern Ireland During the COVID-19 Crisis (Walsh et al., 2020) which highlighted the often very different experiences of children and young people during the first six weeks of the first lockdown. Our report highlighted how home-schooling exacerbated existing inequalities: for instance, we found that less well educated parents felt less confident in supporting their children’s learning; we heard of particular frustrations expressed by working parents, especially key workers; and we learnt that digital poverty was presenting a challenge to many families with limited access to devices, printers and broadband. In the 2020 survey 31% of parents felt that their child(ren)’s emotional wellbeing had become ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’, 49% felt that it had stayed the same, and 20% felt that it had got ‘better’ or ‘much better’.

As we entered the second period of extended home-schooling, CREU launched its follow-up online survey which remained open from 9th-22nd February 2021. The survey had 2002 usable responses, which included data for a total of 3668 individual children, from every part of Northern Ireland. Our comprehensive report shares preliminary findings in order to inform policy and practice in the short- to medium-term as government, schools and society continue to confront the challenges of Covid-19.

Summary of Key Findings:

Home-schooling favours children with better-educated parents

As in 2020, parents with higher levels of education felt more confident in their home-schooling role, and were more likely to play an active role in supporting their child’s learning.

Digital accessibility at home is strongly related to household income

Although there was a slight increase from 2020 in the number of digital devices available to children, and a reduction in the percentage of parents reporting that they had no printer (18% in 2021, compared to 23% in 2020), children from households in the lowest income band were three times more likely to have no printer than children from households in the highest income band (30% vs 11%) and their parents/carers were considerably more likely to feel that the costs of printing (in terms of paper and ink) prevented them from using their printer (25% vs 3%). Children from low-income homes were also more likely to have to share a digital device and/or wait to be able to go online, and were less likely to report fast internet speeds. The geographical analysis also revealed that internet connectivity was worst in rural areas.

Parental experiences varied considerably by gender and employment

Once again the vast majority (96%) of respondents were female and there is a strongly gendered division of labour within most households in the sample, with women much more likely to be in the home, whether working or not, and responsible for child-care and home-schooling to a much greater degree than their male partners. Overall findings suggest that children spent longer on home-schooling activities in 2021 than in 2020, while those parents who reported finding time for home-schooling a challenge were most likely to be juggling work and home-schooling commitments, working either outside or inside the home. Additional questions explored the impact of home-schooling on parental mental health and highlighted that overall almost 80% of parents reported a negative impact on their own mental health and wellbeing, with the most acute impact felt by parents who were working from home.

The impact on children’s mental health and wellbeing, social skills, and behaviour was much more negative in 2021 than during the first lockdown of 2020

The majority of parents/carers felt that the current lockdown/school closures had resulted in their child/ren’s mental health and wellbeing becoming ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ (51% in 2021 vs 31% in 2020). While 20% of parents in 2020 felt that their child’s mental health had become ‘better’ or ‘much better’, by 2021 this figure had fallen to just 7%. The more negative experiences in 2021 can also be seen in relation to parent/carers’ estimation of the impact of lockdown on their child’s social skills (49% ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ in 2021 vs 29% in 2020), and level of behaviour (35% ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ in 2021 vs 29% in 2020). In the current survey we also asked parents/carers about the impact on their child’s physical health and wellbeing and found that 47% felt that this was now ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ than pre-lockdown with only 8% believing that it was ‘better’ or ‘much better’.   The survey did reveal, encouragingly, that where schools placed importance or high importance on nurture, safety and well-being (according to parents/carers) this had a highly significant, positive, impact on reported levels of motivation, mental health and wellbeing, social skills, and physical health and wellbeing, compared to those schools who were not reported to value these approaches.  Only a third (33%) of parents indicated that they were in favour of their child repeating the 2020/21 year due to the impact of school closures, with 54% opposed to the idea and 13% unsure. Parents of primary aged children were on the whole more likely to be in favour of their child repeating the school year than post-primary aged children, with the exception of the parents of P7 children where less than a quarter (24%) were in favour of their child repeating the year.

Parents/carers are broadly happy with both the quality and the quantity of learning resources provided by their children’s schools

Almost two-thirds (65%) of parents felt that the quality of learning resources was better or much better than during the first lockdown, with only 6% claiming that the provision was worse. The same majority (65%) were happy with the quantity of resources, an increase of 3% since the 2020 survey.

The number of parents who report that their child’s school engages in some live online teaching has doubled since 2020

Reports live teaching increased from 24% to almost 50%, while the number of schools not engaging at all in live online teaching has fallen from 77% to just over 50%. This is a significant shift, and represents a positive response to the most common recommendation given by parents in the May 2020 survey and in this survey. Nonetheless, this study has shown that the provision of live online teaching is still not universal, and is significantly skewed towards older, post-primary pupils and especially those attending voluntary grammar schools and Irish medium schools.

There are widely divergent experiences depending on the age and year group of the children

There were particular issues to emerge in respect of our youngest children who spent least time engaged in formal home-schooling activities and least time being taught live online. Their parents often reported that their children were missing opportunities to play and to be outside, but there are indications from the data that opportunities during lockdown to engage in play and in outdoor learning were associated with higher levels of motivation, mental health and physical health and wellbeing.

There was a focus on disrupted assessment for many parents

For instance, for parents of pupils in years 6-8, there was a strong focus on the transfer tests, including fear and anxiety expressed by parents of the current P6 cohort faced with the uncertainty of what might happen next year; anger and frustration by parents of the current P7 cohort whose year had been dominated by the postponement and eventual cancellation of the transfer tests, with a feeling among a majority that contingency assessment methods ought to have been planned earlier; and among year 8 parents a belief that their children had missed out on the normal preparation for transition to post-primary schools and that some were not adjusting as well as might have been expected as a result. For many parents of pupils in years 12-14, there was again a sense of frustration that the revised methods of assessment could disadvantage their children’s future.

Read the full report here

 

CREU Podcast: Transfer Tests and Access to Grammar School Places

Posted on by Andrew McAteer

An issue dominating conversations about education in Northern Ireland over the past few months has been the transfer tests and access to grammar school places.

As the transfer tests were first postponed and then cancelled due to the pandemic, we have been left discussing the consequences are for social and educational inequality, as well as assessing the merits and pitfalls of contingencies and of the tests themselves. It has caused great controversy, partly because individual convictions about academic selection are deeply rooted, and partly because reliable data about the transfer process is so difficult to come by.

So what is the evidence?

For this episode, CREU director Dr Noel Purdy spoke to Dr Sam Sims from the Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities at the UCL Institute of Education in London, who published a research paper in 2019 entitled “Why do so few low and middle-income children attend a grammar school?”, to find out more.